CA-Sen: California Quake

[free my dawg]

Who would be the Republicans best candidate, in all of yours opinions? Not sure it matters in the long run, but I'd like to know y'alls thoughts.

For what? It's almost impossible for Republican to win California statewide position even in good Republican year now (absent deeply flawed Democratic candidate). The closest came Steve Cooley in 2010. Someone like him, but even in that case at least some "help" from Democrats is required... And if we talk about district contests - obviously it will depend on "which district" (there is still a sizeable minority of relatively Republican and conservative districts, republican problem is that they seldom come beyond them, so it will be interesting to see how people like Hadley and Baker will fare in 2016)

I'm just asking who would be the strongest, not who could win.

The most non-controversial one. Cooley will not run, probably, so - somebody like Peterson or Swearengin... Both got more or less respectable percentages this year

What about Faulconer?

[smoltchanov]

What about Faulconer?

Probably - even better (more socially moderate). But he was elected mayor only recently..

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Who would be the Republicans best candidate, in all of yours opinions? Not sure it matters in the long run, but I'd like to know y'alls thoughts.

For what? It's almost impossible for Republican to win California statewide position even in good Republican year now (absent deeply flawed Democratic candidate). The closest came Steve Cooley in 2010. Someone like him, but even in that case at least some "help" from Democrats is required... And if we talk about district contests - obviously it will depend on "which district" (there is still a sizeable minority of relatively Republican and conservative districts, republican problem is that they seldom come beyond them, so it will be interesting to see how people like Hadley and Baker will fare in 2016)

I'm just asking who would be the strongest, not who could win.

The most non-controversial one. Cooley will not run, probably, so - somebody like Peterson or Swearengin... Both got more or less respectable percentages this year

I could see them maybe running, but it's just so miserable to run as a Republican statewide in California. Zero party infrastructure, fragmented state party between moderate suburbanites and crazy rural whackjobs, little/no out of state support as situations are perceived as hopeless. It's just a nightmare scenario, especially since Whitman and Fiorina self-funded so intensely and still lost.

Only way I see a shot for a Republican at this point is for a Dem jungle primary major f**k up.

I could see a Republican becoming governor (or any statewide officer), but for federal statewide office it just seems like too big of a hurdle

[smoltchanov]

Who would be the Republicans best candidate, in all of yours opinions? Not sure it matters in the long run, but I'd like to know y'alls thoughts.

For what? It's almost impossible for Republican to win California statewide position even in good Republican year now (absent deeply flawed Democratic candidate). The closest came Steve Cooley in 2010. Someone like him, but even in that case at least some "help" from Democrats is required... And if we talk about district contests - obviously it will depend on "which district" (there is still a sizeable minority of relatively Republican and conservative districts, republican problem is that they seldom come beyond them, so it will be interesting to see how people like Hadley and Baker will fare in 2016)

I'm just asking who would be the strongest, not who could win.

The most non-controversial one. Cooley will not run, probably, so - somebody like Peterson or Swearengin... Both got more or less respectable percentages this year

I could see them maybe running, but it's just so miserable to run as a Republican statewide in California. Zero party infrastructure, fragmented state party between moderate suburbanites and crazy rural whackjobs, little/no out of state support as situations are perceived as hopeless. It's just a nightmare scenario, especially since Whitman and Fiorina self-funded so intensely and still lost.

Only way I see a shot for a Republican at this point is for a Dem jungle primary major f**k up.

I could see a Republican becoming governor (or any statewide officer), but for federal statewide office it just seems like too big of a hurdle

Absolutely agree. In fact - i mentioned at least some of these factors myself

[publicunofficial]

Rep. Loretta Sanchez is considering a run if and when Boxer retires

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Rep. Loretta Sanchez is considering a run if and when Boxer retires

Even though Sanchez is fairly liberal, California doesn't need a self described member of the Blue Dog coalition to become its next senator. Sorry Loretta.

[smoltchanov]

Rep. Loretta Sanchez is considering a run if and when Boxer retires

Even though Sanchez is fairly liberal, California doesn't need a self described member of the Blue Dog coalition to become its next senator. Sorry Loretta.

Loretta is "somewhat moderate", but she as approximately as Blue Dog, as i am Pope.... In fact - i see exactly one "real Blue Dog" in Democratic caucus now - Peterson. Even Cooper is "so-so" as one, he is, surely, not Bright or Minnick. Those were real Blue Dogs))))

[Vega]

Rep. Loretta Sanchez is considering a run if and when Boxer retires

Even though Sanchez is fairly liberal, California doesn't need a self described member of the Blue Dog coalition to become its next senator. Sorry Loretta.

She's only a Blue Dog because, from my understanding, her district used to be more conservative. I doubt she has any real tie to the faction.

[DrScholl]

Orange County Democrats lean more economically conservative, but not enough to be a Blue Dog in the sense of the ones from red states. Loretta Sanchez used to be a moderate Republican, but that was when she running for Anaheim Council twenty years ago.

[hopper]

Moderates have a party, it's called the "Democratic Party." Most independents are just teabagger Republicans who don't want to identify as such.

I am sort of a Rockefeller Republican and I could never be a Democrat. With that said I am not a registered Republican either. I just feel like the Democrats are too liberal or me and the Republicans are too Bible Belt/Deep South to identify with.

[hopper]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.

Sorry for typo (corrected), but on all other points i stick to my opinion. I gave enough examples where business Democrats and relatively moderate Republicans REALLY won.

Why should Republicans and Independents have any say in who Democrats nominate?  Why should Democrats and Independents have any say in who Republicans nominate?  What you're essentially arguing is that because you prefer "business Democrats" and Rockefeller Republicans, they should be forced upon districts where a more liberal or conservative candidate better represents the area's political views.  I realize you probably don't see it that way, but that is basically what you are supporting.  Actually, top-two is even worse because it can force same-party general elections which can deprive voters of a meaningful ideological choice.  I'd oppose it just as much were it implemented in a state where Democrats would benefited more from it than Republicans.  Top-two elections, changing the rules for how states allocate electoral votes, voter ID, the destruction of campaign finance reform laws, the dismantlement of the VRA, etc are all basically efforts to rig the electoral system for a particular party and/or ideology and it is pretty disgusting.   Trying to rig elections for economically conservative Democrats or socially moderate Republicans is just as bad as trying to rig them for a particular party!

Meaningful idealogical choice? That means more Ted Cruz's. No thank you. I realized he got elected in a top 2 tier primary but you catch my drift.

Lets go further into your post-

Changing Rules on EV's are allocated-No Republican State Led Government has done that yet. To quote a Walter Mondale ad "Where's The Beef?"

Voter ID-I agree you shouldn't make it hard to vote but you have to show ID even to buy a beer.

Dismantling of VRA-Why should a particular ethnic group get packed into Congressional District because of some law? Its kind of crazy. Besides most congressional districts are made to tailor for incumbent protection or to block one the two parties from gaining particular traction in a particular area. That's not any better than VRA.

[smoltchanov]

Moderates have a party, it's called the "Democratic Party." Most independents are just teabagger Republicans who don't want to identify as such.

I am sort of a Rockefeller Republican and I could never be a Democrat. With that said I am not a registered Republican either. I just feel like the Democrats are too liberal or me and the Republicans are too Bible Belt/Deep South to identify with.

I frequently mention that my "role model" in politics is former Republican Senator Charles Mathias. And that 30-35 years ago i would almost surely be "North-Eastern Republican", especially if i  lived in that region (BTW - my favorite region of US). That would be an ideal for my views. But Republicans usually doesn't give me such candidates NOW. Hence - i root for specific democratic candidates more frequently then not now, while being always open to alternatives (from Greens via Republicans and up to Libertarians). And strongly dislike BOTH big parties as they are in broad terms.. It happens...

[Maxwell]

Moderates have a party, it's called the "Democratic Party." Most independents are just teabagger Republicans who don't want to identify as such.

I am sort of a Rockefeller Republican and I could never be a Democrat. With that said I am not a registered Republican either. I just feel like the Democrats are too liberal or me and the Republicans are too Bible Belt/Deep South to identify with.

I frequently mention that my "role model" in politics is former Republican Senator Charles Mathias. And that 30-35 years ago i would almost surely be "North-Eastern Republican", especially if i  lived in that region (BTW - my favorite region of US). That would be an ideal for my views. But Republicans usually doesn't give me such candidates NOW. Hence - i root for specific democratic candidates more frequently then not now, while being always open to alternatives (from Greens via Republicans and up to Libertarians). And strongly dislike BOTH big parties as they are in broad terms.. It happens...

I never got this, but I'll go ahead and ask - what issues did Charles Mathias EVER vote with his party on? Do you like him just because he's a liberal in the Republican Party?

[smoltchanov]

Moderates have a party, it's called the "Democratic Party." Most independents are just teabagger Republicans who don't want to identify as such.

I am sort of a Rockefeller Republican and I could never be a Democrat. With that said I am not a registered Republican either. I just feel like the Democrats are too liberal or me and the Republicans are too Bible Belt/Deep South to identify with.

I frequently mention that my "role model" in politics is former Republican Senator Charles Mathias. And that 30-35 years ago i would almost surely be "North-Eastern Republican", especially if i  lived in that region (BTW - my favorite region of US). That would be an ideal for my views. But Republicans usually doesn't give me such candidates NOW. Hence - i root for specific democratic candidates more frequently then not now, while being always open to alternatives (from Greens via Republicans and up to Libertarians). And strongly dislike BOTH big parties as they are in broad terms.. It happens...

I never got this, but I'll go ahead and ask - what issues did Charles Mathias EVER vote with his party on? Do you like him just because he's a liberal in the Republican Party?

Of course. Look at my signature (about "mavericks" and "reliable foot soldiers")

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the guy that preceded Mikulski? Wow, that's going a ways back.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the guy that preceded Mikulski? Wow, that's going a ways back.

For me it's my school, university and postgraduate years))))

[RogueBeaver]

Boxer announces her retirement.

[Suburbia]

Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Devin Nunes, Tom McClintock, should run for the seat. Kamala Harris is probably going to be the Democratic Senate nominee.

[RogueBeaver]

Bay Staters: Harris, Newsom, Garcetti, Villaraigosa, somebody else?

[RogueBeaver]

Villaraigosa said recently he prefers being an executive, so he's likely out.

[RR1997]

What's the chance that Neel Kashkari runs ? It's just that we almost agree on everything, and I'd love it if he got another chance to hold an elected office.

I really haven't been paying attention this race until now.

[DrScholl]

No Republican is going to win this seat and there will not be an all Republican top two, as we saw with the Controller race last year, that didn't happen in the end.

[Vosem]

No Republican is going to win this seat and there will not be an all Republican top two, as we saw with the Controller race last year, that didn't happen in the end.

The Comptroller race was a case of one Republican being a well-known Mayor of a large city and another being a some dude. But the geography of the two was right, so it still nearly happened. If ther're 3+ Democratic candidates, and 2 Republicans, why can't it happen? Are you panicking this early, Dr. Scholl?

[smoltchanov]

No Republican is going to win this seat and there will not be an all Republican top two, as we saw with the Controller race last year, that didn't happen in the end.

IF Democrat will be in top 2 - no. But will it be?? If 4-5 serious Democrats run, and exatly 2 serious Republicans will do the same - then easily...

[Vosem]

No Republican is going to win this seat and there will not be an all Republican top two, as we saw with the Controller race last year, that didn't happen in the end.

The Comptroller race was a case of one Republican being a well-known Mayor of a large city and another being a some dude. But the geography of the two was right, so it still nearly happened. If ther're 3+ Democratic candidates, and 2 Republicans, why can't it happen? Are you panicking this early, Dr. Scholl?

You can't keep my name out of your posts, can you? it's so amusing. The only instances of two Republicans making the top two are at the congressional level and spin all you want, the controller race demonstrated that an all Republican top two is unlikely. I'm just advising you Republicans not expect a guaranteed Republican top two, more than two Republicans could run.

Alright, I'll bite. How did the controller race demonstrate that a top-two result is unlikely? The controller race was 0.70%, or 28,086 votes out of roughly 4 million cast, away from being a top-two result. In all the other statewide races since the new law has been enacted, there has either been a Democratic incumbent running, or in the 2014 SecState race one Democratic candidate had their campaign implode, so the other (Alex Padilla) became the sole frontrunner, chiefly through luck.

No one's "expecting a guaranteed top two", but the scenario right now, of significantly more credible Democrats seeming likelier to run than credible Republicans, seems to make it a plausible scenario.