CA-Sen: California Quake

[Vosem]

Even 2 pretty obscure Republicans, if they split the vote in the correct way, could become Senators; for this, there needs to be at least 3 reasonably prominent Democrats, though, and probably 4 (though "reasonably prominent" means over 5%), and Republicans need to hold the statewide vote to about 54-46 max margin for the Democrats, which is doable but not guaranteed; with that, we could get a split like 23R-23R-22D-22D-10D. It's doubtful but it definitely shouldn't be ruled out, and there's a lot of Democrats in California who've been waiting decades for a Senate opening. The more pertinent issue for Republicans, I think, is ensuring there're two -- but only two -- candidates.

[Vosem]

I doubt it will be 2016-SEN, but eventually top 2 will create an R vs. R statewide race.  And I think that will lead to its repeal shortly thereafter.

Didn't we almost get that with the Controller race this year?

Yes. Swearengin (R ) got 25%, Yee (D) received 22%, Perez (D) received 22%, and Evans (R ) received 21%. The key reason that this came so close to working was because there were no further Republicans and two minor left-wing candidates (a Green and a third Democrat) received 6% and 5%. It also shows the importance of the two candidates being close to evenly matched; Swearengin defeating Evans by 4 points was too much of a spread.

It'll take some luck, but within a decade or so it'll be bound to have happened.

[Vosem]

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.

[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?

[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.

[Vosem]

The DSCC will definitely get behind one candidate, as will the state party. I expect the field to be cleared for someone before it gets close to the primary.

Haha, that's a good one.

[Vosem]

If it really has to be a Democrat I guess I'm pulling for Steyer, since he's big on environmentalism and he'll probably want judiciary nominees who'll protect people's right to donate to campaigns regardless of how wealthy they are. Really, I'm pulling for Kashkari v. Swearengin or something.

[Vosem]

If Kashkari or Maldonado runs, this could actually be close.  But if a mainstream conservative like Carly Fiorina couldn't beat Boxer in a GOP year, and if the Republicans have totally collapsed at the state level, then it may not be possible for them to elect a Senator either. 

Kashkari literally lost by 20% statewide two months ago, and Maldonado is a loser. Neither of those (and no Republican, really) can make this race close.

If the Republican Party starts looking for a person who can win a D v. R race, they're thinking about this wrong. They need to look for two people, who together satisfy every wing of the California GOP while also breaking it as evenly as possible in half.

[Vosem]

Based on the DKE list, it seems there'll almost certainly be enough Democrats for R v. R to become a realistic possibility, but there may be too many Rs running as well for that to take place

[Vosem]

And the field is a little bit clearer.

Not really; Newsom and Harris were never going to run against each other in the first place. Villaraigosa and Steyer are still very likely to make the field murkier, and that's without mentioning lesser possibilities, like Sanchez, Tauscher, and Garamendi. And certainly some more people I haven't mentioned will run for this basically once-a-generation opportunity.

Regardless of what the DSCC decides (and they'll probably be more busy in competitive races than in a primary anyway, unless R v. R becomes the clearly likeliest result), if Steyer runs (and the signs he's sending out make it seem likely), he certainly becomes the best-funded candidate in the field.

[Vosem]

This isn't a "once in a generation opportunity". There will be two more spots opening up in 2018. (One for gov, one for Feinstein's seat).

Feinstein doesn't strike you as a lifer? And you don't think it might help a pol to raise their name recognition by running now, to help with possible later runs?

[Vosem]

A D v. D general election is absolutely possible if there are 3+ serious Republicans running. Especially at this early stage, it is not a possibility that should be discounted at all.

[Vosem]

Hmmm... Harris vs. Villaraigosa 1-on-1 with 1 major GOP candidate does probably lead to a Harris vs. GOP general.  Harris vs. Villaraigosa with 2 major GOP candidats is probably a Harris vs. Villaraigosa general.  If a 3rd Dem with strong credentials gets in, time to worry about an all GOP general.

I think he is betting on a 2 Dem general and higher Hispanic turnout in 2016 vs. 2018 is drawing him in now.

I don't think any other credible Dem is stupid enough to jump in against Harris and Villaraigosa. Otherwise they'll have to face John Burton's wrath.... LOL!

In the two open-seat statewide elections in 2014 (SecState and Comptroller), the Green candidate received 6% of the vote in both, leading me to suspect that this may occur in a Senate race as well. No Green candidate would fear John Burton's wrath.

To be honest, I kinda doubt either party will be able to keep the field limited to just 2 serious candidates -- especially the Republicans, where the possibilities are weaker and unlikelier to clear. But I don't think Harris and Villaraigosa will be able to keep all 38 Democratic Congressmen from California from running for US Senate, and that's without speaking of sundry state legislators, businessmen, mayors, and randos. It's a big state. There's a lot of ambition.

[Vosem]

That isn't to say that none of them will run and get a few percent here and there.

That few percent is exactly what is at stake; if a top-two Republicans to runoff scenario takes place, it will only be by a few percent.

[Vosem]

Republican chances here are very low, but the NRSC basically has two ways to attack this race. Way 1 is to find some very good, probably self-funding Republican candidate, clear the Republican field, and then hope they can beat Harris in the general election. This is very doubtful. Way 2 is to find two candidates, geographically disparate, one establishment and one TP, and then hope they split the vote evenly enough that they can keep Harris out. This is a long-shot, but I'm quite confident it's less of a longshot than trying to beat Harris head-on like an elephant is. If the NRSC is going with Way 1, a Tim Donnelly candidacy is a problem to be dealt with; if they're going with Way 2, he's just what the doctor ordered. A tiny bit less than half the GOP love him, and a tiny bit more than half hate him. He can split the vote with Swearengin, get both of them to November, and then send her to the Senate.

[Vosem]

I think Donnelly could do better if his establishment Republican opponent wasn't trying to attack him during the primary, but you do have a point that there are better candidates out there. Well, the CAGOP has to deal with the cards it's been dealt.

The big problem of the 2014 gubernatorial primary was the 6% that went to minor Republican candidates. That can't be allowed to be repeated. Open Campaigns is down right now, so I can't look up how it is geographically that Daniel Evans performed in the 2014 Comptroller open primary, which was less than a percentage point off from being perfect.

[Vosem]

I think Donnelly could do better if his establishment Republican opponent wasn't trying to attack him during the primary, but you do have a point that there are better candidates out there. Well, the CAGOP has to deal with the cards it's been dealt.

The big problem of the 2014 gubernatorial primary was the 6% that went to minor Republican candidates. That can't be allowed to be repeated. Open Campaigns is down right now, so I can't look up how it is geographically that Daniel Evans performed in the 2014 Comptroller open primary, which was less than a percentage point off from being perfect.

I found a site called "Our Campaigns," which had the results here: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=726292

Ashley Swearengin won with only 24.79% compared with Daniel Evans's 4th place finish with 21.05%. That race was a mess. It is possible that there could be a repeat, but I kind of doubt that there will be as many candidates by the time the filing date comes around. If more candidates stay in, the winner might not break 20%.

What needs to happen for Republicans is to run one Republican from the north/central valley and another from the south, all in a low turnout year (like CA 2014).

Theoretically, If Swearengin ran again without Evans, she should pick up the most support from the northeast corner, which Evans swept. Then run a Republican like Kevin Faulconer (RINO alert) who has the ability to win in usually Democratic San Diego, and would assumedly perform well in Orange County. Abysmal turnout in Los Angeles, throw in a Green Party/more random Democrats to siphon off Bay Area support, and bam, you've got yourself a R vs R election.

Faulconer won't run, since he'll be seeking reelection in 2016. Swearengin v. DeMaio (for example) would be absolutely fantastic, since we'd also get to take revenge on Scott Peters' horrible smear campaign last year. But I don't think any prominent San Diego or Orange County Republicans are running.

The question, to some extent, is whether Donnelly can repeat Evans' performance from 2014. In the gubernatorial race, due to the preponderance of minor candidates, Jerry Brown's popularity, and the fact that they were largely attacking each other, the two main Republican candidates combined for only 33% of the vote. That number will be much greater in 2016, since they will have an incentive to cooperate and no popular Democratic incumbent running; it should be 45-46% at the least, assuming minor candidates can be kept out. So Donnelly should be able to make it into the low 20s, which could be enough assuming the Democratic vote is split right.

[Vosem]

The question, to some extent, is whether Donnelly can repeat Evans' performance from 2014. In the gubernatorial race, due to the preponderance of minor candidates, Jerry Brown's popularity, and the fact that they were largely attacking each other, the two main Republican candidates combined for only 33% of the vote. That number will be much greater in 2016, since they will have an incentive to cooperate and no popular Democratic incumbent running; it should be 45-46% at the least, assuming minor candidates can be kept out. So Donnelly should be able to make it into the low 20s, which could be enough assuming the Democratic vote is split right.

I just chose Faulconer because he was the first high-profile San Diego Republican that came to mind when I was inventing a plausible R vs R scenario. Someone along those lines was the idea though.

Obviously, I'm on the other side about the DeMaio race, but his political career is (likely) over. The sexual harassment incidents/allegations aside, he had two pretty big high profile losses that'll take time to recover from. All his future opponents (including Republican primary candidates) just have to do this and he's done.

You're probably right about DeMaio's career being over, unfortunately, but one can always hope for a comeback, however slim the chance. Or at least for someone else to beat that bastard Scott Peters.

[Edit]: Can anyone find a county map for the 2014 Gubernatorial primary? Since the Secretary of State's site was updated, I can't find the maps.

There's one on Our Campaigns: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=701432

Brown won every county except Modoc and Lassen in the northeast, which were both won by Donnelly, even though he's actually from San Bernardino County; that's just an area that's very friendly to TP politicians. Many of Brown's victories were with as little as 32-33% of the vote. He was held to below 30% only in Modoc, where Donnelly beat him 40-28, Kashkari trailing with 13 and minor Republican candidates combining for 18%. That's unconscionable.

[Vosem]

Well, my initial predictions were wrong. Good job, Senator Harris.

Republicans are trying to draft David Dreier.

He'd be good, so there's a face at the top to encourage Republican turnout in swing districts.