Democrats worried about an expensive primary war for Dianne Feinstein's seat

[Shadows]

California Democratic stalwarts are growing increasingly worried about Kevin de León’s insurgent challenge of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. While de León is praised by allies and activists starved for a liberal firebrand, the Democrats are concerned about a nasty personal feud that exposes deepening rifts and saps resources from their efforts to win Senate and House races across the country. Several expressed that those fears would be further magnified if Tom Steyer, the liberal billionaire donor and environmental activist, enters the race. Not only would his candidacy set the stage for an expensive TV air war, but it could deprive the Democratic Party of tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions if Steyer determines he can’t be both a Senate candidate and his party’s leading donor.

Comments from Politician Consultants & Strategists  -

“Every diversion of even a penny away from that is a travesty,”
“So while they have every right to run, it’s quite a stretch for Democratic challengers to say that taking on a party stalwart like Sen. Feinstein – and likely having to run a nasty, negative campaign against her – will be ‘good for the party.’”

Rep. Ro Khanna, an early supporter of de León, bristled at the idea nobody should take on Feinstein as “the old way of thinking ... This is the 21st century and the era of party bosses is over,” he said. Khanna, D-Fremont, said he considered the pinnacle of Democratic voter engagement to be the presidential election more than eight years ago between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. “That competitive election led to the strongest the Democratic Party has ever been,” Khanna said. “The lesson we should have is when you have inspiring candidates run they bring in new people, they energize new supporters and they strengthen the party.”

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article179634421.html

[Shadows]

The Democrats’ Dianne Feinstein Problem

In 2006, anti-war progressive Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Lieberman promptly started a “Connecticut for Lieberman” party and ran as its nominee in the general election, creating a headache for Democrats: Should they support a colleague, or a challenger who best represents the political moment? Senators including Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer sided with Lieberman during the primary, then endorsed Lamont in the general election; others stuck with the third-party Lieberman throughout. After defeating Lamont by 114,000 votes and earning a post-election standing ovation from the Democratic caucus, Lieberman became a thorn in the side of liberals for the rest of his tenure. Ned Lamont, meet Kevin de León.

De León led the California Senate in a year when practically every political move in the deep-blue state was an act of resistance against Donald Trump. The legislature increased the gas tax to fund infrastructure improvements. They renewed the cap-and-trade system to fight climate change. They made California a sanctuary state, blocking state law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities on deportation. The Senate passed a single-payer health care bill, which the Assembly then shelved. De León isn’t exactly the Bernie Sanders of the West Coast. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, and his candidacy may stem as much from being termed out of the legislature and not having another seat to fill than any burning desire to oust Feinstein. However, de León has a compelling personal story—the child of a low-income, single, immigrant mother, he’s a former student and labor organizer, and would be the state’s first Latino senator in history.

Feinstein’s political instincts were apparent when she loudly supported the death penalty at the 1990 state party convention, drawing a chorus of boos—which she subsequently used in campaign ads to prove her distance from the liberal base. Perhaps no Democrat in the past two decades has been as committed to expanding the national security state than Feinstein (again, like Lieberman). On domestic policy, she supported the Bush tax cuts, permanent normal trade relations with China, and the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall’s financial reforms. While strong on gun safety, women’s rights and the environment, Feinstein has openly courted the center and rejected the left since coming to Washington. Just this year, she told the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that Donald Trump could mature into a “good president.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/145327/democrats-dianne-feinstein-problem

[Cactus Jack]

It would be to the benefit of everyone if they just convinced her to retire.

[AtorBoltox]

It would be to the benefit of everyone if they just convinced her to retire.

Seriously. She'll be 90 at the end of her term if re-elected.

[IceSpear]

When are Democrats ever not worried about something? Talk about overreaction. The Republican Party was subject to a hostile takeover last year and they constantly have competitive, divisive, expensive primaries (occasionally even in swing states and blue states!) Clearly that's really taking a toll on them politically.

[The Ex-Factor]

Well maybe Feinstein could do a better job of placating the Democratic primary base and keeping us happy. I'm very very far from those Bernie supporters hostile to the DNC and party establishment, but if people are unhappy with Feinstein they have the right to run against her.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a bunch of whiners. Anyways, top two is designed to protect incumbent right-wing Democrats like Feinstein.

[Canis]

What a bunch of whiners. Anyways, top two is designed to protect incumbent right-wing Democrats like Feinstein.

How so? Its made more incumbents lose before the top two system an incumbent almost never lost
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEu1RICoEc4

[Mr. Smith]

What a bunch of whiners. Anyways, top two is designed to protect incumbent right-wing Democrats like Feinstein.

I don't recall Mike Honda being more right-wing than Khanna.

Pretty sure [though I know you don't believe it] Loretta Sanchez was to the right of Kamala Harris too.

[Oryxslayer]

What a bunch of whiners. Anyways, top two is designed to protect incumbent right-wing Democrats like Feinstein.

I don't recall Mike Honda being more right-wing than Khanna.

Pretty sure [though I know you don't believe it] Loretta Sanchez was to the right of Kamala Harris too.

Honda survived Khanna's attempts at primarying many times until he got hit with scandal in 2016 and was DOA. Harris v Sanchez both didn't have a opponent, and saw Sanchez implode doing risky stupid stuff during the 'general' campaign - she dabed at a debate remember?

Generally top two is pro-incumbent and pro-moderate, whoever is symbolizes the best of the two wins. It is pro-incumbent due to incumbents nearly always making it into the top two instead of going down in a primary fight. It is pro-moderate because the closer to the center you are in a DvD or RvR race means that you get the lions share of the opposite party voters. In an open seat though the findings are much murkier, and tend to reflect who has greater name recognition/popularity in DvD or RvR.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Feinstein should resign. We don't need to waste money on a California senate race. The democrat party needs new blood, and Kevin is a very well qualified candidate.

[Nyvin]

Feinstein should resign. We don't need to waste money on a California senate race. The democrat party needs new blood, and Kevin is a very well qualified candidate.

Retire, not resign.   Resigning would be completely pointless.

[Virginiá]

When are Democrats ever not worried about something? Talk about overreaction. The Republican Party was subject to a hostile takeover last year and they constantly have competitive, divisive, expensive primaries (occasionally even in swing states and blue states!) Clearly that's really taking a toll on them politically.

At the very least, you could say it doesn't help to have candidates tied up in expensive primaries, at least in competitive states. But in general I think I have to agree with you. Obviously a party should want to avoid bitter intra-party feuding, but then again a party will never evolve if it doesn't have these fights from time to time. After all, the feuding in the Democratic Party isn't petty. It's an ongoing fight over the direction of the party, ideologically and strategically.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Remember when a 2014 Republican bitter primary  caused Democrats to pick up a Senate seat in Mississippi? This could happen again, but in California and to Democrats!1

[MarkD]

I get why people think of Feinstein as a moderate Democrat instead of someone as liberal as, say, Boxer. But Feinstein's average approval score from the Americans for Democratic Action is a hair under 90%, so she's clearly no centrist. She is liberal, she's just no Boxer or Sanders.

[Cactus Jack]

I get why people think of Feinstein as a moderate Democrat instead of someone as liberal as, say, Boxer. But Feinstein's average approval score from the Americans for Democratic Action is a hair under 90%, so she's clearly no centrist. She is liberal, she's just no Boxer or Sanders.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, Feinstein has just been on the wrong side of all the wrong issues, most detrimentally civil liberties and the War on Terror. She's also obscenely corporate.

[The Mikado]

I fail to see the downside of a CA General being a firey, high-energy showdown between Feinstein and de Leon. It'll drag dems to the polls and might make Republicans stay home, which is great for House candidates.

[Virginiá]

I fail to see the downside of a CA General being a firey, high-energy showdown between Feinstein and de Leon. It'll drag dems to tje polls and might make Republicans stay home, which is great for House candidates.

If the general election is Feinstein vs de Leon, that would be amazing. However, to really get the benefit of depressed Republican turnout, the Governor's race needs to be DvD as well, or maybe at least Democrat vs Ultimate "Some Dude," although I'm not sure how bad that would be for the CAGOP in terms of turnout.

While not as interesting, I'd also note that Republican state legislative candidates in California would be in trouble if no Republican made it to the GE in CA's Senate/Governors races. They rely on ticket splitting and optimal Republican turnout to stay afloat in Romney/Clinton or Obama/Clinton districts. If they see lower turnout and more straight ticket voting in 2018, Democrats could really sweep legislative races and build a comfortable supermajority.

[YE]

...which is better than a D vs. R runoff

[7,052,770]

Remember when a 2014 Republican bitter primary  caused Democrats to pick up a Senate seat in Mississippi? This could happen again, but in California and to Democrats!1

To be fair, Philanderin' Chris would have probably lost to Childers had he been the nominee. So that's not a very good example, even though I agree with your larger point.

[IceSpear]

Remember when a 2014 Republican bitter primary  caused Democrats to pick up a Senate seat in Mississippi? This could happen again, but in California and to Democrats!1

To be fair, Philanderin' Chris would have probably lost to Childers had he been the nominee. So that's not a very good example, even though I agree with your larger point.

In 2014? When Republicans won nearly every competitive race? That seems highly unlikely.

[Kingpoleon]

What a bunch of whiners. Anyways, top two is designed to protect incumbent right-wing Democrats like Feinstein.

I don't recall Mike Honda being more right-wing than Khanna.

Pretty sure [though I know you don't believe it] Loretta Sanchez was to the right of Kamala Harris too.

I don’t think Harris and Sanchez is a fair comparison, as even though everyone rigged it for Harris, it still was far closer than it should have been with the support of Obama, Biden, Brown, Newsom, and the state party.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Then they shouldn’t waste a single penny on the race. We all know Feinstein is going to win another term and if not, we will still have a democrat seated from California. Use the funds for Arizona, Nevada, and competitive congressional races.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Then they shouldn’t waste a single penny on the race. We all know Feinstein is going to win another term and if not, we will still have a democrat seated from California. Use the funds for Arizona, Nevada, and competitive congressional races.

Pretty much this. Not quite as assured of a Feinstein victory, but a Republican won't take this seat. If it does turn out to be Feinstein vs De León, national organizations should waste their money on an assured Dem seat. If the goal is to beat Republicans, there's no sense in fooling around in a 100% assured Dem seat.

I really wish that Feinstein wasn't running. She's a fossil. No butts about it. Sure, she's still pretty coherent (compare to Cochran), but she's way out of synch with California. If she represented Missouri or some place like that, I'd back her 100%. But not in California. We can do better.

Hell, if Feinstein was running, I guarantee that De León wouldn't be the only major Dem officeholder to run, so there could still be the "issue" of two major Dems running in the general. Again, there's no sense in wasting money on that when a close seat like Arizona or Nevada could be targeted instead. Any big groups wasting money on a Feinstein vs De León race should be ashamed of themselves and aren't worth donating to. I can understand CA groups, but national groups should really stay out of it.

[Lord Admirale]

#DraftLorettaSanchez