CA-48th Update

OK, now I get it: Unless one candidate receives a simple majority, a runoff would be held Dec. 6 among the top finishers from each party. Seven parties are recognized in the district. It is possible to win it in the primary, but if no one does, every party is guaranteed a place in the run-off. I have never seen a system like this before, which led to some of my confusion yesterday.

Of course, I don't think we are going to win it in the run-off, as there are already two Democratic candidates running. Here is a quick run-down:

Republican Party

State Senator John Campbell -- Anti-tax, pro-business, anti-choice, and anti-gay equality. Flip-flops on immigration. The "conservative" Republican "frontrunner." Elected to the State Senate in March of 2004 after several years in the State Assembly. Full biography here. Endorsed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, nine California Republican Congressmen, 11 State Senators, 27 State Assemblymen, the Club for Growth, the Lincoln Club of Orange County, and bloggers Hugh Hewitt and "Jubal." Full endorser list here. Campaign team includes Dave Gillard and Chris Wysocki (General Consultants) and Jim Terry (Manager).

Former State Assemblywoman Marilyn Brewer -- Pro-choice and pro-business. The Republican "moderate." Elected to the State Assembly in 1994, she was twice re-elected before being term limited-out in 2000. Full biography here. Endorsed by John McCain, Women in Leadership, and several former Assemblymen. Campaign team includes Harvey Englander (General Consultant and Direct Mail), Steve Kinney (Pollster), Tom Hammond (PAC Fundraiser), Peggy Goldwater Clay (Local Fundraiser), Frank Caterinicchio (Targeting), and Betty Presley (Treasurer).

Edward Suppe -- First-time candidate who believes "technology now allows ordinary citizens to compete with professional politicians." Computer industry businessman who volunteers for the Coast Guard.

Democratic Party

John Graham -- Pro-choice and pro-stem cell research. Position papers here. University of California at Irvine Professor. Democratic nominee in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Steve Young -- "A fiscal conservative with Democratic ideals." Thoughts on numerous issues here. Lawyer. Endorsed by OC Grassroots, California Teachers for Excellence, and five Democratic clubs.

American Independent Party

Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist -- Anti-immigration. Flip-flops on taxes. The wingnut. Endorsed by blogger Allan Bartlett. Campaign team includes Mary Parker-Lewis (General Consultant) and, in one capacity or another, Chuck Muth. Has retained Orange County based Bieber Communications to help with direct mail.

A fourth Republican, Don Udall, has filed his papers but still seems to be wait-and-see. The Green Party is going to run a candidate also. Bob Dornan might also run, and there is a rumor of a third Democratic caniddate, backed by the DCCC. I'll believe that one when I see it.

OK--so we already have two Democrats, both of whom would potentially be strong. Unless one drops out, forget about winning this in the primary. However, since it remains possible that a Republican candidate could win in the primary, it is absolutely imperative that the two Democrats do absolutely nothing to attack one another. Both must also push hard on turnout. The netroots should also serve as a third-party Democratic force in the primary, working as hard as possible simply to turn out as many Democrats as possible, no matter who they vote for. It would appear that we are already on that one:

Brigham said his new PAC hired the field director and other staffers from the Hackett campaign and is flying them to Orange County, California to work for the Democratic candidate in this fall's special election to replace Cox.

The situation in Cox's district parallels the Ohio race, where an open seat was created when Rep. Rob Portman resigned to become the U.S. Trade Representative.

Like Portman's former district in Ohio, California's 48th congressional district has long been a Republican stronghold. Cox won re-election there last November with 65 percent of the vote, while Bush carried the district with 59 percent.

We may not have a candidate chosen yet, but we do have a team in place. The goal is a squeaky clean, very positive primary that heavily focuses on turnout. If we have to win this in the general election, so be it. As the humorously named Sam Seaborn reports, this may be a Republican district, but it isn't a wingnut district.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

We need one candidate
The fact that the state and county parties can't read the stories from southern Ohio, pick one candidate, and take this race national, is an indication of the party's lack of power or leadership abilities.

With three Republicans in the race, one Democrat with a decent message could at least threaten to win the primary.  The Republicans will be forced to fight with each other which could set up a general election against a damaged opponent.

This is a no-brainer, just like the Democratic Party.

by James Earl 2005-08-16 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: We need one candidate
Graham has not yet pulled his papers...but a total of 6 (SIX) Repubicans, Gilchrist with AIP, one Write-in, One Libertarian,  One Green and just ONE Democrat...Steve Young. And still we wait and see on Bob Dornan.

There is a concerted effort by the Democratic Clubs of OC and some groups in LA to get John Graham to NOT file as he is considered a bad candidate at best. He didn't even have a PAC last time and the time before he refused to do the basic things like meet with people on their own turf etc.

He is only a divise force. So there may be a chance that this is a one Democrat race anyway. He can't win. He has NO support within the grassroots or the Party.

Want to help discourge him. He has a website. Google it and tell him what you think.

by BigDog 2005-08-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
I have seen Brewer's Polls
Someone in my office is volunteering for Brewer.  For some reason he thought I would be impressed that the OC was actually moderate on social issues and showed me the poll she had commissioned.  It did show a lot of support for gay issues and stem cells etc. IMHO the best strategy for the Democrats in the primary would be to attack Brewer (the moderate Republican) and get the most right wing Republican candidate possible for the general election.
by CalvinR 2005-08-16 10:08AM | 0 recs
Ah, The Gray Davis Strategy
Gray Davis, in 2002, ran attack ads against the moderate (Riordan) in the Republican primary (he was unoppsed in the Dem primary), which basically said that Riordan wasn't Republican/conservative enough.  It worked, and stupid wingnut Simon won the primary and lost the election (yet Davis was recalled 11 months later).  Of course, you can't do this any more using TV ads, because of the "I approve this message" stuff.  But it can probably still be done in more low key ways in a smaller election.
by Geotpf 2005-08-16 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I have seen Brewer's Polls
In my opinion - it's the worst strategy. This right-wing Republican (Campbell) has tons of money and is not so right-wing by OC standards. I, on the contrary, would play it safe and help Brewer by any means. In such case you wouldn't get anything worse then her...

Imagine using Gray Davis strategy strictly within Orange County limits. Whom would you get elected? Bill Simon, who, BTW, carried Orange county in 2002...

by smmsmm 2005-08-17 12:27PM | 0 recs
primaries
I really can't agree with some posters' assertions (on this & related threads) that the Democratic party is behaving brainlessly by failing to unify behind a single candidate and avoid a primary fight.

Sure, there are risks, but I'm not convinced that polite primaries are a bad thing. They allow a little public scrutiny as an opportunity to filter out candidates who look good on paper, but are crummy on the trail. They also give the motivated base an opportunity to choose who they want to represent them. In an election that can only be won on turnout, that's not a small thing. Smoke-filled-room hand-picked candidates are demoralizing to the people who you must motivate.

Now, avoiding a dirty, knock-down, drag-out fight that leaves the victor limping? That's another matter. I hope the candidates here have the good sense to avoid that.

Let's win this in the special general.

by arenwin 2005-08-16 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
A good dust up... actually gets the message out and people aware of what is happening... remember how everone "tuned out" until September after Kerry got the "nomination" in January after the Democratic leadership "called it" after Iowa....
by Parker 2005-08-16 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
I'm with you.  I thought the effective coronation of Kerry by Iowa/NH voters, Dem leaders, and the punditry was tragic.  I do not think it helped us.
by arenwin 2005-08-16 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
Normally I would agree being a big fan on contested primaries as a way to promote the race, but given the structure of the election rules if one party is able to unify around one candidate at the same time as the other is not that would be a huge advantage.
by ignatzmouse 2005-08-16 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
I'm right with you on this.  Sometimes it just makes sense to pick one and fight the opposition.  Contested primaries aren't always best for the party or the people.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-08-16 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
You're the expert here on OH-02; so I may be off here.  But in the end, wasn't there genuine primary opposition for Hackett - even though he won the primary handily, and with several of the county Dem parties behind him?  I do understand that Ohio has different special election rules than CA.
by arenwin 2005-08-16 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
Hackett had two challengers of significance in the primary, Dr Victoria Wulsin, who had significant support from the blogosphere (I would even say more than Hackett), and Charles Sanders, who was the Democrat challenger 4 times previously.

The early support from the Party gave him a significant boost.

by ignatzmouse 2005-08-16 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
Marilyn Brewer's poll -- and the several page memo that adds context to the numbers -- is available at CA-48: Turning Orange County Blue.

See the "Campaign Documents" box in the right sidebar.

Great reading.

by Sam Seaborn 2005-08-16 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
This has nothing to do with polite. This has to do with using the Grassroots to turnout behind a single candidate.

You think this has to do with choice? This has to do with winning. Especially since it appears the Republicans are fracturing themselves to pieces.

You also may not understand this is an OPEN primary and all candidates are on ONE ballot.

Our best shot is at the Primary. 50% + 1 vote and united behind one candidate.

by BigDog 2005-08-16 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
Hey, you know, you're out there and I'm not.  I'm not so arrogant in a million years as to tell the people on the ground how to run their operation from an armchair.  Bottom line: when the cards are down, and we have a candidate, I'll support them the one way I can, through a contribution.

If y'all out there feel that the best chance truly is extraordinary turnout in the primary behind a single Dem candidate to get 50%+1, and there's a realistic way to get it down to one candidate, then fair enough.

Here was my perspective, though.  I don't see "choice" as oppositional to "winning."  In general, I see it as a mechanism for getting people engaged enough that they care to turn out and vote.  Perhaps in this case, you're right.  But the Dornans, the Minutemen, and the various other prominent wingnuts each have their own devoted constituency.  A crowded field with prominent Republicans and allies can not only give them an opportunity to tear at each other (that's great) - it can also increase overall non-Dem turnout, by bringing out each of their individual constituencies.  In this case, if it's going on to the general election, I'd generally rather see a Dem candidate who has received a full airing and proved him/herself - including at the voter booth.

But, again, I'm not on the ground, and claim no special armchair insight as to the conditions you face there.  I may be reacting too vicerally, but I do believe that in general - whether or not in this specific case - a strategy of letting dedicated Dem voters make an actual choice is a strategy that is compatible with a win, not just empty idealism.

by arenwin 2005-08-16 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: primaries
This is a SPECIAL ELECTION.  They run on special rules.  If one candidate gets 50.01% of the vote, s/he wins.  Otherwise, the top vote getter FROM EACH PARTY meet in a run-off.  One Dem could theoretically win the special with great rurn-out.  There could be a 3-way run-off between an R, a D and an AIP wingnut (Gilchrest).  There is a virtue in uniting behind one candidate in a special.
by Mimikatz 2005-08-17 10:14AM | 0 recs
well, if every party
gets a spot in the special election, then I guess it's ok to have two candidates on the D side for the primary, but I dont really like that, and normally like contested primaries. I really hope someone drops out, although both Graham and Young look to be good candidates.
by jj32 2005-08-16 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: well, if every party
Graham will not be a candidate if he listens to anything but his own ego. The Grassroots and the Dem clubs oppose him.

And it's a terrible idea to go to the General election. Very very difficult scenario.

by BigDog 2005-08-16 03:04PM | 0 recs
well, let's pick one
give the two (or three) dems two weeks to get their  organization up and show they can hit the ground running, give CA-48, MYDD, Swing State, Political Dogfight, and dKOS two weeks to drum up interest and find out just who these guys (and the mystery candidate) are.
day 15:  have a netroots multiple blog primary.
by hibob 2005-08-16 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: well, let's pick one
Great idea.  Lets see if Chris will set this up for us.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-08-16 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: well, let's pick one
As of now there is only one candidate that has pulled Dem papers. Steve Young.

You can expect, if things go as planned, to hear some heavyweight statewide political endorsements in the next days...perhaps tomorrow.

by BigDog 2005-08-16 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: well, let's pick one
I still do not get how people think that a district where support for democratic challengers has traditionally been around 30% will multiply to 50% of the vote in this scenario because there are more republicans running.  More republicans means more choices for would-be independents who could have picked our candidate as an alternative.  That means fewer leaners going democrat.  Additionally, more republicans means more interest in which one wins the nomination, which means more turnout of the people we hope won't turn out (by my estimaton the only argument that we could win the primary is if this weren't the case- which it is, so why keep  acting like it isn't?).  And arguing that we need a single democratic candidate even if republican turnout may be high, because in theory he/she could win the primary outright, is missing the larger picture that if he/she could do that we wouldn't need to steal the primary in the first place- we'd just win the general!

Shouldn't we instead be encouraging multiple candidates with different messages so that we can find one that sticks and might carry the general election?  I just don't get it.

by andydrum 2005-08-16 04:58PM | 0 recs
This Is A Real Opportunity
With Gilchrist in the race, a strong Democratic candidate can win in the general election in December.  I don't see anybody, even a single Democrat getting the simple majority needed to win this at the primary phase.

Gilchrist and his wingnut fellow travelers will deliver this district to the Democrats, if we are smart about who we run and how we run.

PS - Sorry of adding to the special election confusion yesterday.  

by Words Have Power 2005-08-16 06:52PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------