Apparently Jerry Brown did not illegally record a conversation; rather, his press secretary did and was suspended pending an investigation. Gavin Newsom, on the other hand, betrayed his best friend by having an affair with his wife, visited a fallen police officer while drunk and gave alcohol to a underage girl he was dating. Gavin Newsom is a shameless, narcissistic extrovert who would have been a horrible candidate and governor.

DiFi won't run.  She's old, tired and not really up to the job of running the state. The Senate is much more well suited for her.  Let's face it, Jerry Brown is our best bet to win.

WOOO-HOOO!  YEA!!  I feared having to force myself to vote for Prince Gavin in a general election....

Prediction:  If Terry Branstad runs for governor, Chet Culver will run against Chuck Grassley.

The best you can say is he is much, much better than Christopher "Chris" Christie.  Corzine has narcissistically & self aggrandizingly spent $125 million of his Goldman Sachs-earned fortune to get elected to political offices. Given how disappointing he's been as governor, he'd have had a more positive impact spending $125 million to send poor kids to college and/or paying for their health insurance. $125 million to gain and hold power. Jeeez.

If you prefer a self-absorbed shameless extrovert who takes narcissism to new heights even for a politician, Gavin is your candidate.  

If you prefer a philanderer who would have an extended sexual affairs with the wife of his best friend, Gavin is your candidate.

If you prefer a drunk so lacking in self control he would go to the hospital of a fallen police officer smelling of alcohol, Gavin is your candidate.

If you prefer a intellectual lightweight with slicked-back hair and a bright smile but an undistinguished record as mayor, then Gavin is your candidate.

If you prefer a Democratic nominee so weak and flawed he would ensure a Republican victory, Gavin is your candidate.

Don't let Mr Charisma charm the pants off the California Democratic Party.  Let's nominate a Democrat of substance who can win, and who can guide and lead our state out of this complicated crisis.

The obsession with all things Sarah Palin will continue well beyond the election.  Although I disagree with her on all cultural/social issues, the treatment she has received does generate some personal sympathy. Despite her ideology and inexperience, she does strike me as someone who loves her children, her husband, her state and her country. The personal shots (i.e., the crap about her faking her pregnancy) sicken me.  We can beat her on the issues, but trying to destroy her personally will only cause her more sympathy. Besides, that is just not how good progressives should act.

The McCain/Palin campaign was horribly managed. Even had they done everything right, it was a Democratic year and Barak Obama ran a nearly flawless campaign that provided few real openings.  The operatives who are "leaking" gossip on Sarah Palin are trying to dodge the blame for how bad of a job they did, pretty much saying, "it was all Sarah's fault."  And I though Republicans were supposed to be testosterone tough.

I would like to believe this election was a lurch leftward, but I am more of the mind that it was a repudiation of W and the Republicans and not a great embrace of liberalism.  We intellectual/elitist coastal liberals should not underestimate the appeal of Sarah Palin's twang and folksiness.  Sorry, but she is clearly one of the most charismatic candidates around. And, since 47% of the voters cast ballots for someone other than Barak Obama, she could (unfortunately have a bright national future.

The notion that Sen Boxer is vulnerable to a challenge from Gov Schwarzenneger is laughable. Sen Boxer has been "misunderestimated" since she was elected in 1992 (upsetting both a well-funded SoCal Congressman and a popular Lt Gov in the primary and a well-knowns talk show host in the general).  In 1998 she beat a sitting Republican State Treasurer and in 2004 she pasted a two-term Republican Secretary of State.  Sen Boxer is battle tested and will be well prepared.  And let's not forget that California is deeply blue.

Schwarzenneger got elected promising to "end the crazy deficit spending" and "cut up the state's credit cards."  He did neither and, in fact, each budget he's signed has more borrowing than the last. Everything he promised to improve has gotten worse. Californians, who loved the characters he played and dreamt the Terminator would bring order to Sacramento, stupidly ignored his lack of political experience or executive preparation.  Californians are on to him now and his approval ratings are in the tank. With the massive state budget deficit requiring both spending cuts and tax increases, his standing will further worsen.  

As they say in Sacramento, Republican legislators don't trust Schwarzenneger because he's a liberal and Democratic legislators don't trust him because he's a Republican.  Everyone laughs at his incompetance.  He swings from one gimmick/slogan to the next. History will view his tenure in office poorly.  Politically, Schwarzenegger is finished.

As a result of this election, the state senate will be 26 (D) to 14 (R) and the state assembly will be 50 (D) to 30 (R).  Yes, huge Democratic margins from an "incumbency protection" plan. Take a look at the state assembly results and you'll see several "safe" Republican seats where Democrats lost by single digits.  

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/stasm/all .htm

If a "fair" plan were in place, the Democratic legislative margin would be even greater.  California is a deeply blue state that gets more Democratic each year; as such, more swing districts would present greater opportunities for Democrats and more jeopardy for Republicans.

The current California redistricting map was a incumbency protection plan with a raw political twist. A well-known objective was to dilute Latino voting strength in the district represented by Rep. Howard Berman. The district had become overwhelmingly Latino in the 1990's and Berman feared being defeated by a Latino in a Democratic primary. So, the Latino vote was spread between the districts represented by Berman and Rep. Brad Sherman (who was angry because his district was made more Latino).  Facilitating this was Michael Berman (Howard's brother) whose firm drew the maps for the Democratic legislature.  (As is typical, these white, liberal Democrats wanted enough Latino voters to make their districts safe, but not so many that Latino's voting as a block would pose a primary threat.  The thinking must be that Latino's will vote as a block for a Latino challenger over a hard working and effective white incumbent.  You see, we Democrats are not always so high-minded and pure; at the end of the days, it's all just about politics and winning.)

Proposition 11 was supported by MANY prominent Democrats and good government groups.  See for yourself:

http://yesprop11.org/coalition

The California legislature is populated by a raft of incompetant, short-sighted and cowardly politicians who lack the vision and courage to address the many problems facing our state. They can't even balance the budget when the economy is strong! The passage of Proposition 11 likely won't result in more Republican legislators, nor will it improve the quality of people getting elected.  On the contrary, I think it will just result in more Democrats being elected; perhaps if they reach the 2/3 threshold, they'll collectively develop the courage to make the decisions necessary to save California.  Possibly, though, they'll just give more pay increases, pension enhancements and days off to the prison guards and teachers unions.  But at least they won't be able to draw their own self-serving legislative districts.

Your comments are racist and small minded.  Apparently your measure of intelligence is how much someone (or an entire race) agrees with your positions and views.  

How was a vote for Propostion 8 a vote against the self interest of Black voters? Did you know an effective tactic of the pro-Prop 8 campaign were robocalls of a clip of Barak Obama stating during a debate his opposition to gay marriage?

Yes, Prop 8 discriminate against gays & lesbians, but don't try to compare marriage to enslavement and the discrimination and marginalization experienced by Blacks to this day.

Blacks and Latinos tend to oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.  Perhaps their faith is a further sign to you of their lack of intelligence.....

Based on a Nov 1, 2008, SurveyUSA poll, California voter ideologically is:

25% - Liberal
27% - Conservative
43% - Moderate

And, California voter party affiliation is:

15% - Independent
34% - Republican
50% - Demoncratic

Many California Democrats do not classify themselves as liberal.

In California, Blacks and Latinos tend to be more religious than white Democrats; and, they tend to be moderate-to-conservative on many cultural and social issues. Proposition 8 was defeated among white voters but passed because of strong support among Black and Latino voters.  Keep in mind, folks, Proposition 8 was a cultural/social issue and not a D vs R issue.

A Republican Presidential candidate hasn't been competitive in California for 20 years.  The congressional delegation and the state legislature are overwhelming Democratic. California is a deep blue state. But California is only a moderate state on many cultural/social issues.

(PS, the John Birch Society was founded in Indiana, not California, and they ceased to be relevant and influential 30 years ago.)

We're not going to win this election by yammering about the Republican VP nominee getting reimbursed for what works out to be $54.33 a day for travel and expenses!  For two weeks the story has been Sarah, Sarah, Sarah ... and we're stepping on our own message!!  IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID... CHANGE VS MORE OF THE SAME... HEALTHCARE.

For the forces of evil, this may actually be a wise strategic move if it helps shore up the McCain/Palin ticket in national polls.  Sure, the winner is selection by the Electoral College, but those activist and fundraisers who obsess over the daily polls (such as me and many of you) live and die with each rise and fall of the standing of their candidate.  In 2000, George Bush purchased national advertising which many considered to be wasteful and non-strategic, but it pulled him closer to Al Gore and created momentum for his campaign.  With this in mind, it is could be wise for a candidate to invest a little in their base states to pump up their national numbers in order to gain or maintain national momentum.  It won't be known until after the election, when we can retroactively analyze each strategic, operational and tactical move, whether this expenditure decision was wise.

We need to be careful, folks.  Being that we've just nominated one of the least experienced (although, yes, fully vetted during the primary process) major party presidential candidates in living memory, and the arguement can be made that she has more years of elective experience (and particularly executive experience) than Senator Obama, mean and dismissive comments about Governor Palin can easily be categorized as elitist and sexist.

Clearly, this pick by Senator McCain has caught everyone flatfooted.  More troubling to me is that, although she is a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, anti-choice conservative, she is as articulate & charismatic as Senator Obama, but a bit more down-to-earth and with an equally appealing personal story.  Sure, Senator Biden is much more experienced and seasoned than Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama & Gov. Palin combined, but I can see Gov. Palin cutting his legs out in the debate by simply saying "that's a typical long-winded, Washington DC insider-type answer, Joe, and I think the country is ready for something different."

To be honest, what I've seen from us progressives since she was announced on Friday is a bit of fear and a lot of a double-standard.  For all of her positions with which we disagree, she sure will have a strong appeal to small town folks who cling to their guns on Saturday and their God on Sunday.  Let's hope her appeal isn't strong enough to get more of those folks out to the polls than we can get our new voters!

I didn't say it didn't help, but I do think it is a vast overstatement to take credit for his landslide victory.  His primary budget of $900k ensured Tester was well able to fully execute a comprehensive campaign plan.  Having worked in Montana I know that banging around on your wife isn't going to appeal to the typical Montana Democratic primary voter, a large number of whom are working class folks from rural areas.  The smashing nature of Tester's victory was due to his personal appeal, his fully funded campaign and his opponents wandering wiener, not primarly because "$50k raised online," "national buzz" and "local netroot blogs."  

C'mon, folks, get some perspective.  This is one of the most Republican districts in the State of California & the nation.  So Republican, in fact, that the Democrats had to settle for a nominee who is a school board member for a very, very small school district.  Not a single mayor in this district is a Democrat.  Despite all of this Francine Busby had the momentum until her stupid "you don't need papers" statement.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Anyone with an ounce of political savvy knew that was a message killer for Busby in this conservative Republican district, and probably a lethal self inflicted blow.  I'm a progressive myself, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking Bilbray outflanked Busby to the left; instead, Busby lost because of her own rhetorical inexperience.