« House 2006: Challengers Outraising Incumbents | Main | TX-28: Ciro's FEC Report Will Be Amended »

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

CA-50: Loser Roach Still Running Radio Ads

Posted by DavidNYC

Most people shut down their campaign operations when they lose an election. But not millionaire self-funder Eric Roach:

Businessman Eric Roach may have narrowly lost the 50th District congressional special election, but he hasn't stopped running radio spots. One that will begin on several stations today thanks his supporters and urges them to “stay engaged.”

The ad is sure to fuel more speculation about whether Roach will challenge Congressman-turned-lobbyist Brian Bilbray in June's primary election, which is the same day as the 50th District runoff. Stan Devereux, Roach's communications director, said Roach would make the decision within a few weeks.

“It was important for Eric to thank the supporters and volunteers who worked hard to elect a conservative to Congress,” Devereux said. “And I'm sure they will be waiting to hear Eric's decision.”

I explained the craziness surrounding the possible June 6th primary in this earlier post. As far as a Roach challenge goes, my fingers are crossed, knock wood, don't walk under any ladders, and all of that!

Posted at 05:14 PM in 2006 Elections - House, California | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Don't forget that Kaloogian! has endorsed Roach over Bilbray: Breaking Blue...

Posted by: HellofaSandwich [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2006 05:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Is it legal for three candidates to run in an instant runoff? And if so, why?

Not that I'm complaining in this situation, but I thought the purpose of an instant runoff was letting the fringe fall to the floor.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2006 07:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It's two elections. One is the Special Election. One is the Republican Primary for the October General Election.

Even if Francine wins the Special she still has to stand for election in October as the incumbent.

SO.....One R won the Special...another could HIM challenge for the Primary.


Posted by: Stuart O'Neill [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2006 07:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark, read the older post I linked to. That's the best explanation I can provide.

Posted by: DavidNYC [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2006 08:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In California, "runoffs" for special elections are not restricted to the top two vote-getters. Instead, if no one garners 50% plus one vote in the open-ballot primary, then the top PARTISAN vote-getters advance to the general ("runoff") special election. In fact, the California 50th CD general special election ballot on June 6th will have four names for voters to select from: Busby (Democrat), Bilbray (Republican), a Libertarian, and a candidate who ran as an independent. If Busby had finished 24%, another Dem had finished with 20%, and Bilbray still finished with 15%, Busby would still be facing Bilbray and the other two candidates because they would all be the top partisan vote-getters in the open primary.

By the way, both the primary and general special elections could have already been held by now. But California law permitted Schwarzenegger to set the dates somewhere within a range of time allowed by law. Apparently, in an effort to appear frugal after calling an expensive statewide special election last year in a failing effort to pass his propositions, Schwarzenegger set the special election runoff for the same day as the regular California primary election. Blame the confusion between the special election general election ballot and the regular primary election ballot in this congressional district on Schwarzenegger. The two ballots wouldn't seem so contradictory if they weren't held on the same day.

Posted by: phonatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2006 03:16 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I believe also that local authorities wanted to consolidate the special with the primary to save money. SD in particular had a special election last year for Mayor as well, so I can understand that they're sick of `em.

Posted by: DavidNYC [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2006 07:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't remember that discussion here locally. Local authorities don't make the decision on this; the governor does. And the state is responsible for reimbursing local governments - in this case only San Diego County since the district is completely within San Diego County boundaries - for the cost of special elections. The only governmental entity saving money, therefore, is the state. However, I would not be surprised if local Republicans wanted to buy as much time as possible to strengthen their partisan hand to achieve a Republican victory. Those local officials might have been consulted.

Posted by: phonatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2006 11:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

October, Stuart? Surely things aren't that insane? What happened to November?

Posted by: KCinDC [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2006 06:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment