Google Ads


Site Stats

CA-Gov, CA-Sen: Brown, Boxer Look Strong

by: Crisitunity

Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM EDT


Research 2000 for Daily Kos (8/9-12, likely voters, no trendlines):

Jerry Brown (D): 29
Gavin Newson (D): 20

Meg Whitman (R): 24
Tom Campbell (R): 19
Steve Poizner (R): 9

Meg Whitman (R): 27
Tom Campbell (R): 21
(MoE: ±5%)

Jerry Brown (D): 42
Meg Whitman (R): 36

Jerry Brown (D): 43
Tom Campbell (R): 35

Jerry Brown (D): 43
Steve Poizner (R): 34

Gavin Newsom (D): 36
Meg Whitman (R): 37

Gavin Newsom (D): 36
Tom Campbell (R): 35

Gavin Newsom (D): 36
Steve Poizner (R): 35
(MoE: ±4%)

Carly Fiorina (R): 29
Chuck DeVore (R): 17
(MoE: ±5%)

Barbara Boxer (D-inc): 52
Carly Fiorina (R): 31

Barbara Boxer (D-inc): 53
Chuck DeVore (R): 29
(MoE: ±4%)

Research 2000 takes a very thorough look at the big two races in California next year, checking out pretty much every possible permutation left. Although we've seen some rather alarming polls for Democrats in the last few weeks, Democrats seem to be holding their own in California, with ex-Gov. and current AG Jerry Brown holding an appreciable edge in the Governor's race (up 6 on the likeliest GOP opponent, ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman) and Sen. Barbara Boxer with 20-point leads on her competition.

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom doesn't fare as well in head-to-heads -- Whitman edges him out by 1, while he beats the other GOPers by 1 -- and that's reflected in his favorables. He's the only one of the five gubernatorial candidates who's in negative favorability territory, at 40/42 (Brown, by comparison, is at 48/37). While the primaries have been polled extensively, the only previous poll that has looked at the general election in CA-Gov is a Lake Research poll from March that had both Brown and Newsom beating their GOP rivals by margins well outside the MoE, so it seems like some erosion has happened on the governor's side (especially with Newson). With Whitman's endless millions that she's signaled her willingness to spend, this has the potential to get closer as the race goes on.

On the flipside, R2K's numbers give a much wider spread on the Boxer/Fiorina matchup than the recent Rasmussen poll; R2K's numbers on this race are pretty close to what the Field Poll found in March.

Finally, the poll also asks about the fate of a same-sex marriage initiative that may be on the ballot in 2010. The initiative would narrowly lose, 48-47, but that's indicative of some progress, as the same sample voted 51-45 in favor of Proposition 8 (and thus against same-sex marriage) last year, so there's been some improvement just in the last half a year.

RaceTracker Wiki: CA-Sen | CA-Gov

Crisitunity :: CA-Gov, CA-Sen: Brown, Boxer Look Strong
Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

If it jives with Field, then I believe it
As many have so often noted, the Field Poll is one of the most accurate polls for CA. If this poll mirrors those results, then I'm inclined to believe it.

Equality California has been using "no improvement in polling since Prop 8"
as a reason for going to the ballot in 2012 instead of 2010.   This poll shows a five point improvement.  I wonder if that will set their case back meaningfully.

I prefer 2010, btw, though I am somewhat persuadable.  A stand-alone 2011 campaign would be ideal, but I've never heard anyone suggest that it would be possible.  AFAIK only the legislature can force a special election outside of regularly scheduled elections, and if the Gaze were to force one, the no side could attack us for the needless cost.

In that case we'd need an election for 2011 to be already in the works, so that the Gaze could piggyback onto it.  Awfully hard to orchestrate that two years in advance successfully.  

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08


I'm in the wait until 2012 camp
Nate Silver had a good analysis suggesting that Obama actully helped the "no" side in 2008, since the minority voters who turned out for him were young and overall supportive of gay marriage.  Most of them won't show up in 2010.  

Besides, I'm worried that two losses in two years would make a third try much harder- it could just annoy people into voting to keep the ban up.  2012 seems like a much better bet- I'm
also guessing attitudes will have changed more by then.

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)



[ Parent ]
Well, I support a Yes campaign that is specifically aimed at getting younger voters to turn out.
Younger voters weren't supposed to show up in Iowa for Obama either; they never had come through for Dean or any other candidate who counted on them.  You have to pitch a very strong argument directly at them to pull it off, I think.  In the case of gay marriage, emphasizing the generational divide has secondary benefits for us as well.  "You may feel funny about it, but your kids and their entire generation do not" is one of the rare realizations that can really cause someone to rethink their position.

Meanwhile the 2010 electorate will be somewhat whiter than the 2012 electorate, and this is the rare issue on which the white electorate is in the aggregate more progressive than the non-white electorate.  That's an unpleasant factor to consider, but a valid one I think.

Most importantly, I think a campaign that really engaged young voters on the underlying issues of social inclusion of gay people, and that produced electoral returns that were highly stratified by generation, would be a win for us whether we were just over or just under 50%.  Holding down 70% of 18-45, and losing 70% of 55 and over, is a clear win, even if you technically lose that year.  Inevitability is a powerful argument that depresses and demoralizes the other side.  I'd rather deflate them early -- and reassure us -- than leave them strong and us weak for an extra two years.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08


[ Parent ]
Very good points
Though I am worried that the apparent enthusiasm gap may keep young Democrats and Democratic leaning independents from turning out in the large numbers we need, not to mention keeping other Dems at home.  I don't think it will be so terrible that Boxer loses or anything like that, but I do fear that even in California there will be a gap that could doom things for overturning the ban.  And if gay marriage actually does at all worse in 2010 it would deflate things.  

I'll admit I'm being a bit pessimistic.  But I think 2012 is a better bet than 2010.  Besides, while this poll does show some good movement, SurveyUSA showed the opposite a few months ago.  If it looks like there's a good chance of winning this time I'd say go for it, but I think it's better to be cautious until we know more.  Yes, I hate the idea of waiting an extra two years, but I hate the idea of trying in 2012 with another, perhaps worse, loss.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)



[ Parent ]
I say 2010 for one simple reason: marijuana
If Tom Ammiano's legalize-and-tax pot bill is on the ballot in 2010, we'll get young people out in droves. And old hippies. Both are very good voting blocks in terms of gay rights. It's all about turnout in these types of elections, and if we can get some more ballot measures that will get the right types of voters to the polls, we'll win.

Plus, when Prop 8 was around the first time, that was before Iowa and most of the northeast had legalized gay marriage. I think the "dudes, we're now less progressive than Iowa" argument isn't totally bogus.

Besides, even if we lose? We can try and try again. The abortion crazies put some parental rights or anti-choice bill on the ballot every other year and it always loses and they always come back for more. At least on gay marriage, there's significant evidence that positions are changing rapidly. Plus, the major opponents-- NOM, the Mormon Church, and Doug Manchester--all have big problems of their own at the moment.  And despite their infighting, the gay groups have all upped their ground game.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


[ Parent ]
Here is one GIANT flip side
nobody has mentioned.  Minority voters voted for Prop 8 and Barack Obama.  2010 is a year where less young people will be out voting but is also a year when many minority voters will also not be voting.  That is one giant trade off, no minority voters who while very Democratic, voted for Prop 8 but also no young voters who essentially carried the vote against Prop 8.

It also broke down to upper-income voters voting down Prop 8 while lower income voters voted for Prop 8.  That's another area where there is a giant drop-off from mid-term to presidential.  

Im personally for 2010 and then again in 2012, and then 2014, and then 2016.  I really doubt voters who vote against Prop 8 would get sick of these constant questions and have it work against us by doing it so many times.  I just dont think that is plausible.  The people already voting no on Prop 8, they get it, they are on our side and support gay marriage.  I dont think we'd need to worry about a single one of them voting us down because we bitch too much.  I just dont see how someone can vote to keep gay marriage one year and then think, oh those queers are trying too hard, I dont want them to get married now.  (The American voting populace has surprised me before though.....)

However the make up of the people voting on a given election can certainly change how that's perceived, though.

And if we dont try in 2010 and then it starts getting polled anyway for fun for the 2010 ballot (you know several pollsters will ask, if a vote to overturn Prop 8 were being held would you...), and then the polls will show all sorts of positivity for us and then every gay in Cali will be justifiably PISSED.  No, this is a civil rights issue, we should be trying every time until we win simply out of principle.  I cant wait for my next-door neighbor Wisconsin to try to get rid of their ban at some point in the near future.  


[ Parent ]
Boxer and more
I've read worrywarts on other sites expressing fears that Boxer is going to lose. She's not.

We have plenty of things to really worry about, and we shouldn't be wasting our angst on this race. That's not to say that we shouldn't support and campaign for her. I think she's one of the most valuable Senators we've got, week in and week out fighting for good causes.

The race will probably get closer as the Republicans sort themselves out, but Boxer always comes on strong in the last weeks of a campaign. There's every reason to expect that she'll do so again.

I think in general that things will look better for Democrats in the fall, especially if a decent health bill passes. Republicans are boiling angry right now. Anger at first feels real good, but after a while it is replaced by guilt and shame. The non-pathological Republicans and independents should be feeling those latter sensations by fall. It happened in the Schiavo case. I think it will happen again.


It's all the economy
As the economy has been on an uptick these past couple weeks (jobless claims down, stock market up, housing sales up, car sales up, etc.) we've seen polling for both Deeds and Corzine bounce back.  As long as we continue to see steady and modest increases we will be in a good position for 2009 and 2010.  

[ Parent ]
I'm
also surprised, even though Meg Whitman has got the entire Republican party behind her, she's in a dead heat with Tom Campbell.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

Campbell is the candidate to fear
Campbell has raised about as much as Roland Burris, but he is well known and well liked.  His politics are mainstram California, and he's never done anything bizarre or stupid (a rarity in CA politics).

Brown can beat Whitman, and he should be able to beat Campbell, but Newsom is DOA and what we really have to fear is Brown getting ripped up too badly.

It's still just too bad that we can't get a really good candidate.  Brown is just best D choice of those running.  It's probably too late, but we really need a decent candidate to come out of the woodwork here, and then we'd win easily.


[ Parent ]
So am I
I was surprised by how strong Campbell performed, especially for someone who's raised so little money. I'm also surprised that Poizner is doing so badly. He's the lone downballot GOP statewide officer, and he's polling in single digits?

[ Parent ]
Question for SF residents
What became of the Irish Catholic neighborhood that formed the base of Dan White, murderer of George Moscone and Harvey Milk? I presume the old residents moved to the suburbs, but what's the area like today?

Actually
some parts of SF voted strongly for Prop 8. So you really can't say that one ethnic group was strongly for it. San Francisco's Chinatown was an area for example that went strongly for Prop 8.


19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Something went really wrong with that post
And the second link is wrong anyway. Click here.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
Kind of like
Some close-in suburbs of LA who use to be working class white but now heavily latino. Including one suburb, when it was white, that had a very notorious racial feud with Watts. I forget the name of the suburb, though.  

[ Parent ]
Looks like
Judging by the current congressional map, that SV district is completely or almost completely in Pelosi's district. A sliver of it may be in Speier's, but its late and my eyes are very tired LOL. So maybe many of them moved south to San Mateo, into Speier's. Or a little further south into Eshoo's. But maybe across the water into Stark's, which i have heard is much 'gritter' than the Bay Area as a whole. And thus may have many working class whites.  

[ Parent ]
And who knows
Maybe their children are much more middle class than them and are comfortably living in the Silicon Valley, LOL.

[ Parent ]
I live
in Speier's district. The northern end of it takes in Daly City, which happens to have a large concentration of minorities. But as you go south, you find that most of the district is composed of more affluent communities filled with middle class whites who commute into San Jose or San Francisco.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of blue collar workers moved out of the Bay Area all together. It isn't cheep to live here, a new house could of easily cost 900k during the height of the housing boom.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12


[ Parent ]
Another good question
What are those same people like today, politically? If they are indeed in the suburbs. I am assuming their children are more socially moderate. As I dont buy the theory that ideological evolution, in a certain area (Bay Area, NOVA, etc), is wholly because of 'liberal transplants'. I think alot of the evolution, in those types of areas, is because the younger generation, overall, is simply more liberal than mommy and daddy. Whether their parents are liberal transplants or have lived there all their life. I am a great example. Although I live in an area very different from NOVA and the Bay Area. I am a very socially liberal person while my parents (especially my father) are socially conservative.  

[ Parent ]
CA
I've been a big Newsom supporter but hes been polling badly for a while.  Brown is ok I guess, but something like CA-GOV should be a stepping stone to something bigger.

29/D/Male/NY-01

Right on the money this time
California (and the West) needs a national/Presidential figure like Brown/Reagan/Nixon.  The Senators and Pelosi have zilch Presidential appeal.  Pete Wilson was the last to even be remotely in that league.

Brown as Gov would marginalize western influence nationally even more than now.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, but I doubt Newsom will be a viable presidential candidate
I'd like to think California has a future President hidden somewhere.  Maybe we'll see him/ her replacing Feinstein when she retires, or running for governor sometime in the future.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)



[ Parent ]
Westerners
I think Kitzhaber and T. Udall could be legitimate contenders at some point.

[ Parent ]
Eh, Udall has one thing which really works against him
He's mormon, and while I don't think our side has the irrational hatred of Mormons, he'd still probably have real trouble getting support outside of the Southwest (although I would have absolutely no trouble voting for my home-state Senator for president!)

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Udall does have his problem
but even if not electable as President, the west needs major, important, charismatic politicians who appear to be Presidential timber --- even if they don't run (let alone win).

Schweitzer doesn't appear to want it, Hickenlooper got end runned, Nevada has to discard the Reid legacy, Arizona is a decade away, and California is full of retreads and term limit merry-go-rounds.

There are some lower level Californians, Congresscritters and such who could raise themselves up, but passing on the Gov race makes it look like nobody around now aspires to be a national leader.

If Tom Campbell or Mary Bono Mack were Democrats, there would be hope, but having the (R) by their names means they won't have a chance either.


[ Parent ]
Schweitzer
Why do you feel he isn't interested in ever becoming President? Something he said?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
What he has said
and not running for the Senate when Tester did.

He's made statements that he doesn't think he would "play" back east.

If I'm wrong, great, but I've never seen statements of even Mike Mansfield ambition, let alone the Presidency.


[ Parent ]
I think he may be wrong
that his folksy style couldn't play back east, but I get it that he has doubts.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Prez Newsom?
No, thanks.

It is pretty amazing that a state with as many Dems as CA can't produce a nationally viable progressive.


[ Parent ]
To be fair, until Obama the last Democratic President from a "Blue State" was JFK


21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)



[ Parent ]
When they were elected or now?
From a blue state when they were elected or from a state thats blue now? Reagan was from a Blue State

[ Parent ]
Well
One could argue that LBJ was from a "blue" state (remember that Texas was, early on, a necessary component of any Democratic victory.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Maybe a "liberal" state?
Texas, Georgia, and Arkansas were conservative Dem states when their "favorite sons" were elected, and they still are conservative, though GOP states presidentially now. And California was a centrist/slightly leaning conservative state in the 80s.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
Until Obama, KFK was the last Democratic President from a state carried by Gore or Kerry (or Obama for that matter)
I used that term to describe the more progressive states, since the question was on progressives.  My point was that it's pretty unfair to say that a large progressive state hasn't produced progressive successful national candidates since no large progressive state had (until Illinois in 2008).  Yes, LBJ was a progressive (from what was then a Democratic state) but Texas wasn't a progressive state.  One could I guess make the argument that from 1964-2004 the Democrats who won the White House were ones who could get elected in more conservative environments.  We'll see if Obama's the exception or the beginning of a trend.  

As to Reagan: yes, he came from what's now a blue state but I didn't mention him since I was talking about Democrats.   If the Republican Party moderates itself it may nominate for President a Republican who could win statewide in California.  (Or if California gets more conservative or this hypothetical nominee pulls a Mitt Romney and "becomes" conservative)  Probably not likely for a while but who knows?  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)



[ Parent ]
Ha, "KFK"


21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)



[ Parent ]
CA
I dont know if a Republican Pres. nominee will ever win CA in the GE unless they are a very popular incumbent Pres. running for re-election. Even if they are a very pop. Gov/Sen. Because I think Californians will feel, 'I really like him but Im more in line, ideologically, with the Dems. And I just dont think i can help 'seal the deal' by voting for him since CA going red would seal the election'. Maybe thats too much 'ideological thinking' on the part of voters, but still. I think in a state like CA, where it going red would seal the deal, theyd be much more inclined to really think about who they like more on the issues. Than, say, MN, VA, CO, CT, NJ, etc.

[ Parent ]
Newsom
Just wouldnt be a viable Pres. contender I dont think. I just cant see it. Not with all his baggage. And being a 'San Francisco liberal' wouldnt help, though hes much to the right of SF.

[ Parent ]
And thus
Not really fair to call him a SF liberal. Just like how it isnt with Feinstein. Arguably even Pelosi (though her ideology itself is probably in line with SF)

[ Parent ]
Brown Vs. Newsom
I can guarantee that if the race heats up, it will be pitched by the media as old vs. new, handsome young buck vs. salty old pro. But as a dude who should be Newsom's demographic (young, tech-savvy, left-ish but moderate-y, sometimes, gay-for-gay-marriage Democrat), I have to say, I'm totally 'meh' on Newsom.

I wasn't born when Brown was first elected, nor a Californian when he ended his terms, but there was one comment he made that just made me think he's maybe what California needs right now...I'm paraphrasing, but asked what kind of Governor the state needs said something like:

"We need somebody to hold this state together with duct tape and bailing wire."

Post-Ahnold, I think I might be in the mood for a tough, salty old liberal. If Newsom got elected, he'd think of his political future, while Brown would be thinking about his legacy in California.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


I feel similar about the race
I wasn't born when Brown left office and am kinda in Newsom's demographic (young, moderate-liberal, straight supporting gay marriage).  But even before this poll I was afraid Newsom could lose the race as the nominee.  He was used pretty successfully by the pro-prop 8 people in their ads on how gay marriage was being forced on the state.

I'm not excited about Brown yet, but he at least knows our (really) broken system.  Newsom feels like the type who'd have an ambitious agenda that gets stalled quickly.  I'm thinking Spitzer before we found out about the prostitutes: mostly good plans getting killed by the Republican NY State Senate.  Brown strikes me as someone who would be better at getting his thinks through, even if they need to be watered down.

But it's a while to June.  I'm still persuadable.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)



[ Parent ]
CA-Gov is the biggest race in 2010
for the simple reason of redistricting.  Take a look at silver spring's diary to see the future of the GOP delegation if we win CA-Gov.


Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox