Google Ads


Site Stats

CA-Gov, CA-Sen: Narrow Leads for Brown, Boxer

by: jeffmd

Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:27 PM EST


Research 2000 for Daily Kos (3/8-10, likely voters, 8/9-12, 2009 in parentheses):

For CA-Gov:

Meg Whitman (R): 52 (24)
Steve Poizner (R): 19 (9)
Tom Campbell (R): NA (19)
(MoE: ±5.0%)

Jerry Brown (D): 45 (42)
Meg Whitman (R): 41 (36)

Jerry Brown (D): 48 (43)
Steve Poizner (R): 33 (34)
(MoE: ±4.0%)

In the Republican primary, both candidates are becoming better well known, though Tom Campbell's exit from the Governor's race seems to have benefited Meg Whitman quite a bit. Whitman seems to be going for the "moderate" mantle here, with Poizner running to her right.

Gov. Moonbeam continues to lead Whitman narrowly and Poizner by a somewhat larger margin. Poizner's posturing may be hurting him in the general election though, as his favorables have moved from 35 to 37, while his unfavorables have jumped from 27 to 40, putting him in net negative territory. Poizner had been keeping pace with Indies at 36/35, but Brown's taken the clear advantage, with Indies now breaking 46/30 in his favor.

Whitman has made herself better known, with "no opinion" of her down to 14 from 29; her favorables are now a solid 51/35 (up from 41/30). Brown's also in net positive territory though, at a solid 52/40.

For CA-Sen:

Tom Campbell (R): 33 (NA)
Carly Fiorina (R): 24 (29)
Chuck DeVore (R): 7 (17)
(MoE: ±5.0%)

Barbara Boxer (D): 47
Tom Campbell (R): 43

Barbara Boxer (D): 49 (52)
Carly Fiorina (R): 40 (31)

Barbara Boxer (D): 49 (53)
Chuck DeVore (R): 39 (29)
(MoE: ±4.0%)

The biggest news in the primary is former 15th CD Rep. Tom Campbell's entry into the race, where he's leapfrogged into first place, with his gain coming at both Fiorina and DeVore's expense.

Campbell - with his base in Santa Clara County - carries his strength to the general as well. Somewhat troubling for Dems is his strength among Independents, where he narrowly edges Boxer 45-43. Carlyfornia Dreamin has turned somewhat into the Pacific Coast Gaffeway recently, and it's taking a toll on her favorables. Fiorina was already in negative territory at 22/29 in August, but she's not exactly winning people over. She's added +13 to her favorables, but +14 to her unfavorables.

Chuck DeVore continues to be a non-factor in the general, he's also in net negative territory at 34/42. If by some miracle he pulls it out of the primary, I think we'll be looking at something similar to Boxer-Jones in 2004.

Barbara Boxer's favorables aren't the best at 50/45, but that's more than Carly or Chuck can claim. DiFi's not doing much better though, at 49/44, though Obama remains popular at 60/32 (which is probably keeping has national approval from dropping into the 40's).

RaceTracker Wiki: CA-Gov | CA-Sen
jeffmd :: CA-Gov, CA-Sen: Narrow Leads for Brown, Boxer
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
CA-Gov, CA-Sen: Narrow Leads for Brown, Boxer | 38 comments
Enlighten me
Why did Tom Campbell run against Feinstein in 2000 in the first place? Was there any real belief that she could be defeated?

And does Campbell benefit from having the more conservative vote split between Carly and DeVore? Not that Carly is particularly conservative, though. So what's the ultimate strategy? GOP moderates have had a poor track record in primaries over the last decade or two, especially in California.

I've been trying to figure out why Campbell jumped ship from Gov to Senate.
He would have had the chance to sneak through ala Creigh Deeds while Whitman and Poizner destroyed each other ala McAuliffe and Moran and would have been the strongest of the three in the general. Now in the Senate race, it is likely he will split the moderate vote with Carly, and allow DeVore to consolidate the conservative/teabagger vote and win the chance to be crushed by Boxer.

Campbell ran in 2000 I think because he believed that he could get a lot of Independent/Democratic votes statewide because they helped him win in the very Democratic districts he represented in Congress, the 12th (now 14th) and 15th (which he won in a 1995 special to replace longtime incumbent Democrat Norm Mineta), which he won even in 1998 as Democrats did very well almost everywhere on the ballot.

But in 2000 the Democratic realignment of California was in its next steps, shifting to the position of preferring Democrats over Republicans, even moderate Republicans, unless said Democrat is badly damaged or very unpopular (Davis, Angelides, Bustamante). Bush tried contesting the state but lost by double-digits, which meant that California shifted Democratic bigtime, as its Gore margin was similar to its Clinton 1996 margin, while the national popular vote margin shifted from Clinton by 8.5 to Gore by 0.5, a shift of 8 points Republican. And in his 19-point loss to DiFi, Campbell even got crushed in his own district, and Mike Honda won the seat back for the donks.

In the decade of 2010, I see California becoming so Democratic that Democrats completely own the statewide elections, and huge margins in the Congressional and state legislative numbers, and if trends keep up, I see California as the next New York, in which Democrats will own almost every corner of the state, save for a few hardcore Republican areas and absolutely DOMINATE statewide. Man I'd love to see Republicans' jaws drop if California goes for the Democrat by 40% in 2020 or 2024.

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

[ Parent ]
The only way Cali will go 40% in 2020 or 2024
is if the Democrats win a nationwide landslide of around 60% vs. 40%. Only way it will happen even with the demographic shift. I will grant that is a possible if the Republicans nominate Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin, but that is really the only way it could happen.  
[ Parent ]
Hmm really?
California is currently what, D+8? For Cali to go D by 40 points in a national D victory of 60-40, it would be D+10, right? Surely the demographic shift is fast enough that California's PVI will move more than 2 points given 12-16 years?

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Let me check.
1988: California: Bush 51.1%; USA: Bush 53.4% (California was D+2)
1992: California: Clinton 46.0%; USA: Clinton 43.0% (California was D+3)
1996: California: Clinton 51.1%; USA: Clinton 49.2% (California was D+2)
2000: California: Gore 53.4%; USA: Gore: 48.4% (California was D+5)
2004: California: Kerry 54.3%; USA: Kerry 48.3% (California was D+6)
2008: California: Obama 60.9%; USA: Obama 52.9% (California was D+8)

So calculating the PVI of California results in these:

1992: D+2.5
1996: D+2.5
2000: D+3.5
2004: D+5.5
2008: D+7.0

So California is according to Cook D+7 PVI (I assume Cook used some rounding in his calculation of D+8, but I think my calculation is pretty close so I'll go with it for now. If the trends keep up, with the PVI increasing by 1.5 each presidential election (though this is a big "if"), then we will be looking at D+8.5 in 2012, D+10 in 2016, D+11.5 in 2020, and D+13 (more than Massachusetts) in 2024. So if California went for the Democrat by 40%, giving him/her about 70% of the vote, then the national popular vote would be about 57%. While 57% in the national popular vote is a landslide and rare, it has happened, with Reagan netting near 59% in 1984.

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

[ Parent ]
Or
if there is a Democratic presidential candidate who is beloved by Californians, then we could see California be the next "Hawaii 2008".

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
I read somewhere
that it was b/c he voted for the Clinton impeachment and thought he would lose his house district. Sorry, I forgot where I read it and it was like 4 plus years ago, so take it with a giant grain of salt.  
[ Parent ]
The re-alignment of California wasn't a settled matter.
In 1992 Campbell lost the Republican primary to far right conservative Bruce Herschensohn who lost by about 4 points to Barbara Boxer.  It was widely thought Campbell would've beaten her if nominated.  Two years later Feinstein won by a smaller margin against crazy closeted wingnut conservative Michael Huffington (lately it seems "closeted" and "wingnut" are redundant).

The "Lock" people claimed the Republicans had on the White House was built on two pillars.  The South and California.  1992 was the first time since 1964 California had voted for a Democrat.  And despite Michael Dukakis coming close in 1988 and exit polls showing Bill Clinton was the second choice of a lot of Perot voters many conservatives at the time attributed Bill Clinton's win in California to Ross Perot garnering 20% of the vote in California.

Now you can point to Bill Clinton's more convicing 1996 win, Loretta Sanchez demonstrating the rise of Latino power with her defeat of Robert Dornan, and the election of Gray Davis as evidence California was lost.  But until Al Gore took early leads he never lost in California in 2000 the Republicans hadn't really conceded California on a national level.

Also Al Gore was weak in 2000.  While the election ended a virtual tie that was only after a later surge.

Thus in 2000 Tom Campbell did have some reason to think from what he knew then to think that he had a chance.  Even if those reasons in retrospect didn't materialize.  It wasn't until after 2000 that an exclamation point was added to California's drift to the Democratic column.

Same way it took 2004 and 2008 to add an exclamation point to West Virginia moving to the Democratic column.

Of course I'll also add don't take California for granted.  The realignment has been fueled by Latino voters many of who, had been previously been receptive to Republicans who had alienated them with their nativist rhetoric.  If Republicans smarten up you may find them joining the ranks of Catholic swing voters.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
Well, rather
dangerous numbers for Democrats, who expected relatively easy pickup of Governorship and relatively easy defence of their Senate seat. IMHO - that's caused by dire economical and financial situation in the state, which caused severe anti-incumbent (Arnold's ratings are abysmal) and generally "plague on both your houses" feelings in many people.

If economy will not improve soon - there may be real surprises in California come November.

To be fair
not sure about the senate race but Meg Whitman has been moneybombing the entire state without any response from Brown. Once he fights back, he could vault ahead.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
I hope so
because while not being Brown's admirer - i respect him
[ Parent ]
But will he?
We have yet to see his response or how effective it will be.  The danger of sleepwalking is your assumptions about what you can do when you wake up may just be assumptions.

It's still early so fretting too much about any numbers now is pointless except as guideposts for candidates to calibrate their campaigns as they move forward to the summer and fall.

But I still have severe doubts about Brown.  I just don't understand what his rational is on why he should be elected besides "You know me because I've always been here" and "I can raise a lot of money."  Past goodwill and a partisan advantage can only go so far.  Particularly in what looks to be a negative environemnt for Democrats.  Before the nominations are over, the general elections start, and the mud really starts to fly he needs to construct a better rational on why he should be governor.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
Given Nate Silver's new info on House effects
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

These polls are not good news for the Dems.  

the numbers are fine
You can't fall down without seeing a Whitman commercial... and they are pretty good.  Poizner is attacking like a banshee now, and while virtually everyone but him thinks he's too late, he'll hurt her.  Brown like Uncle harold.  Everybody knows him.  he inspires no one, but you let him babysit.  If Whitman had a lead I'd be concerned, but Brown hasn't campaigned at all.  Once people figure out Whitman is an R running against Brown, she'll lose by ten points.

Most everybody likes Campbell, while they tolerate Boxer.  At the same time, stick Obama next to Boxer twice in October, and she wins.

Even fearing the worst, Campbell would be to the left of several Dems in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
Generally agree, though not sure about Obama's effect
I know Campbell's views (generally centrist, who is more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal) fairly well. What about Whitman's? Moderate? Moderate-conservative?
[ Parent ]
I'm leaning towards moderate on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues.
Like almost every California Republican, she drank the "No-New-Taxes" and "businesses-are-fleeing-California-for-lower-tax-states" (which is not true at all) Kool-Aid. She would also suspend AB 32, the timetable to bring California in line with Kyoto Protocol guidelines, to study potential economic implications.

She supported Prop 8 but says the marriages that took place before it passed should be recognized and she supports civil unions and gays adopting children. She also voted for Prop 4, Parental Notification 3.0.

And in the meantime, check this out: http://www.facebook.com/video/...

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

[ Parent ]
Thanks a lot!
Well, not the best, probably, but for California's Republican - at least acceptable.
[ Parent ]
Acceptable? Um, no
Not to the gheys. Her whole "yeah, you can adopt kids, but you can't actually have the same rights as a REAL family (aka-marriage)" schtick is infuriating.

I mentioned that particular position at brunch with a couple of pals who were in the "Whitman doesn't seem horrible" camp....the responses are unprintable on a family site like SSP. And heck, we caused such a fuss the whole Abbey knew within minutes (and btw, it would seem EVERYONE has seen her commercials at this point, even the thoroughly non-political types). It was like a new-school teach-in (with appletinis!).

It's not that it's not more than we usually get from Republicans (which it is), it's the intentional ignorance. She knows gays are not evil and good parents and make good families, and yet we have to have the separate-but-equal civil union malarkey and it's just twisting the knife.

Frothing homophobia we're used to and is much more defensible in some ways than this: intentional, calculated, hypocritical, thoroughly political homophobia from a woman who should know better.

If she actually talks to someone competent in the press, she better get eviscerated for this particular position.

Sorry...O/T a bit, but I just had to get that out.

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

[ Parent ]
Not to derail
According to most polls on the issue, the position of being for civil unions but against gay marriage is one that the majority of the American public supports. Have you considered the possibility that it isn't a calculated position but rather an actual belief? Also I really don't see how holding that position makes somebody homophobic. In order to avoid derailing this will be all I'm going to post on the subject. that is all.    
[ Parent ]
To contest the poll thing
There was actually a poll (I think by the wapo) a while back showing plurality support for gay marriage. I believe the NYT had it too. Don't be surprised if California has a majority for gay marriage in only a few years; gay marriage did gain something around 9 points of support or so in 8 years (between Prop 22 and Prop 8). And California's economy certainly has a lot to thank "pink money" for. ;)

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Acceptable to ME, not YOU
BTW - i am straight, so GLBT issues are not of foremost priority to me...
[ Parent ]
It's kind of disturbing to put things like that
How would you react to someone saying "I'm white, so civil rights issues are not of foremost priority to me"? For the record, I am also straight and consider gay rights issues very important, because civil rights are for EVERYBODY.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
And
I agree with tommypaine that using Obama is much more helpful for Dems in California than in most other states, and not just because of the state's partisan leaning, but because he essentially welcomed California back to DC by appointing so many Californians to administration positions (Labor Secretary Solis, Tauscher to the State Department, Energy Secretary Chu) after we were almost essentially ignored during the 8 years of Bush.

http://www.swingstateproject.c...

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

[ Parent ]
Good if so
In many states under present circumstances  and present level of popularity Obama's effect would be far from positive. Take Arkansas, for example - i am ready to bet that no Democratic candidate there will ask Obama for joint appearance.
[ Parent ]
And don't forget
Demographics. Obama can push up turnout of one group in particular that will help immensely: The youth. Lot of us under-35s in California. Obama's still pretty magical on that front. If he can get young people to turn out in 2010, Republicans are in for a shock.  And remember how all these voter screens mean almost no presence of under-35s in the data...

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.
[ Parent ]
Obama's standing amongst the under 20's
has fallen dramatically since November 2008. While he still leads with this group I sincerely doubt his ability to drive up their turnout to anything close to 2008 levels.  
[ Parent ]
I assume you mean under 30s
and while youth turnout will fall for sure certainly you don't believe the SUSA polls showing young voters being 1% of the electorate?

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Oops
my bad I did mean under 30s, and no I do not believe the SUSA polls I just don't believe that it will be that high compared to 08 or 06.  
[ Parent ]
by not believe SUSA
I meant on the turnout front.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe
But on the flip it also means a statistical tie in MO-Sen and OH-Sen, TX-Gov and CO-Gov. Alo means Murray leads Rossi, a double digit lead for Giannoulias in IL and the GOP barely ahead on the generic ballot. According to Rasmussen. All of which isn't likely. An average is an average and nothing more.
[ Parent ]
I think Whitman and Fiorina will win their respective nods
Whitman will probably defeat Poizner by about 2-to-1, while Fiorina will consolidate a potent base of rank-and-file conservatives and Romney/business-type Republicans to edge out Campbell. I suspect the Whitman voters will all go to Campbell and Fiorina. Poizner's will split three ways. DeVore will get a modest chunk of the tea-bag vote (so will Fiorina, I think), but probably won't even break 20%.

In the general, I think Brown and Whitman are a dead heat, edge to Whitman if she can somehow remain gaffe-free, edge to Brown if he can run a campaign that even's remotely-exciting. I suspect Boxer and Fiorina will run the bloodiest general campaign of the season, and Boxer will probably score a win in the high single-digits. Again, if Fiorina can veer away from gaffe-in' it up, it might be closer. Campbell would make this a dead heat. DeVore would be '04 all over again for Boxer.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

Boxer and Brown
Both win high single digits.
[ Parent ]
I am not so sure
if Republicans will be savvy and nominate Campbell. Boxer is very liberal and is, at least to some extent, a polarizing figure in state.
[ Parent ]
I think if Campbell's the nominee, Boxer wins by about 3%


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Where do Campbell and Boxer differ in their philosophy on social issues?
Boxer's batty behavior with the Army general, a la, "Call me Senator, not ma'am," coupled with her antics vis-a-vis Senator Inhofe, make her a little less attractive this time around.

Will be voting Dem if Campbell is the only nominee only to pad our numbers in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
If I'm not mistaken, they're about equal on social issues
On fiscal matters, I believe Campbell's more in line with his party.

By the way, just to reiterate my prior point on Campbell being the strongest GOP nominee, followed by Fiorina and then DeVore, here are some hypothetical cross-tabs for the three match-ups...

Democrat - 40%
Republican - 35%
Independent - 25%

Boxer - 90/3/43 = 48%
Campbell - 10/97/57 = 52%

Boxer - 93/3/47 = 50%
Fiorina - 7/97/53 = 50%

Boxer - 97/7/55 = 55%
DeVore - 3/93/45 = 45%

I wanna say Boxer realistically performs about 5% better than the above counts, perhaps via a tinkering with my voter model. I think she'll shore up Dems no matter what, but I also think she has a rough ceiling in the high 40s/low 50s with Independents. Republicans will GOTV big time here.  

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
Interesting...
Boxer's floor is 48% regardless I would agree with you.

With Campbell in the race, she would have to shed some of the "battiness" that she's been demonstrating the past few years and run a near-flawless race.

I wonder if Campbell's social views turns off some of the fringe, hard-right Republican voters in a tight race? I don't if Campbell would necessarily command 97% of the Republican base when his social views are in line with the Democrat's.

[ Parent ]
Partisan breakdowns
2008 - 42 D, 30 R, 28 I

Obviously won't be that favorable. The change in New Jersey from 2008 was from 44-28-28 to 41-31-28. The equivalent for CA in 2010 would therefore be 39-33-28.

[ Parent ]
CA-Gov, CA-Sen: Narrow Leads for Brown, Boxer | 38 comments

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

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox