Woah

what a crazy race. I guess with Newsom and probably Harris heading to Sacramento coming in January shatters the myth that "San Francisco Liberals" are unelectable statewide. Epic fail for the California GOP. Hopefully this means they'll be reduced to irrelevancy in the next few years. (Full disclosure: I voted for Cooley.)

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 04:32:50 AM UTC

Do you have an emotional investment?

Would you be more pleased with one candidate over the other? Considering you voted for Cooley, I wouldn't think that Harris winning would be a point of joy to you.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."

---

by: OGGoldy @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 04:49:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Harris' win is more important than Newsom's

Unless you are worried that Jerry Brown will keel over while in office, AG is a more powerful office than LG.  Especially so this coming term, as Prop 8 related cases move through the federal courts.  (Full disclosure: I voted for Harris in both primary and general.)

---

by: centauri @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 04:56:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would imagine environmental

issues would be of great importance as well.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 04:58:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interestingly, environmental issues are one area where the LG is relevant

The Lieutenant Governor of California sits ex officio on the State Lands Commission and the Ocean Protection Council.

---

by: centauri @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 05:03:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

While

I voted for Cooley because I was pissed over Harris' death penalty positions and her record as SF DA, I couldn't care less who won to be honest. Well, lets just say if Brown or Boxer lost on election night, it would of been an emotional train wreck for me. But if Harris or Cooley wins, it's more of a meh feeling for me. I guess its because I approach politics from a mostly electoral standpoint I can't get that fired up over hot button issues.

But I'm overjoyed that the strongest ticket the GOP could muster in this state in years was mostly all bark and no bite, and a lot of "wasteful" spending on the part of Whitman and Fiorina. Cooley's performance was not based off the pro-GOP wave, it was only because of Harris this race was even remotely competitive. (Well Kelly would of made this race competitive too because he was another rich asshole.)

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 06:03:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't Jerry Brown

personally opposed to the death penalty as well?

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 07:12:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct

We'll never know, but I'm curious whether Kamala's niche as the only candidate against the death penalty played a role in her primary victory.

---

by: centauri @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 08:48:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, it was.

CA progressives have always been frustrated by mainstream Dems toeing the "Law & Order, Tough on Crime" line. Kamala offered a fresh perspective on reducing crime, so they went with her.

Remember that unlike some other state parties (such as Nevada's), progressives can throw an awful lot of weight around in the California Democratic Party (CDP).

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:01:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting

My roommate had same feelings about Harris, he was about to vote for Cooley till he found out about his stance on Prop 8. After that he decided to vote Libertarian.

I was having similar feeling about Harris, and there was no way I was going to vote for Cooley. In the end I voted for Harris  

Male 21 Dem Ca's 1st  

---

by: lordpet8 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 09:44:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just want to know why

being pro-death penalty is such a big deal to so many people, particularly those who otherwise lean Democratic. There are strong arguments to be made either way, (and that's being generously balanced in the assessment), so why is such a sticking point?

---

by: jwaalk @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 12:48:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well it's very emotional, and I don't mean that derisively at all......

In my bachelor days I was more strongly anti-death penalty.

Now as a husband and father I'm more ambivalent, although were I a legislator casting a vote, I still think I'd end up on the "no" side.

You read stories of people getting murdered, good people, innocent people, and how can it not make one angry?  And it's a very short step to say from there, the assailant is a piece of shit and deserves to die.  Which is true, a brutal murderer certainly doesn't "deserve" to live.

Just picture how angry we get as liberals when hearing or reading stories of racial or sexual or anti-gay violence.  For everyone regardless of their politics, it's the same for capital offenses.

I'm not surprised at all that opposition to the death penalty hurts a candidate.  It plays into the "soft on crime" stereotype, as unfair as it is.

And yet, that some SSPers here admit they're still not bothered if Harris wins, or that they still didn't vote for Cooley, just shows that the death penalty is very seldom a decisive voting issue.  Even in Virginia in 2005, Tim Kaine wasn't hurt at all by his personal opposition to the death penalty; once he promised he would enforce the death penalty in spite of his disagreement, that was good enough for voters, and Jerry Kilgore's attacks on Kaine's death penalty opposition fell on deaf ears.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 14:55:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still strongly oppose the death penalty...

On the grounds that no bureaucrat should make someone else's life and death decisions. There's most certainly a proper role in government (which is why I',m a Democrat and progressive), but certainly not there. I'm a civil libertarian at heart, and btw that's how I can justify being anti-capital-punishment and pro-choice.

But yes, I agree with you that as personal and emotional the death penalty issue can be, in the end it may not be any sort of strong deal maker or deal breaker for the vast majority of voters. My mom opposes the death penalty, but that didn't stop her from voting for so many Republicans for all these years. (Maybe it is now, as she recently reregistered as Decline-to-State in CA. We'll see.) And I oppose the death penalty, but that hasn't stopped me from voting for a number of pro-capital-punishment Democrats.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:10:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmm

I voted for Harris in the primary. I looked at the polls suggesting it was between Harris and Kelly, and then went Harris on the grounds that I'd rather have a large-county DA than a rich schmuck with no relevant experience. (I identify as indy but registered D to vote in the primary.)

I'd be ok with either as AG, but voted for Cooley because he has more experience, seemed like he'd be less likely to try to do too much, and had most of the newspaper endorsements. Harris has some interesting ideas but seems like she might be a better fit for the legislature.

BTW I'm against the death penalty because I don't trust juries or prosecutors to get it right every time.  

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:56:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Something I found really interesting in the results

 Was that although Harris is from San Francisco, she won San Mateo County by only 18 points which is just to the south of SF. Obama won there by 50 so when you put in the lean, you would expect a 26 point Harris win. I thought being near SF would help her margins there.

I am guessing that Cooley picked a few more points than expected there because it has alot of moderates in Hillsborough and Woodside.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 04:59:17 AM UTC

Hillsborough and Woodside

are a very tiny fraction of the population, with barely 10k and 5k people out of more than 700k population.

According to the SoS map, Kamala is winning San Mateo by about 22 points, which isn't that far off from the 26 points you mentioned, though still underperforming a little.

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

---

by: Ellipsis @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 05:40:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I love the SoS result maps for all the races

San Mateo... Brown +34, Newsom +35, Bowen +38, Chiang +40, Lockyer +43

Harris +22 is obviously way less... but it is similar to SF.  Harris won San Francisco by 51 points, but Lockyer won by 66%.

I mentioned this deep in another thread, but since it fascinates me I'll mention the maps again....

The SoS site has election maps for each statewide race.  It's a very interesting visual that displays the range between the worst performing Dem (Harris) and the best (Lockyer).
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/at...
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/tr...
The AG race shows the Dem base of the north coast, Bay Area and LA, while the Treasurer race shows what Dems can win with a strong canidate with no baggage... the entire coast except Orange, plus San Bernadino, Nevada county, Fresno and the west/central valley.

Lockyer only overperformed Brown by three points, but he picked up 11 more counties.

Chiang did even better in terms of counties winning east of Sacramento, but fared much worse (and lost) in Riverside and Ventura (opponent's home county). A comparison of Lockyer and Chiang is also very interesting, as they got about the same number of votes, but one won and one lost in a dozen different counties.

Lockyer won Ventura by 8 points, Chiang lost by .5%
Chiang won Calaveras by 10.5%, Lockyer lost it by 3%

---

by: tommypaine @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 07:42:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What the hell is going on with Chiang?

He completely dominated NorCal in a way I've never seen anyone do. And not just in the Bay Area/North Coast, but he completely swept Gold Country and kept it close in the upper Sacramento Valley, and that's just unheard of for a Democrat. Outside of Orange, Kern and Tulare the Republican only managed to win a majority in three northern counties.

No other Democrat this year came close to what Chiang pulled off in the interior north. Not even Obama, who lost most of those counties by double digits, and Obama had a much bigger win overall.

Strangest thing about that is Chiang himself is a SoCaler while Lockyer is a Bay Area liberal, yet Lockyer did better in the south and Chiang did better in the north. What the heck is going on?

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

---

by: Ellipsis @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 08:41:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seems like he could be

an amazing candidate for Feinstein's Senate seat in 2012.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 12:52:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But he still got less votes than Lockyer!

That is what amazes me.  He took all kinds of counties Lockyer and Bowen didn't, but he ran behind Lockyer overall.

Of course part of this depends on the Republican, like Chiang losing Ventura because his oponent comes from there, but it is hard to understand how he took all of Lundgren's district but Lockyer didn't.

The most important bottom line I think is if you take Lockyer and Chiang's results together.  It shows only 14 counties of 58 that one or the other Dems didn't carry.  Overall Brown, Boxer and Harris (and Newson too) were below average candidates.  Stronger Dems can run up much bigger numbers in a far wider array of counties than just the base ones Brown and Boxer carried.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 13:16:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well Brown

did win Del Norte, a county which Obama narrowly lost. And he still performed quite strong in the north, places like Butte, didn't underperform nearly as much as the raw numbers would suggest he should have.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:38:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ummm. there is a difference between being an incumbent

with millions spent attacking you and an incumbent who ran against an underfunded opponent. Boxer won the third most amount of votes in the entire country behind Bush and Kerry in 2004 so I am sure she is not a below average candidate.

I don't know how much stronger you want as Brown won by over 1 million votes and Boxer won by nearly 800k votes. BTW, each vote counts the same so it doesn't matter if all the votes are concentrated in a few or many counties as long as you have more votes than your opponent.  

---

by: gomer @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 20:00:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obviously all races are not equal

That doesn't say much.  Stronger candidates normally generate weaker opponents for one thing.

The results show Boxer is a below average candidate, as an incumbent with an average opponent.  Brown was a non-incumbent facing tons more money, and he is a flawed candidate who did better than Boxer.

And of course it matters where votes come from if you don't have tunnelvision and are thinking about races in the future, redistricting, longterm careers of people who ran this year etc etc.  If someone just looked at Boxer and Brown's results, they would come to a very wrong conclusion about the nature of the California electorate in terms of their openess to Dem candidates.  It's clear that lots more people who are willing to vote for solid Dem candidates than voted for Brown and Boxer.  The state is MUCH more blue than the Boxer and Brown results would suggest.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 22:35:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what does redistricting have anything to do with a Senate race?

What long term careers are you looking at with 70+ year old Boxer and Brown and Lockyer at 69 years old? They all won. Brown won by over 1 million votes. Boxer won by over 800k votes. California has elected exactly 2 Democratic governors in the last 25 years and they recalled the previous one. California has been very receptive to voting for Republicans for governor but Brown is subpar? Much bluer right ... Lockyer got less than 30,000 more votes than Brown who got more votes than Chiang and Bowen so Chiang and Bowen are much more subpar than Brown? Give me a break.  

---

by: gomer @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 00:07:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comparing the California of today

with the California of 10-30 years ago is apples and oranges, before the disasters Bush and Arnold proved to be. California may have been receptive to Republicans if the Democrats were complete disasters (which even Kamala Harris, as flawed as she is, is not), though the demographics are trending the wrong way for Republicans to win. If even the best the Republicans had (Cooley) couldn't do better than 50-50 against one of the weakest candidates that Democrats had (Harris), then the future of Team Red in California looks anything but bright. And also, it seems unlikely we will have another recall after the circus 7 years ago produced the governor that is now leaving office with approvals in the teens.

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

---

by: californianintexas @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 01:20:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you joking?

Look at the Chiang carried chunks of Lundgren's and Mclintock's districts. Lockyer carried Riverside, San Diego and San bernadino and SLO and others.

Boxer lost Tuolumne by over 25 points.  Chiang won it by ten points.  Jeez, how can you say these areas can't be friendlier to stronger Democrats when in fact they were?

And if you looked at the results you'll see Chiang and Bowen overperformed Brown, not the other way around.  Brown won by 12 points, Bowen won by 15, Lockyer and Chiang won by 19 points - but a very different 19 points, from different parts of the state.

You can just pretend the Dems all won the same areas, but the maps prove you are objectively wrong.  It's an objective fact that other areas of the state beyond the counties that Brown and Boxer carried were willing to vote for Democrats like Chiang and Lockyer.  

---

by: tommypaine @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 01:55:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you do know that land/counties do not vote and that number

of votes matter right? Brown GOT MORE VOTES than Chiang or Bowen. That means that more people supported Brown than Chiang or Bowen objectively. Boxer got more votes than Bowen. Lockyer got only about 30k more votes than Brown in a state with 8.9 million votes.  Who cares if they win more land/counties. Person with more votes WINS in a statewide election ... the difference in each county is marginal and depends on lots of factors such as incumbency, candidate strength, home town of candidates, etc. The fact is Brown who you said is a subpar candidate got more votes than everyone except one other statewide candidate after taking on 130 million in negative attacks. Guess who decided not to run for governor once he got wind that Brown was going to run ... Lockyer. I don't even like Brown but he ran a great race.  

---

by: gomer @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 03:31:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're just being silly

"Person with more votes WINS in a statewide election"  Um, no.  The person who gets the most votes in each individual race.

More people vote in the top of the ticket Gov race than the Controller race. Duh, who cares?

---

by: tommypaine @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 07:18:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And because

races such as Governor and Senator are naturally high-profile thus voters are much more likely to have an opinion.

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

---

by: californianintexas @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 08:14:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chiang and Bowen are two of my favorites

   but part of the reason they did so well may be that their jobs are seen as less ideological or political and more administrative or functionary. They are incumbents who did good jobs in their first terms so they were rewarded with strong support for re-election. That is not to say that they couldn't be great Senators or Governors, but their current offices are more low profile and less controversial (although Chiang did manage to get into some fights with Ahhnold and come out on top.)

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 10:31:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

here is what is ridiculous

 "someone just looked at Boxer and Brown's results, they would come to a very wrong conclusion about the nature of the California electorate in terms of their openess to Dem candidates.  It's clear that lots more people who are willing to vote for solid Dem candidates than voted for Brown and Boxer.  The state is MUCH more blue than the Boxer and Brown results would suggest."

You held up Lockyer and Chiang as models of much stronger Democratic candidates when 1). Lockyer didn't even get into the governor's race because of Brown 2). Chiang received fewer votes than Brown. 3). A 30k vote difference between Lockyer and Brown does not show "lots more people ... are willing to vote for a solid Dem. candidate."

Then you looked at a county Tuolumne with 20k votes as somehow illustrative when the difference between Brown and Chiang and Boxer is about 2800 votes. Maybe it's because Tuolume is full of retired state workers who remember that Chiang signs all their pension checks. What about the fact that Chiang underperformed the last Democratic incumbent running for reelection as Controller in Tuolumne and elsewhere? Shouldn't you tout Kathleen Connell last seen losing the LA mayor's race as the model for Democratic candidates?

Brown and Boxer ran great races in the face of millions of dollars in attack ad. You are basically claiming someone else could have done better. Great but the fact is, they didn't run and the vote totals do not back up your claims.  

---

by: gomer @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 13:11:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"What long term careers are you looking at?"

You honestly don't think Bowen and Chiang have longterm career possibilites, really?  Or Newson?  Or even Harris?

C'mon, get serious.

---

by: tommypaine @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 01:58:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually Lockyer is NOT...

a Bay Area liberal

He may be from up north, but he p*ssed off a lot of CA progressives for voting for Arnold in 2003, supporting the death penalty, not going gaga goo goo over single payer health care, and so on, and so forth. Remember, most CA Dems don't buy the whole "electability" argument. That's why they were more than happy to take a chance on Kamala Harris in the AG primary, and why the whole "San Francisco Liberal" mystique worked to Gavin Newsom's advantage in the LG primary.

I heard some of my Cali friends were considering casting a protest vote for the Green candidate in the Treasurer race, so I wonder if any of that actually materialized in the final results.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:30:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He may not be liberal enough for everyone

but he's still from the Bay Area and still has a pretty liberal record on most issues, and that's enough for me to call him a Bay Area liberal. He's been a big supporter of environmental protection laws and sued car manufacturers for causing global warming. He took on the NRA, went after Enron and defended medical marijuana before it went completely mainstream.

And I know a lot of liberals who voted for Arnold over the walking trainwreck that was Cruz Bustamante. I don't think that's enough to revoke someone's liberal credentials, especially since Lockyer didn't announce his vote during but after the recall election (if he'd done it during the campaign then he could be more fairly criticized for sabotaging his party, and he later became a big Arnold critic).

The one big thing where Lockyer's pissed me off is suing to stop SF gay marriages in 2003, and even then I understand the logic behind his decision (as much as I love Gavin Newsom for what he did, his legal rationale was quite shaky).

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

---

by: Ellipsis @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 17:42:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Remember, we're talking about...

Fiercely progressive California Democrats here. To my Bay Area friends, Lockyer is NOT liberal/progressive. Remember that what Democrats in other states may consider "liberal" most Cali Dems consider centrist or even "ConservaDem". Lockyer is one of those cases. (Hell, some progressives in Cali don't even consider Gavin Newsom "pure" enough! They certainly weren't in love with Jerry Brown for all his "austerity" talk and not explicitly endorsing single payer.)

I almost forgot Lockyer suing to stop the "Winter of Love" SF 2004 marriages. That's yet another strike against him for Cali Dem progressives.

And for my friends there, and even my progressive friends in OC (yes, they exist), when they don't like a "ConservaDem", they vote for the Green Party candidate. That's what some of them did regarding Cruz Bustamante (in 2003 and 2006).

And yes, for them and many other California progressive Dems, voting for Arnold is enough to revoke one's "progressive street cred".

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 18:07:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know way too many people like that

At a party in SF a few days ago, I listened to two people discuss how great it is that Gavin Newsom is leaving the city because he was too conservative and now they can get a "real progressive" into office. (Friends of yours, maybe? :) )

Just because some liberal activists don't consider guys like Newsom and Lockyer "pure" enough doesn't mean they're not liberals, in the same way that some people thinking Sharron Angle is not conservative enough (14 percent! according to CNN exit polls) doesn't mean she's not a far-right fringe candidate.

So I'm going to keep calling Lockyer a liberal. And I don't think we can assume the view of most CA Dems from the views of a small group of liberal activists. I'm betting the people who are down on Lockyer also think Feinstein is too conservative, and yet most CA Dems seem to love her and think she's just fine.

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

---

by: Ellipsis @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 18:30:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, there are standard voters and there are activists...

And I don't think we can assume the view of most CA Dems from the views of a small group of liberal activists. I'm betting the people who are down on Lockyer also think Feinstein is too conservative, and yet most CA Dems seem to love her and think she's just fine.

True. Even with all the progressive angst, Feinstein doesn't look all that vulnerable.

Just because some liberal activists don't consider guys like Newsom and Lockyer "pure" enough doesn't mean they're not liberals

What I guess I should have said earlier is that "liberal" is in the eye of the beholder. While you and many other folks consider Bill Lockyer "liberal", a number of progressive activists inside the CDP don't agree with you. It all depends on how one defines "liberal" and "progressive".

people thinking Sharron Angle is not conservative enough

Those folks are just total loons. And yes, a few of them do exist here in Nevada... But I doubt it's really 14%. (Remember, many low information voters may not really grasp "liberal" and "conservative" labels.)

And btw, we don't have too many of these ideological battles within the Nevada State Democratic Party (NSDP). If anyone had tried to do to Harry Reid what some CA Dem progressives want to do to Dianne Feinstein, they would have been thrown overboard faster than Sharron Angle could run away from the press!

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 19:01:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Difi

I'm one of those activists who doesn't like Feinstein, but it is a little more nuanced than her just being too conservative.  She's good on a number of issues, and manages to get stuff done.

 My problem with Feinstein is she's a foreign policy hawk, while her husband owns a huge portion of a defense contractor (see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/... ).  This not only rubs me the wrong way in terms of policy, but it also smells bad to have one of her most out-of-character for CA positions also be one where she personally benefits.

28, male, Independent (liberal), CA-53

---

by: kball @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 20:45:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Newsom's

actually considered a moderate when you compare him to the SF Board of Supervisors. Which banned happy meals at McDonalds this week.....

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 19:13:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How the left 2% defines people isn't useful

Lockyer is a Bay Area Liberal by any definition of "liberal" where 27% of Californians (exit poll) are "liberal".

---

by: tommypaine @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 22:42:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

regarding the Treasurer's race

   The Green candidate, Kit Crittenden (who is a personal friend of mine) came in third place, ahead of the Libertarian and the others (Peace and Feeedom and AIP in last place). Kit is a great guy but I think he did relatively well because Lockyer was such a lock for reelection that many people who weren't excited by the incumbent decided to scratch their third party itch by voting Green.

    The Greens came in third place for Treasurer, Secretary of State and Attorney General while the Libertarians came in third for Lt Gov (with 6%), Controller, Insurance Commissioner and U.S. Senator. The American Independents (a rightwing splinter party, the CA version of the Constitution Party) came in third for Governor presumably with votes from GOP hardliners who didn't like Whitman. The Peace and Freedomites ran no higher than fourth place (for Controller and Insurance Commissioner where their candidates were "some dudettes" with Spanish names.) If the top two primary is still in effect in four years nobody will have a third place finish and the alternative parties will mostly lose ballot status. In CA ballot status is maintained by getting at least 2% in a statewide general election race, which all six parties achieved this year.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 19:11:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

State Workers for Chiang

Chiang did well in the Sacto area because he was seen as a champion for state workers. He fought Schwarzenegger for months over state worker furloughs. He was on the front page of the Sacramento Bee a lot this year. Even conservative state workers will vote Democrat when they see it hit their pocketbooks that directly.

---

by: Bothwell @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 01:22:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you for doing another update!

especially with the good news. Cooley's loss would bring a smile to my face. (Full disclosure: I don't live in California, but I still hate Cooley.)

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/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 05:26:45 AM UTC

Agreed!

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 05:48:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seconded!

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

---

by: californianintexas @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 06:07:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

these full disclosures are getting kind of silly

If you dont work for a candidate involved in the race you are commenting on, then you there is nothing to disclose.  We just want to want to know if you are getting some measurable personal gain for making a comment that we'll all read.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 16:46:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a joke.

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/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 17:01:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the shout out Jeff!

I've really gotten into this race, mainly because there weren't really any close races in CA in 2008 (other than CA-44, which I knew deep down wouldn't change hands)

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 05:34:47 AM UTC

Full disclosure

I voted for Harris because Cooley when he speaks sounds like his mouth is loaded with marbles.

The race shall be decided by one vote.

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 05:37:18 AM UTC

OMG

Kurt Cobain lives in the form of Cooley!

/end snark

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."

---

by: OGGoldy @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 05:41:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This race is driving me nuts

I've been talking about this at work every day, and now I've got many of my coworkers watching this one closely as well.

California, I love you, but you need to hurry the frak up with that counting. Even Washington is beating us, and that's just sad.

And just in case anyone's still not sure why this one matters:

Perhaps most important, state AGs play a key role in reining in corporate excesses. Some former state AGs, like Dick Blumenthal in Connecticut or Andrew Cuomo in New York (now Sen.-elect Blumenthal and Gov.-elect Cuomo, respectively), earned themselves the enmity of corporate America-and the thanks of voters-for their aggressive pursuit of tobacco companies and Wall Street, respectively. California is much bigger than New York or Connecticut, and the AG there can have a greater impact on national issues than Cuomo or Blumenthal have had as AGs. Consequently, the tobacco, insurance, and gambling interests that fund the [Republican State Leadership Committee] have good cause to make sure Harris isn't elected.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/20...

Go Kamala!

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

---

by: Ellipsis @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 06:35:53 AM UTC

In California's case

the AG has a huge impact on the Prop 8 case.

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/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 06:42:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clearly that's the big one

and the single biggest deciding factor for me. But people need to remember that AGs have a lot of impact on important but less hot-button issues. One of the things that impressed me most about Andrew Cuomo, for example, is his investigation into student loan policies, which doesn't grab Prop 8-style headlines but is still pretty impactful. As moderate as Cooley might be, I don't see him as the public crusader type, and I think/hope Kamala will be.

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

---

by: Ellipsis @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 08:26:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is one issue people have with MN's AG

She does specifically go for the head-line making, politically helpful cases and she's gotten complaints from within the department about it.  She's only 43, AG's move on to Gov probably more so than any position, and she's a DFLer in a DFL-leaning state.  Bleh, Rebecca Otto, whose the state auditor, could hopefully knock her out.  She's more popular within the DFL and only four years older so she'll be the one to always tower over Swanson whenever something opens up.  And I gotta love that her campaign strategy has always been just going through her opponents expense reports, marking it up in red and showing all the mistakes as a commercial.

This of course isnt for 16 years as we've got 8 years of Dayton (or four, he may not get so lucky with a GOPish Indy candidate again) and 8 years of Minneapolis mayor RT Rybak ahead of us.  If Klobuchar moves up to VP in 2016 watch for a big battle between Otto and Swanson for the appointment to the seat with Otto definitely being the victor.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 17:07:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why

Why on earth does it take so long to count the votes?

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22

---

by: Zornorph @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 07:27:45 AM UTC

They say it takes this long every time

Basically 3 million votes have to have their signatures matched to their registration cards.  Till now there has never been a close enough race to add tons of employees that had to be trained/trusted/vetted to care about that last three million or so votes.

I don't know why some counties don't make any dent in their ballots though.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 07:33:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And this might be the last close race for a long time.

Democrats have become so dominant in California that even moderate Republicans have trouble winning.

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

---

by: californianintexas @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 08:50:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

statewide, anyway

since presumably state legislative and congressional districts will be drawn to be more competitive.

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/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 08:54:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah I forgot to add statewide.

And I'm glad. This two-week-long wait is nervewracking!

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

---

by: californianintexas @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 09:10:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the slow-mo result.

The vote is turning out well. Let's enjoy our little victory here. The longer it takes to eke out, the longer we don't have to think full time about all the bad things happening in the country and the world. It's a weapon of our distraction.

---

by: stevenaxelrod @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 11:48:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

lol

I already have my own distractions with school, chores, and stuff.

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

---

by: californianintexas @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 11:55:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I guess I shouldnt even complain about MN-Gov

I at least know who will win, it'll just take a little bit and then we have to all wait on pins and needles to see how big of assholes the MNGOP decide to be in suing over ACORN-style bullshit voter fraud.  

They literally are using this as an example of voter problems to talk up as a reason to sue and investigate things (just as a narrative to warm us up to a big court battle over nothing); the largest county in the state, when updating their numbers, the worker hit "add" instead of "replace" so for 45 minutes the results were roughly double what they should have been.  Didnt even affect the actual race numbers since all candidates were given the same exact percentage of extra votes but ya know, ahhhhhh!  ACORN, black people, voter fraud!!!

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 17:14:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The CA SoS should become more efficient and transparent

in at least two ways:

1) Provide timelier updates.  The SoS only updates results when the counties send the results to the SoS.  El Dorado County has not had any updates on the SoS site since election day.  But, on the county web site, there was one update a few days after the election and another update more recently.  The SoS should be more proactive in contacting counties, rather than just waiting for the counties to send in the information.  Better yet, there should be an automatic electronic transfer from the county web site to the SoS web site.

2) Provide clearer updates.  The County Reporting Status and Unprocessed Ballot Status pages need to be merged into one page.  As it is now, they are not in sync.  (There are 18 counties in this situation per Jeffmd's adjustment notes above).  When a vote update is received, the unprocessed ballots should be updated for that county on the same web page.  The Washington SoS does this.  Their Voter Turnout page shows how many ballots have been counted, when the last update was, when the next update is expected and how many ballots are left to be counted.  Here is the format they use:

http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/W...

The excellent tables that Jeffmd put together clearly show where everything stands at this moment.  Debra Bowen, who was just reelected to a second term, should endeavor to update the SoS web site with a similar goal in mind.

---

by: DCal @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 17:54:20 PM UTC

Talk about Alpine County

as a bellwether in this race. Every candidate has the same percent of votes as statewide (including the third-party ones!)

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets

---

by: gabjoh @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 18:05:06 PM UTC

Heh... Umm...

more sheepish laughter... it was just a computer error, showing that. (Either that or the county has the same number of votes as all of the state combined, implying every California voter lives in one tiny county that borders Nevada.)

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets

---

by: gabjoh @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 18:28:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Occasionally that happens

or at least it feels like it does, when a good snow falls and it feels like every person in the state is skiing at Bear Valley or Kirkwood.

I don't think Alpine qualifies as a bellwether in the same way San Benito does, but it's quickly becoming more liberal (Kerry was the first Dem to win it since FDR, then Obama won big and it was one of the few interior counties to vote against Prop 8).

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

---

by: Ellipsis @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 18:38:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alpine County has fewer than a thousand voters

   so that ain't all the CA electorate. Also they got their vote count done on election night (all five precincts.) It is a beautiful and uncrowded area, south of Tahoe and north of Yosemite. It votes more Democratic than most mountain counties because it's population isn't just cowboys, but is cowboys, Indians and skiers. Mono is similar but not as Democratic as its northern neighbor.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 19:21:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I called this race on the other thread when Harris took a 5K lead

Kamala now leads by 14043 votes with the remaining again looking like pretty well divided turf.  

---

by: politics64 @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 18:40:52 PM UTC

Keeping my fingers crossed...

Hopefully Kamala pulls this one out. I'm also cautiously optimistic that she will be able to carry Santa Barbara or Sacramento Counties (or both). She's closed the gap quite significantly in both counties since election night.

BTW - anyone here from Wisconsin? I'm really curious about outgoing LG Barbara Lawton. What' the story with her? Is she still popular, or has Doyle rendered her unelectable for the near foreseeable future?

26, gay male, Progressive Dem, CA-38 (former resident CA-32, CA-53, NV-03)  

26, Liberal Democrat, gay male, CA-38

---

by: BluntDiplomat @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 01:18:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm not from WI

and this is more open thread talk, but i remember from when she decided not to run that it was because she wasn't all that popular to begin with.  the talk was that she was unelectable statewide, too liberal i think, or perhaps just unlikable.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 03:41:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kamala now up

by 15,199, according to SoS:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/at...

These are probably still behind Jeff's numbers above, but I noticed there have been a couple updates to the SoS numbers already today. Not sure how many votes have been added altogether...

---

by: itskevin @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 20:31:04 PM UTC

They updated it AGAIN!

Kamala is up 31,483!  Her biggest lead yet I believe.  She has a .4% edge on Cooley.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:06:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]