| California's answer to David Broder, George Skelton, practically falls all over himself in today's LA Times in excitement over a possible Dianne Feinstein candidacy. But in doing so he misses two crucial points - her poll numbers among Democrats aren't that strong, and her "leadership" on major California issues has been weak to nonexistent. There's just not much here to indicate that DiFi is the unstoppable force in 2010 that Skelton would have us believe.
Skelton writes:
You can almost feel the shudders and shock among the other Democrats gearing up to compete for governor when Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger is termed out in two years. Feinstein's candidacy would be an earthquake on the California political landscape -- likely burying the current front-runner, former governor and current state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown.
A private poll taken in mid-July shows Feinstein trouncing Brown 50% to 24% in a hypothetical Democratic primary. A third candidate, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, gets only 10%.
But Skelton's missing a key point here. As the Moore poll was explained in the SF Chronicle last month:
But if you add Feinstein to the mix - and take out Newsom, Villaraigosa and O'Connell, figuring they might bow out if she jumps in - Brown drops to 24 percent, and the state's senior senator grabs 50 percent.
That's a weak number, not a strong number. Feinstein, one of the state's most identifiable Democrats and a leading US Senator, only gets 50%? Among Democrats? Polling wisdom suggests that any incumbent polling at or below 50% is in trouble. These numbers suggest that Democrats aren't nearly as enthused about a Feinstein for governor campaign as Skelton would have us believe.
In contrast to the rah-rah column Skelton wrote, Feinstein is in serious trouble with the California Democratic rank and file. Her weak polling numbers as described above suggest an inability to consolidate the base around her.
The reasons for this weakness are that, in contrast to what Skelton argues, Feinstein isn't actually a good leader on California political issues. He quotes DiFi:
And she went on about California's problems: "Think back, there's been no major water infrastructure built since Pat Brown was governor. Everything's drying up. . . . California sort of rests on its laurels. . . . You've got to move people, you've got to move goods. . . . I'd love to be the governor who builds the high-speed rail."
It's big talk, but it hasn't been backed up with action. The US Senate is in a very strong position to help California address these problems, especially with money. But California remains a donor state, giving more to the federal government in taxes than it receives in spending. Feinstein is one of the leading Senators and has good relations with Republicans - more on that in a moment - but hasn't used those relationships to help California address its problems.
To take one example, high speed rail. Feinstein doesn't have to wait to be governor to help build it. One of the persistent criticisms of the HSR project is that federal funding isn't guaranteed, so we're taking a risk by passing the Prop 1 bond. Feinstein could have helped deliver federal money to the HSR project, even a small amount as a sign of future commitments, to defuse that argument. Harry Reid got $45 million to study a maglev train that will probably never be built - surely Feinstein could have done the same. Feinstein could also exercise leadership right now in resolving disputes between some environmentalists and the HSR project.
Instead of showing that leadership Feinstein has recently busied herself gutting the Fourth Amendment by supporting Bush's FISA law. Her support of Attorney General Michael Mukasey has backfired badly. Her role in helping confirm far-right anti-choice justices like Leslie Southwick undermined her support among women's rights advocates.
Over the last few years Feinstein has been piling up bad feelings among Democrats. To date Dems haven't had a contested primary to vent that anger, but if she runs in 2010, they will.
Given the above it seems likely that a DiFi candidacy, rather than being a shoo-in, will more closely resemble the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, where the presumed front-runner ran into a deep well of discontent among Democratic voters that a smart opponent successfully exploited. Skelton thinks that DiFi's possible rivals are worrying about her supposedly strong poll numbers. What's just as likely is that they see what Hillary's Democratic rivals saw earlier this year - a flawed candidate who is resented by lots of Democrats, providing an opportunity for a good challenger to deal her a bitter defeat.
Skelton's love of bipartisanship seems to be blinding him to the very real struggles she will face if she runs in 2010. No wonder she refused to tell him she would run.
[UPDATE by Robert] The issue of DiFi's favorables is worth a bit of exploration. In an email to me Skelton quoted the Moore poll as giving DiFi a 75% favorability rating among Democrats compared to Jerry Brown's 58%. But the latest Field Poll shows her support only at 64%.
And even if you stick with the Moore numbers, she polls 75% favorable among Dems but only 50% would vote for her for governor. That's soft support, folks. A strong campaign from several Democratic candidates, all focused on tearing down the frontrunner DiFi, would create a much closer race than Skelton suggests. |
