As the primary race for Governor comes to a close, online sources point to a potential swing of momentum in favor of Steve Westly. The first comes from the latest poll from Survey USA which has Angeledis up, but Westly closing in the final days.

4 days to the 6/6/06 Primary, it’s Angelides 41%, Westly 37%. Compared to a SurveyUSA poll released 8 days ago, Angelides has lost 3 points, Westly has gained 5 points. Angelides was up by 18 among Male voters, now up by 4. Angelides had led by 9 among voters age 35 to 49, now trails by 5. However, among voters age 65+, Angelides had led by 2, now leads by 9. Among Moderates, Angelides had led by 7, now trails by 1. Among voters who earn between $40K and $80K a year, Angelides had led by 14, now trails by 1. In the Central Valley, which includes Sacramento and Fresno, Angelides had led by 3, now trails by 13.

That last number is huge, as Angelides should be leading in his home region. However, the bad news ofr Phil isn’t over. Bill Bradley of New West Notes has worse news.

A private poll for a major manufacturer tracked till Thursday. It showed an extremely close race, with a very slender one-point edge to Westly, and some 30 percent undecided. More promising for the controller were the poll’s “internals,” measures of strength on issues and associations. Westly did well on the environment, education, trustworthiness, and association with the respondent’s values.

This will be a close one, but I would much rather be the candidate with the momentum going to the end of the race. See you on Tuesday night!

There has been this almost slanderous rumor going around saying that Francine Busby was encouraging voter fraud.

If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: “You don’t need papers for voting.”

On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: “You don’t need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign).”

She said that subsequent statement was to clarify what she meant.(SanDiego U-T)

Bilbray remarked that he doesn’t know how “she can show her face.”  But, the real question is will we ever see the real face of Brian Bilbray.  He lies, obfuscates, misleads, and takes statements out of context.  It’s just the game he and the NRCC are running the 50th.  However, this time it isn’t even working for the conservatives.  This is from Wizbang, a conservative, sometimes shrill, blog:

Quite a few people are in high dudgeon over California Democratic congressional candidate Francine Busby and her apparent solicitation of votes from illegal aliens, including my own colleague Kim Priestap. As a hard-nose on the illegal alien issue, the thought of this happening infuriated me, so I started looking into it myself. And my conclusion? As Dorothy Parker said, “there’s no ‘there’ there.”
***
I hope she is defeated in Congress, as it is attitudes like hers that have put us in such a bind regarding illegal aliens. But I’m afraid this is hardly a smoking gun. (WizBang 6/4/06)

Read the full post for his more in-depth analysis of the quote.  But, suffice it to say that Busby has no reason to hang her head in shame.  Bilbray, the anti-immigration lobbyist, is hardly in any reason to chastise others, especially for non-existent ethical shortcomings.

And please, please, if you can get down to the 50th today, tomorrow, or Tuesday, please do.  The value of a win in the 50th cannot be underestimated.

It’s a nativists worst nightmare.  One temporary worker yields over thirty new citizens.  Most people would be appreciative of a Marine who is wounded for his new country wanting to become a citizen.  But not Rohrabacher:

In his recent address to the nation on immigration, President Bush highlighted the patriotism of Guadalupe Denogean, a Mexican-born man who joined the Marines more than a quarter-century ago and got his wish for U.S. citizenship in 2003 after being seriously wounded in Iraq.
***
But to the critics who say there already are too many immigrants here, the story of how the Denogean family settled in the United States is a different sort of parable — a cautionary tale about the true footprint of guest-worker programs billed as limited or temporary.

Three generations later, what began as one temporary guest worker slot for Denogean’s father has morphed into citizenship — by naturalization or birthright — for 32 immediate relatives and descendants.
***
“It’s not just the guest worker,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, one of the staunchest opponents of relaxing immigration policy. “Every person you permit in has brothers and sisters who are married to someone who has brothers and sisters who are married to someone. The figures are a bit mind-boggling if we don’t act responsibly now.”(SacBee 6/4/06)

I’m sorry, but I can’t find any other way to describe that sentiment but what is ultimately a form of racism: nativism.  What right does Dana Rohrabacher have to be here that exceeds Denogean’s right to be here? I assure you that Rohrabacher’s family were at one time immigrants.  Where would he have been had they been denied entry into the country? (Dear Reader: Insert obligatory nasty comment here.)  The only people who can legitimately use nativism are the Native Americans (proper noun).  Explain to me why the Rohrabacher family should be any more welcome in the United States than the Denogean family.  I looked it up on Ancestry.com, and it appears that there were no Rohrabachers in the United States until the 1870 Census.

We built a nation (after stealing land from the Native Americans) on bringing immigrants to our country.  Why is it up to our generation(s) to end that?  Immigrants should be accepted as a valuable asset, not a scourge to be snuffed out.  Our economy relies on infusions of labor to continue humming.  Frankly, if we did not have immigrants we would be a stagnant nation, with declining birth rates and a labor crunch (ie Japan).  So unless Rohrabacher wants to get serious and start deporting all but the REAL Native Americans, the GOP should consider its words for what they really are: racism.

Dear Friend:

As you may know, we are strong supporters of John Russo for State
Assembly.  We know that John is the person we need in Sacramento.  We also know John personally and he has been a passionate, outspoken champion for our kids
and for our neighborhoods for nearly 20 years.

The Russo for Assembly campaign is going well.  John has done 75 House
Parties and has knocked on more than one thousand doors.  The campaign is
ready for the final push.  In fact, the Russo campaign has gone so well
that John’s opponents have resorted to distorting John’s record.  WE NEED
YOUR HELP to get the truth out about these mailicious distortions
because, without a response, many people will believe the lies.

Sandre Swanson’s supporters have made two claims against John.  One, that
in 1997 John supported a huge City Council pay increase; and, two, that
in 1997 John supported taking money away from the Kids First program.
Both of these claims are false.

Here are the facts:

1)  At no time during his nearly twelve years of excellent public service
has John ever made a discretionary vote to raise his own salary.  To the
contrary, when the City Council did have power over its own salaries,
John voted against two pay raises and refused to take a raise when he
lost on those motions.(Please see the attached Oakland Tribune column for
the real story.)  As City Attorney, John has no authority over his own
salary and, therefore, had no role in setting the City Attorney’s salary.
The City Attorney salary is determined by the City Charter.
Ironically, given the Swanson’s campaign’ lies, John Russo is the only
elected official in the East Bay to take a voluntary pay cut.  During the
Oakland budget crisis in 2002-03, John took a voluntary paycut that cost
him over $10,000.  He did this to encourage others in the City to give a
little so as to save jobs.  Unfortunatley, not one other City official or
employee followed his generous lead.

2)  John never voted to take money out of the calculated amount for
Kids First set aside.  The calculation was based upon the Charter and the
interpretation of the Charter by the City Attorney’s office and City
Staff. John was not the City Attorney at that time. The irony here is
that John was one of only 3 Councilmembers who supported the 1996
initiative creating the Kids First set aside.  And as City Attorney, John
issued opinions regarding the Kids First calculation that corrected the
earlier interpretation and has resulted in an additional  $1.67 Million
Dollars for the Kids First program. (Please go to the City Attorney’s
website and look under “Notable Cases” to find the truth for yourself.)

So here’s the situation:  Sandre Swanson’s friends from the Sacramento
PACs waited until the last minute and misrepresented John’s position on
two controversial measures.  They then use these distortions to suggest
John is greedy.  This is outrageous.  We need to stop them.  Here’s how:

TAKE THIS E-MAIL AND SEND IT TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAIL LIST!  There is
great power in people who have the truth.  We have a chance here to say
no to negative and misleading campaigns right at our fingertips.  All we
have to do is let our friends know what is really going on.

Thanks for your time, and don’t forget to vote for John Russo for
Assembly.

Howard Neal, former President, Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation
C.J. Hirschfield, Executive Director, Children’s Fairyland*

(*Children’s Fairyland name is used here for identification purposes only)

(Some good analysis – promoted by SFBrianCL)

To go along with my Senate and Assembly final predictions, here’s my rundown of the state offices in Tuesday’s primary. I am basing my predictions not just on polls, but on assumptions of turnout – for example, liberal Democrats are much more likely to be voting on Tuesday than independents or moderates who lean Democratic, etc. Also, Hispanic turnout is expected to be low (as usual), and Northern California typically turns out at a higher percentage than Southern California, especially in primaries.

So, here goes. Go below the fold…

Governor – Common sense would indicate the Democratic primary here is a tossup between Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly, but I really believe that moderates and independents are unlikely to vote. Liberals will tip it toward Angelides, possibly by a larger-than-expected margin.

Lieutenant Governor – Total tossup. Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi had the edge for a while with his huge name recognition, but the latest Field Poll shows State Senator Jackie Speier of San Francisco with a 5-point lead. Garamendi leads among men, Speier among women (no surprise there), with Northern Californians more likely to back Speier and Southern Californians more likely to back Garamendi (likely due to name recognition since none of the Lt. Gov. candidates are Southern Californians). So, the real question is, as always, who turns out? If the Bay Area is hot to vote, Speier wins it. If nobody’s really motivated, Garamendi wins.

Secretary of State – Another hard-to-predict one. State Senator Deborah Ortiz of Sacramento has a 6-point lead over fellow Senator Debra Bowen of Redondo Beach in the latest Field Poll. Ortiz’s Sacramento and Bay Area base appears to be helping her, and because of Ortiz being Hispanic, that is probably helping her eat away at Bowen’s advantage in the south. But Bowen has been more active and noticeable in the political community, so tossup.

Controller – Republicans seem more sure about who they’re voting for than Democrats, with 75% of Republican primary voters set on a candidate, but just 37% of Democrats. On the GOP side, I think former State Assemblyman Tony Strickland of Moorpark will defeat State Senator Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria – the poll showed Strickland leading 43-32. This is good as Maldonado was the more popular, possibly electable candidate; Strickland is your typical wealthy, white, far-right California Republican man (think David Dreier, Dana Rohrabacher, or Tom McClintock). On the Dem side, it’s basically a tie between Board of Equalization Member John Chiang and State Senator Joe Dunn of Garden Grove; both have run a very positive campaign. If North turns out more than South, as I expect (which will help both Speier and Ortiz over Garamendi and Bowen), Chiang will beat Dunn, as the two are each dominating the two regions.

Treasurer – Attorney General Bill Lockyer wins the Dem nod; Repubs are split between moderate State Assemblyman Keith Richman of Northridge and conservative Board of Equalization Member Claude Parrish. If GOP anti-immigration, anti-tax activists dominate on Tuesday, Parrish wins. If it’s based more on name recognition, I think Richman wins. Either will lose to Lockyer though in November.

Attorney General – Democrats will overwhelmingly back Oakland Mayor and former Governor Jerry Brown, with L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo getting few votes outside of L.A. and heavily Hispanic areas. Republicans nominate State Senator Chuck Poochigian of Fresno.

Insurance Commissioner – It’s Lieutenant Gov. Cruz Bustamante for the Dems, and businessman Steve Poizner for the GOP, beginning a dirty and competitive campaign for November.