(Another excellent regional recap. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I figured I’d wait until all the votes were counted before I gave my rundown of the election, but they’re still counting absentee and provisional ballots as we speak, so  this could end up a bit off.

Nationally, things went strongly for Democrats, unseating Republican incumbants left and right, shifting control of both the House and (narrowly) the Senate, and pushing the Democratic caucus leftwards a bit (media narrative to the contrary). Here in California, things look a bit different, although Jerry McNerney’s grassroots upset in the 11th CD was a fantastic victory, Lou Correa’s narow win in the 34th State Senate District race down in OC looks solid enough to count on now, and Charlie Brown’s run in the 4th CD is a sign that no seat is safe when incumbants are corrupt and Democrats are willing to run hard with great candidates and local grassroots support. With some effort, similar challenges could be made, esp. in the 3rd CD and most of the so cal suburban seats as well in 2008. If McNerney and the new Democratic leadership in the House and Senate can start to work out a better deal for the delta and Central Valley agriculture, an alternative to the pro-corporate farm, anti-environmental, suburban sprawl, “free” trade, and commodity price depressing policies of Pombo’s old status quo, Calfornia Democrats might find that parts of Inland California might be less forbidding political territory than they assume. Here’s hoping McNerney gets the support to make it happen.

Here on the left coast, with our expensive media market and special incumbant-protection gerrymandering, incumbants and the status quo largely ruled the day, with nary a change in seats save McPherson’s losing to state senator and SoS-elect Debra Bowen. Schwarzeneggar held the statehouse, and the Democrats took everything else, except for Bustamante’s loss to Steve Poizner. Basically, California showed itself once again to be a Democratic state, as long as you don’t have an egregiously bad candidate (Bustamante), or the Democratic Party and its sources of income decide not to support you (Angelides). The old coastal/inland divide was in full effect for many of the races, although the 1E water bond reversed the usual pattern by pulling high numbers from the delta counties, somewhat unsurprisingly seeing as we’re the most likely to end up underwater if the levees go. The Courage Campaign has an interesting analysis of why the blue wave seemingly missed california here, and jules from Alliance for a Better California has another keen perspective here as well that’s worth a read as well. While the initial reports of the election harped on how low turnout is, the final results that are trickling in as elections boards muddle through the absentees and provisionals are showing turnout numbers in the low 50s. Which suck compared to 2004’s 76% turnout, but are still better than the low 40s numbers that were being trumpeted.

Here in Yolo County H and I were narrow votes, with H passing but I failing by an incredibly narow margin (it was moot anyways, since Sacramento County pounded Measure J), and with West Sac and Woodland buying the arguments in PG&E’s heaping mounds of flyers while Davis fought in vain to balance them out. sigh, Better luck next time, I guess. There is a thoughtful analysis by doug paul davis over at the davis vanguard on H and I as well. In the 3rd Supervisor District, Matt Rexroad beat Frank Sieferman 54-46, largely divided along urban-rural lines. Rexroad’s Woodland First strategy paid off well, and Sieferman was clearly outmatched in terms of fundraising and the mechanics of campaigning. It will be interesting to watch how Rexroad does as County Supe, and whether he forgets his protestations that he has no ambition for higher office in two years. A tip of the hat to Matt, though, for sending my traffic through the roof on election day. Let it not be said that I am ungrateful.

In Davis, choice voting passed easily 55-45, and Target passed with a narrower 52-48 a razor-thin margin of 674 votes, once the absentees came in, with No votes clustering in the old neighborhoods of downtown Davis, Old North Davis, North Davis (not the newer bird streets), East Davis,  Village Homes and part of Stonegate, whereas it gained support from South Davis, West Davis, North Davis and the rest of Stonegate. I’d bet that student votes played a deciding role, but then again they usually do, as part of the 20% of the town that isn’t really on one factional side or the other in the Mod-Prog turf wars. The No on X people assumed, I think, that the 60% there reflected a solid Progressive consensus in the city, something that the passing of K seems to disprove. My sense is that these elections are decided by a 20% in the middle who just don’t obsess about city politics the way that activists on either side do, and tend to tune in to the discussions towards election day, but don’t really have an emotional stake like the folks who put up yard signs or table at farmer’s market, or write impassioned letters to the Enterprise. My hunch is that the promise of cheaper stuff and the appeal of not having to drive out of town for basic shopping carried the day, and that the “Remember why you live in Davis” wasn’t convincing to people whose reason for living here has more to do with the location of their school or job than an ideological committment to a progressive community per se. Doesn’t mean that they can’t be convinced, just that I’m not so sure that they were really reached by the No on K folks all that well. I agree with Lamar that K was no mandate for further big box development; basically, both K and H&I suggest that elections can be bought with enough glossy mailers, but not landslide victories.

Personally, I think K presents a pretty clear way forward for the progressive camp; namely, that it is necessary to think about where we want the city to go, and how to solve problems that the city has, if we want to inspire or convince enough of the city to actually make that happen. If we want a healthy, thriving downtown, we need to work out how we’re going to preserve what we have while finding non-big box or non-chain options for buying basic goods not provided by the boutique shops that make up much of the downtown businesses. If we don’t want sprawl, we have to find a way for regular people to afford housing in town, and that probably means accepting a denser multistoried downtown. Lamar Heystek’s living wage suggestion is a good start, but a citywide living wage would be another interesting thing to move on. Mostly, I get the sense that the city is sort of floating, with both sides of the discussion defining their visions in strikingly conservative ways, preserving what is “unique” about Davis* as if our community were a fossil or work of art instead of talking about making it an interesting place and a healthier, more inclusive community.

*as if a bedroom comunity/college town with good schools and safe streets, and the occasional parade/farmer’s market is really as unique as all that.

cross-posted from surf putah

At the end of the last session, Fabian Nunez mentioned that sentencing reform wasn’t off the table.  Hardly a glowing endorsement of a process which we desperately need, but it’s a start.  After the remarks of the federal court’s prison health receiver, Robert Sillen, that he will do whatever is necessary to bring the health system into compliance with the federal court decision, we need to realize that it’s desperate action time.  We need to a)reduce prison population AND b) increase capacity.  Hopefully, the bonds will enable us to acheive the capacity part.

The reduction of prison population is a more difficult question.  Shipping inmates out of state is really only a temporary solution, and a dumb one if you ask me.  We simply have way too many people in prisons. We have over 150,000 prisoners, and we are at over 180% of capacity.  That’s just too much.  Our current sentencing process undervalues the process of rehabilitation.

Well, today, it seems that the Schwarzenegger administration is actually taking sentencing reform seriously:

Facing a double whammy of a population cap and a court decision that threatens to wipe out the state’s sentencing law, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is considering a sentencing commission that would help decide who goes to prison and for how long.

“We are willing to engage in sentencing reform,” Corrections Secretary James Tilton said in an interview with The Bee, adding that as part of the discussion, the Schwarzenegger administration is looking at establishing a sentencing commission. Such panels take different forms but can allow states to manage prison populations by altering the approach to sentencing. (SacBee 11/20)

About damn time.  This concept has failed on gubenatorial vetoes and in initiatives in the past, but at some point we are going to have to work together to actually find long-term solutions, rather than short-term band aids.

A few lingering election recaps are trickling in, I guess that stuff is still interesting, right?  Also, some Iraq war protests, local politics, some CA-11 stories, and education news.

Oh, and you can now see An Inconvenient Truth online, but I’m not really sure if it’s legal.  You can buy the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth here, it comes out tomorrow.