(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

In Survey USA's post-debate poll of 317 California adults who watched the GOP debate on Thursday (h/t The Right's Field), a full 30% felt that Giuliani had won the debate; Romney and McCain were essentially tied for second place with 12% and 11% respectively; and 16% of respondents weren't sure who had won. The partisan breakdown of respondents was 45% Republican, 30% Democratic and 22% Decline to State.

What I find more interesting than winners and losers though is the fact that Survey USA had to poll 2,400 Californians to find 317 who'd actually seen the debate. That's a paltry 13% response rate. Compare that to the survey of South Carolina adults after the Democrats debated there a week prior. There, of the 1,250 SC adults interviewed, 403 said they had listened to the debate, or an enviable 32%. Survey USA draws an interesting conclusion:

For comparison purposes, 1 in 3 South Carolinians watched the Democratic debate, compared to 1 in 8 Californians who watched the Republican debate. Californians are far less engaged in political process than Carolinians, at this stage.

More (including a look at the poll’s crosstabs) over the flip…

On one hand this shouldn't come as too much of a shock considering South Carolina is used to being one of the early primary states and Californians are clearly electioned out after at least one election a year since 2002. But this conclusion implies that the two things are equivalent when really they're apples and oranges.

I'd argue that what Survey USA really should have concluded is that:

Californians are far less engaged in the political process when it comes to Republican field than Carolinians are when it comes to the Democratic field.

California is a blue state, Arnold notwithstanding, so it follows that we'd be less interested in the Republican field. And while South Carolina is a red state, over half the voting population is African American, so certainly a field that includes arguably the first viable African American presidential candidate would inspire more excitement there. And hell, 28% more people watched the Democratic debate nationwide anyway. There is clearly more excitement about the Democratic presidential candidates than their Republican counterparts in general, so it follows that that trend would be replicated at the state level. 

One of the key arguments in favor of the early primary has been that actually having a say in the process will increase voter engagement, something California desperately needs and I still think it will. But the extent to which there is truth to Survey USA's conclusion, we need to watch this question over the coming months. If this year's Democratic field can't excite a disillusioned California electorate, we're worse off than I thought.

An inspection of the poll's full cross-tabs reveals some interesting findings:

– Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore showed signs of life in CA with an unusually strong 8% of the vote, beating even California's own Duncan Hunter. Gilmore was particularly strong among respondents who considered themselves "liberal" and those between 18-34 years of age. In fact, among both those groups, Gilmore's plan for Iraq ties McCain for second best behind Giuliani's. And on the question of whose immigration plan was best, Gilmore ties Tancredo, Romney and Hunter (8%) for 3rd place behind Giuliani (31%) and McCain (11%.) Does anyone even remember Gilmore's plans for Iraq or immigration?

– Giuliani enjoys more support from self-described conservatives than he does overall. While Giuliani was chosen as winner by 30% of the respondents, 32% of conservatives polled said Giuliani won the debate. Interestingly, when broken down by party affiliation, Giuliani enjoys 30+% support among both Republicans and Democrats but that number plummets to 19% among those that consider themselves Independents.

– While illegal immigration crusader Tom Tancredo only polled at 4% overall, the groups he did show strength among were conservatives (5%), Independents (9%) and, perhaps most interestingly, Asian-Americans (10%.)   

– As for the gender gap, women were more likely to support Gilmore than men were (11% to 7%) and were less likely to support Romney (10% to 13%) or McCain (9% to 12%) than their male counterparts were. But perhaps most telling, women were much more likely to be unsure as to who won the debate (25%) than men were (13%.)

As you can guess by my username, I am in San Jose, California. Locally Democrats hold most of the elected offices, and the GOP of Silicon Valley is reduced to supporting candidates like Hon Lien, candidate for City Council, District 4. Lien is in a run off with a GREAT Democratic candidate, Kansen Chu

What, exactly is wrong with Lien?  Well for starters she wasn’t even registered to vote until late last year when she filed to run for school board. She has voted exactly 2 times in her life (she is in her 40’s).  It is sort of funny that she had no need nor care for voting until she decided to run for office, and her campaign states that she was “wrong to think that her vote wouldn’t count.” 

More……

Of course there is also the issue that she hasn’t done much by way of community service, and Lien has never served on any type of commission nor has she ever been elected to any office.  She did run for school board in November and she placed last.

Here is what Lien has done by way of community service:
 

*  2003 – present: Trustee and Treasurer: Lincoln Law School of San Jose.
  * 2003 – present: Executive Council Member of Silicon Valley Children’s Hospital Foundation.
  * 2004 – present: Member, San Jose Rotary Club. Currently serving on the International Committee with the Rotary Club.
  * Through AGAPE, an organization from Sweden, Hon helped provide over 750 wheelchairs and hospital beds to Binh Duong Clinic and other hospitals in Vietnam.

Chu, on the other hand has served the community for over 22 years, he is currently an elected official, he has won numerous community service awards and he has lived in the district for over 20 years.  Here is but a partial list of Chu’s involvements:

Leadership and Community Involvement
  * Board of Trustee, Berryessa Union School District, 2002 to present
  * Board of Directors, YMCA Santa Clara Valley Metropolitan Board, 1998 to present
  * Board of Directors, Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation (VIVO), 1998 to present
  * Board of Directors, Shin Shin Educational Foundation, 2003 to present
  * Board member, Berryessa Neighborhood Accountability Board, 2003 to 2004
  * Commissioner, Santa Clara County Mental Health Board, 1997 to 2005
  * Commissioner, Private Industry Council (JTPA) 1995 to 1997
  * Member, California State Superintendent Delaine Eastin’s Educational Round Table
  * Lord of Longevity, Santa Clara County Self-Help for the Elderly, 1996
  * Advisory Board Member, Vision New America, 2002 to present
  * Advisory Board Member, Californians for Justice 2005 to present
  * Board of Directors, KNTV Channel-11 Community Board, 1997 to 1999
  * Advisory Board Member, Asian Law Alliance (ALA)
  * Chairman of the Board, Alliance for Preserving the Truth of Sino Japanese War 1996-1998
  * President, Organization of Chinese American (OCA) – Silicon Valley, 1995
  * Founder, 2nd Harvest Food Bank Chinese New Year Food Drive

Four organizations, and only since 2003, and this woman wants to serve as a council member of the 10th largest city in our nation.

If that isn’t enough for you, how about a few of her current unethical and dishonest actions, seemingly fully supported by our local GOP as they continue to fully endorse her.

Last week Lien sent out a hit piece on Chu.  This piece had

There are no Senate seats up in California in 2008, and no statewide offices up for election, so the biggest seats outside of the Presidency will be in the House of Representatives.  While we’re 18 months out, I thought I’d give a snapshot of what races are most inviting for a Democratic pickup.

I’m going to concern myself solely with pickup opportunities, because the only realistic possibility of a GOP pickup is in CA-11, and I’m confident that Jerry McNerney and his grassroots army can handle whatever’s thrown at him, plus he’ll have the power of incumbency and the focus of the CDP.  There may be some retirements that would make things interesting (Lantos, Stark, Woolsey), but those are very blue areas.  So let’s look at the best opportunities to add to the Democratic majority:

1) CA-04 (Doolittle): The Doolittle watch continues, and what is most clear is that the best thing for California Republicans would be for Doolittle to just go away.  Charlie Brown has a $200,000 CoH advantage and the taint of the intensifying Abramoff scandal won’t be as easy to wash off the second time around.  If it’s a fresh challenger and an open seat, Brown will still have a higher name ID, but it would be more difficult.

2) CA-26 (Dreier): Hekebolos has mentioned David Dreier’s fundraising troubles.  Plus, as a member of the GOP Leadership, he can be very much tied to their failures over the years.  And the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) in the district is only +4 Republican, comparable to McNerney’s district, and has been shrinking over the years.  It’s the third-closest PVI district in the entire state, and yet Dreier is anything but a moderate.  Russ Warner ran in the 2006 primary (losing to 2004 candidate Cynthia Matthews, who then raised almost no money for the general) and will be running again, and appears to have the right makeup to pull off this upset.

3) CA-50 (Bilbray): The replacement for the Duke-Stir has not distinguished himself (does Bilbray live in that district yet?), and Howie Klein, at least, is intrigued by the potential candidacy of Michael Wray, a former Busby campaign worker and rocket scientist.  I think he’d have a somewhat better chance than Francine Busby.  This would be tough, but not a hopeless district.

4) CA-24 (Gallegly): Elton Gallegly maintains that he’s running.  He tried to retire in 2006, and then abruptly returned to the race because California election law mandated that his name would appear on the ballot regardless.  He eventually defeated Jill Martinez with 62% of the vote.  The word is that Martinez is running again.  Ventura County Democrats have done an amazing job turning around voter registration numbers in the region of late, adding to hope that this could be winnable even against the incumbent.  The PVI is R+5.

5) CA-42 (Miller): See above.  Not hopeless but tough.  The fact that it’s more Republican than CA-50 is balanced out by the fact that Gary Miller is a thieving scumbag who is under investigation by the feds.  Unlike last year, there will be a candidate, and the race is definitely on the CDP’s radar screen.  If we win this one, it’ll be a very good year.

6) CA-25 (McKeon): Buck McKeon is always a threat to retire, and this is a R+7 PVI, so it’s not impossible.  And this is one of those seats, in northeastern LA and San Bernardino Counties, that we have to start competing in, because the job growth in the inland areas of Southern California are outstripping the coasts. Robert Rodriguez did a decent job here in 2006 (McKeon won 60%-36%).  I hope he runs again.

7) CA-52 (open seat): The only Republican open seat to date, but it’s almost not open at all, because Duncan Hunter is trying to give the seat to his son, also named Duncan Hunter, and he’s likely to be fighting in Iraq during the election.  Kind of hard to compete against someone with that circumstance.

8) CA-45 (Bono): David Roth raised a decent enough amount of money in 2006 to at least make Mary Bono sweat.  The PVI is only R+3.  But it was one of the lowest-turnout races in the entire state.  If we can excite people out in the desert, ya never know.

9) CA-41 (Lewis): The Jerry Lewis investigation has gone cold, but the fact that Debra Yang appears to have been bought off the probe by the law firm representing Lewis means that the scandal might have a different set of legs.  And again, this is a part of Southern California where we need to have a presence; eventually there will be more and more people in this region, and probably more seats.  And the fact that they are likely to be coming from liberal Los Angeles means it’s an opportunity to get some infrastructure going.

10) CA-44 (Calvert): This district has actually less of a PVI (R+6) than CA-25.  And Calvert has some earmark and lobbying problems.  And the guy was caught with a prostitute in his car back in 1993.  So the atmospherics are there.  But Democrats have done little in this district.  His challenger last year raised 8 grand.  Total.  And he STILL got 38% of the vote!  It’s time to give this guy a real challenge.

Realistically, 2 pickups would be a really good tally; 3 would be amazing.  But the goal should be getting some of these incumbents to around 55%.

Well, I guess the third time is a charm. http://ag.ca.gov/cms…

The first and second time, those circulating an eminent domain initiative failed to remove the provisions undoing land use, environmental regulations, etc…

This time, they have taken out the “damage” provisions. You can look for yourself, none of that in sight

Except on the last section, they say that all rent controls may only stay in effect as long as “at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date (“qualified tenant”) continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence.”

I can agree that rent control doesn’t belong in this initiative, but that won’t stop me from supporting it. Does anyone oppose this?