Daily Archives: June 1, 2007

Uncategorized

The Californian Primary and Voter Registration

13 Comments

(cross-posted from MyDD.  It is a compilation of a few posts I have written in recent weeks.)

It is interesting to see the national trends towards independents Chris Bowers just wrote about.  Here in California the trend is more pronounced towards DTS (decline to state).  Democrats are losing a lot more ground than Republicans.  This is the most recent chart from the CA Secretary of State.

DTS is up almost 6 points in 8 years.  Democrats have dropped 4.2% and Republicans 1.1%.  The highest number percentage of DTS voters are in San Francisco (29.13%) Mono (24.34%) and Alpine (22.98%).

Overall registration is dropping, now below 70%.  These are not positive long term trends.

This combined with a very strong trend towards permanent absentee (now at 3.9 million voters) is really changing how campaigns are run in California.  It is likely that over half of all voters will vote absentee in the primary.  We were at 47% for the primary last spring.  That number is only supposed to grow.

These two trends will have a direct impact on the presidential primary.

For one, the Republicans are not permitting DTS voters to participate in their primary.  They are allowed in the Democratic primary.  This should skew it slightly right for the Republicans and more moderate for the Democrats.  Californians who are registered as permanent absentee voters get their ballots and begin voting on January 7th, well before the Iowa Caucuses.  For more analysis see my earlier post.

The Republican primary is even more quirky.  They are allocating delegates based on how candidates do in individual Congressional districts.  This effectively turns California into 53 distinct campaigns.  And with district Republican registration swinging between 199,747 (CA-48) and 27,025 (CA-31) this makes some Republican votes worth much more than others.

The Democratic primary by contrast is much more straight forward.  We are starting to see the different campaign’s approach to California based on their early staff hires and campaign appearances.  By far, Clinton is investing the most resources into organizing California.  She is staffing up.  Clinton now has  a State Director, Political Director, Communications Director, Field Director and Deputy Field Director, all in California. They have extensive history working here, especially down in vote rich LA.

Edwards was out here this week for an appearance at Google and a small dollar fundraiser in San Jose last night.  He has hired a CA fundraiser, but I have not seen any news of any other staff allocations.

Obama has hired the Pasadena based The Strategy Group.  Larry Grisolano goes back a long ways with Obama and is a well respected California consultant.

Richardson declared out here and is emphasizing his a Latino and Californian roots.  I have not seen any indication that he has done any California specific hiring.

To run an effective campaign in California you need a lot of money for advertising, think $2-3 million for a week of statewide television saturation.  Then there is rado.  You must have a direct mail guru who can target the DTS and likely Democrats, backed with a robust voter file.  Successful campaigns will run a sophisticated absentee voter campaign with targeted mailings and phone calls.  Voters who turn in their ballots can be crossed off lists.  Door knocking is just as effective here as in any other state, but there is a ton of ground to cover and this requires a lot of time and volunteers.

There are a ton of delegates up for grabs, but campaigns will have to put a lot of resources into running an effective campaign.  Thus far, Clinton is by all indications making that investment.  Will we see the others step up?  She is showing a strong lead in the polls but there is an opportunity for someone on the left to compete directly with her.  Who will that be?

California, Environment, Orange County

Should Cars Share the Road With Bikes?

53 Comments

This morning, I’ve been leisurely perusing through The Register. I may not always agree with their opinions (OK, so it’s more like ALMOST NEVER, but whatever), but I like their local news and I like their columnists. Well anyways, I was reading Gordon Dillow’s column today and I was stopped in my tracks!

I was driving along an open stretch of Pacific Coast Highway the other day, at or just under the posted speed limit of 50 mph, and every hundred yards or so I was passing groups of two or three or a dozen bicyclists pedaling along in the bike lane. And that’s when it occurred to me:

I don’t want to share the road. More specifically, I don’t want to share a high-speed road with bicycle riders – not because it’s that big of a problem for me, but because it’s too dangerous for them.

Now in case you haven’t heard, “Share the Road” is the slogan that’s here to encourage motorists to be more aware of bike riders while on the road, and to cooperate with them. Now this sounds like a good idea, but is it really? Or are we just asking for accidents on places like PCH? Gordon Dillow thinks so, and I think he might be onto something.

Follow me after the flip for more…

So maybe bikes can share the road with cars on streets in residential neighborhoods and other areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour and less…

But on roads like sections of Pacific Coast Highway, where speed limits range up to 55 mph, it seems like utter madness to have 3,000- or 4,000-pound cars going 55 mph hurtle past 25-pound bikes going 15 mph – with nothing more substantial between them than a thin white stripe delineating the shoulder or the “bike lane.” It’s like allowing baby strollers on the freeway.

Yes, I know we’ve spent millions of dollars creating bike lanes – as opposed to separate, no-cars-allowed bike “paths” and “trails” – along our streets and highways. I also realize that in this day and age there are few things more politically incorrect than to suggest that cars be given preference over bicycles. After all, in the popular view, motor vehicles are pollution-spewing, gas-guzzling (and gasoline tax-paying) monsters, while bikes are benign, environmentally friendly little munchkins.

But the problem is that when monsters mix with munchkins, the munchkins are inevitably going to get stepped on – too often with tragic results.

Really? Munchkins? Stepped on? Tragic?

Consider the numbers. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2005 there were 115 “pedalcyclists” – that’s the NHTSA’s word – killed in traffic crashes in California, nine of them in Orange County. True, bicycle fatalities were only about 3 percent of the total 4,300 traffic-related fatalities in the state, but if you factor in such things as “fatalities per miles traveled,” it’s pretty clear that statistically it’s more dangerous to ride a bike on the roads than to drive a car.

Yep, when we look at the numbers, it just seems unavoidable. It really is dangerous to have bikes on the same lanes as cars. Now we can argue that all this danger is caused by the slower and lighter bikes trying to mingle with the faster and heavier cars. Or perhaps, we can argue that all this danger is caused by all these cars just going too fast…

But the point is that regardless of who is at fault in a car vs. bike collision, it’s the bicyclist who’s going to suffer, physically at least. Once again, no 25-pound bike is ever going to “win” in a collision with a 4,000-pound car – and yet we persist in trying to mix heavy, high-speed motor vehicles with light, low-speed bikes on high-volume, relatively high-speed roads.

And this is why cars and bikes just can’t get along on the same road. And perhaps, we should start taking this into consideration more often when we plan more bike lanes.

Perhaps we should follow Irvine’s example. The City of Irvine has 44.5 miles of off-road bike paths connecting to the 282 miles of on-road bike paths. In Irvine, bike riders have the chance to get off the road once they leave those quieter residential neighborhoods with the slower cars, and get onto these special paths just for bikes that take them to lovely parks and gorgeous nature preserves. Maybe Irvine is doing something right that other communities in Orange County, as well as other parts of California, should pay attention to.

And perhaps we should create more off-road bike paths besides busy highways like what is being done on SR-133/Laguna Canyon Road from Irvine to Laguna Beach. What Gordon Dillow saw recently on PCH also used to happen all the time on Laguna Canyon Road. And sometimes, that mix of speedy bikes and even speedier cars was quite a deadly one. But now, the bikes are getting their own lane. And most likely, this will make both the bike riders and the car drivers both happier and safer.

So perhaps when we’re considering new roads and new bike lanes, we should try to keep the two separated. And perhaps we should especially do this with highways where dozens upon dozens of cars speed by every day at 50 miles per hour. After all, shouldn’t we keep the good, brave bike riders safe and happy? : )

Uncategorized

CA-37: Tempers Flare

2 Comments

I know, another post about the open-seat Long Beach-area race that essentially looks at identity politics.  But this is pretty interesting.  The Congressional Black Caucus will not endorse a candidate in the race, which includes two high-profile black candidates, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and neophyte politician Valerie McDonald, daughter of the late Juanita Millender-McDonald.  Apparently, it got heated within the CBC:

The decision, in part, stems from an internal political feud between two of California’s most visible black members of Congress: Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Diane Watson, who split over who should get the Caucus’ backing in the June 26 special election. In the end, the Caucus declined to endorse either one in the Long Beach-area race. Waters favors Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and Watson supports Valerie McDonald, the daughter of the late congresswoman. The dispute over the endorsement was marked by heated exchanges involving Waters and Watson.

The Congressional Black Caucus’ decision was in sharp contrast to the state Legislature’s nine-member Black Caucus, which endorsed Richardson.

Diane Watson is one of the few California legislators to back McDonald, and she was enough to get the CBC not to endorse.  I still think the California Federation of Labor support for Richardson will ultimately be crucial, but the CBC would have been a nice capper as well.

I’ll be covering this race a bit more in my Congressional roundup (look for it next week), but I’d say right now, Richardson has a slight edge over State Sen. Jenny Oropeza because of the labor endorsement and the fact that turnout will be low.

Environment

Environment Denial ain’t limited to Global Warming

1 Comment

(FYI: This bill will be reconsidered on Monday!! – promoted by blogswarm)

The Graduate is a truly excellent movie. If you haven’t seen it, you should.  And in this scene, Dustin Hoffman’s character gets some advice…on plastics.  This has always been what I’ve imagined chemical lobbyists to look/act like.  Except, the throw more money around to Republicans and “ModSquad” Dems (as opposed to GoodSquad Dems, who, you know, support their constituents) who are comfortable denying scientific evidence.

So, which denial am I talking about? Well,  AB 1108, a bill authored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (GoodDem-SF) would ban the toxic chemical phthalate, which has already been banned for sale in the City and County of San Francisco. It’s used in, you guessed it, plastics.  Most worryingly, it is used in plastic toys for children.  The scientific evidence is there, but unfortunately, so is the California Chemistry Council. 

But, the bill might come back to the floor, so call your legislator and ask them to vote YES on AB 1108. 11 legislators abstained (see the vote here) and we only need five more YES votes to pass the bill.  Over…

From Capitol Weekly:

The debate over all of these bills often sounds eerily similar to the debate over global warming, with advocates urging quick action, citing scientific proof of pending dangers. Opponents, meanwhile, question the scientific validity of the proponents’ claims and balk at the potential economic impact of new regulations.

Ma said the opposition to her bill, led by the California Chemistry Council, as vigorous because of the precedent her bill may set for other measures pending in the Legislature this year. “I understand the industry feels this is a slippery slope–that once one ban passes, it opens up the floodgates. And other states are looking to California to see what we do. I think this has national implications” for the chemical industry.
***
Supporters of the Ma bill were unmoved by the rationales against the bill. “Legislators do a lot of things that they are not experts on, and they vote on them all the time,” says Environment California’s Dan Jacobson. Jacobson said many members were “hiding behind the chemical industry’s conflicting science.”

Ma said some members were “hiding behind Governor Schwarzenegger’s green-chemistry initiative. But he has no plan, no timetable, no list of chemicals. There’s nothing in it.”

Tim Shestek of the American Chemistry Council says the green-chemistry initiative is “something that we would see as an opportunity instead of these rifle-shot approaches in the Legislature.”

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, … [said] “The industry says they want a wider, more comprehensive approach. [Last year’s] AB 990 was a wider, more comprehensive approach that would have involved all the interested parties, and they fought that tooth and nail. The chemical industry in California is going to fight these bills. The Legislature has to have the will to overcome that.”

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.  The members of the Assembly need to take the lead on these issues. The state of California needs to take the lead on these issues, because you know the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which is just chock full of manufacturing industry Bush-appointees, isn’t going to take the lead.

Hats off to Asm. Ma, now, let’s help her get those last five votes.

California, San Diego

Open Thread

5 Comments

It’s bizarro night.  Lucas gets a vacation (see everybody Monday). Bush is concerned about greenhouse gases.  Clinton and Carter join Bush Sr. and hundreds of others to honor Billy Graham.  Apparently it’s Russia who needs to drop the Cold War mentality.  One of 13 rare white rhinos died today at San Diego’s Wild Animal Park, and so did the first panda born in captivity to be released in the wild.  Conversely, we have a new species of limbless lizard in India and it turns out that upright walking may have begun in trees.  So on that note, we’re going to space.  Moonbabies – War on Sound

“But I tried to tell you last night
The planet’s grown
Turned to stone
See you on the safe side?”

p.s., if you’re trying to place it, the guy sounds like Peter Gabriel.  Even more so on other songs.

Uncategorized

Edwards: WiFi For Everyone!

5 Comments

(While this is a national and not a state-focused story, I think everyone on this site will be interested to hear about ways to move toward the goal of universal access.  Think about how this could impact local blogs if so many more people in this state could use the Internet, particularly in those underserved areas.  It would open up the conversation to include everyone.  There’s more at my site.)

This is the “chicken in every pot” for the 21st century.  And as you will see, it’s extremely doable and completely worthwhile for American competition, entrepreneurship and technological advancement.

In short, the FCC is about to auction off a portion of the broadband spectrum.  All the major telcos like Verizon and AT&T are expected to bid on the prime real estate.  But John Edwards has a better idea.  He wants to have the FCC use that spectrum to increase Internet access for all Americans, young or old, rich or poor.  This is the text of his letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

Dear Chairman Martin:

The upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum auction presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the next generation of American technology.

In recent years, the Internet has grown to touch everything and transform much of what it touches.  It’s not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.

As you know, the Federal Communications Commission is now preparing to auction the 700 megahertz slice of the spectrum.  This “beachfront” band is particularly well suited to wireless broadband because it has wide coverage and can easily pass through walls. 

By setting bid and service rules that unleash the potential of smaller new entrants, you can transform information opportunity for people across America — rural and urban, wealthy and not. As much as half of the spectrum should be set aside for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which has the potential to improve service to rural and underserved areas. Additionally, anyone winning rights to this valuable public resource should be required not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service. Finally, bidding should be anonymous to avoid collusion and retaliatory bids.

I urge you to seize this chance to transform the Internet and the future.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

Not only is Edwards asking that the principle of net neutrality be mandated for anyone who buys this spectrum (which is a big victory in and of itself), but he wants a significant portion to be used to wire America.  Ultimately, broadband should be no different than electricity; the access should come standard in any home, and you should pay the way you pay your electric bill.  Additionally, we should be wiring rural areas the way that FDR pushed rural electrification projects as part of the New Deal.  It was actually predicated on the same premise.

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation’s consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity […]

By 1939 the REA had helped to establish 417 rural electric cooperatives, which served 288,000 households. The actions of the REA encouraged private utilities to electrify the countryside as well. By 1939 rural households with electricity had risen to 25 percent […]

When farmers did receive electric power their purchase of electric appliances helped to increase sales for local merchants. Farmers required more energy than city dwellers, which helped to offset the extra cost involved in bringing power lines to the country.

Just as FDR worked to bridge the electrical divide in the 1930s, we should be bridging the digital divide today.  Poor and rural areas should be given the capacity to use the Internet, which will open new markets, allow for increased communication and expanded educational tools, and create that equality of opportunity that ought to be a goal.  That a top-tier Presidential candidate is pushing this forward-thinking a policy is very cheering.

Uncategorized

Breaking: McNerney to attend SF YearlyKos Fundraiser

(Don’t forget my gum offer. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Last night we got some good news, Congressman Jerry McNerney will be attending our San Francisco fundraiser this coming Friday June 1st. This will be his second appearance since he was at the DC fundraiser not too long ago as well.

If you are anywhere near the bay area on Friday, June 1st then this is an event you really aren’t going to want to miss.  We interact with each other daily online, but it is pretty rare that large groups of people actually get a chance to get together and talk.  Outside of the actual YearlyKos Convention in Chicago from August 2-5 this year there just aren’t many opportunities.

So don’t let this one slip away, just go here and register without delay.

We’ve got a great evening planned for everyone at Roe.  DJ Label will be there to spin and later in the evening Reggae/Funk band Planet Down will be playing a few sets for everyone.  In between Hopper Creek will be helping to lubricate the conversation by pouring plenty of wine.

If all that isn’t enough you’ll get a chance to meet, talk to and listen to some pretty well known names including: Brian Keeler, buhdydharma, The Calitics crew, Lt. Colonel Charlie Brown, Hunter, Gina Cooper, Kid Oakland, Markos, Congressman Jerry McNerney, Navajo, and SusanG.

People representing Prosper.com, The San Francisco and Oakland Drinking Liberally chapters, and the San Francisco Young Democrats will also be there.

There’s one more day till the event, get your tickets today!

Friday, June 1, 2007, 7 p.m.
Roe Restaurant and Lounge
651 Howard Street, San Francisco
$35 in advance / $40 at the door

Orange County

Tonight’s Wild and Wonderful Open Thread

Hi, everyone! I hope you had a good time chatting today. Well, it’s that time again when the sun comes down and the open thread starts up. So what’s on your mind tonight? What are you thinking about right now?

Tonight, I’m thinking about this Total Buzz piece about even MORE Minutemen follies. Remember the Minutemen? Yes, that racist group that’s falling apart! Well, it turns out that not only the Minutemen Project headed by Aliso Viejo man Jim Gilchrist is undergoing internal turmoil, but so is the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. Remember them? They’re the original Arizona group that split from the original Minutemen project. Who knew that all these crazed egos can take down such a committed group of crazy xenophobes?


Sorry, but I just had to share that hilarious anecdote with you while I’m on my way to Drinking Liberally in Rancho Santa Margarita. Hey look, I can see my house all the way from here at the edge of the world on the 241 Toll Road! So what hilarious anecdote would you like to share with me? What good news clipping or wild viral video do you want to post tonight? What other blog story are you still reading?

Go ahead. Make my day. Fire away! : )

Uncategorized

SB 275 – “Homeless Dumping” bill – passes State Senate

I cannot yet find a vote count at the State Senate site, but Sen. Gil Cedillo, in a press release, says it has passed:

Two days after a decisive vote of support in Senate Appropriations, SB 275 passed with a majority vote of the Senate. The bill now advances to the Assembly […]

Although the bill places the threat of a misdemeanor crime on the horizon, it does not seem to be deterring the practice. The May 14th incident occurred even as SB 275 advances in the legislature, on the same day the bill was being considered in a committee hearing.

“From day one, our objective has been to make significant progress in the struggle to end the inhumane and illegal practice of homeless patient dumping,” remarked Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo.  “This legislation represents another vital tool in our battle, and I applaud its continued support in our legislature.” said Delgadillo.

Still trying to get a vote count to see how the Mod Squad fared on this one.  This is a good victory for California.

Uncategorized

Some progress in the Legislature

2 Comments

A few points of good news from the Legislature. First, the homeless dumping bill, SB 275 passed out of the full Senate. Press release over the flip.

Also, Loni Hancock’s clean money bill, AB 583 was passed out of the Appropriations Committee. AB 583 is currently a focus of clean money that will use one open Assembly seat and one open Senate seat along with the 2010 Gov’s race to test the system.  It could be a really good way to test the system. You can write your Legislator via the CA Campaign for Clean Money’s letter program. They’ll actually fax the letter for you.

CEDILLO-DELGADILLO HOMELESS DUMPING BILL

ADVANCES TO ASSEMBLY

Two days after a decisive vote of support in Senate Appropriations, SB 275 passed with a majority vote of the Senate. The bill now advances to the Assembly.

Homeless dumping continues to be an acute issue. During the Appropriations hearing earlier this week, the Union Rescue Mission (URM) distributed advocacy kits to committee members. The kits contained a letter from URM director Rev. Andrew Bales describing another recent dumping incident at the shelter and a DVD of a 60 Minutes news segment on downtown Los Angeles skid row’s ongoing problems with local hospitals.

Although the bill places the threat of a misdemeanor crime on the horizon, it does not seem to be deterring the practice. The May 14th incident occurred even as SB 275 advances in the legislature, on the same day the bill was being considered in a committee hearing.

“From day one, our objective has been to make significant progress in the struggle to end the inhumane and illegal practice of homeless patient dumping,” remarked Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo.  “This legislation represents another vital tool in our battle, and I applaud its continued support in our legislature.” said Delgadillo.

“The Senate did the right thing today. We are excited by the bi-partisan support the bill received in committee, the bill has resonated with members from diverse districts across our state. While homeless dumping has recently become a heightened issue in Los Angeles, people connect with the inhumanity of the practice and want to help,” said Cedillo. “We look forward to this support carrying over to the Assembly.”