I’m going to try and do these once a day.  No promises!

• CA-04: In partial response to the kerfuffle from yesterday’s deceitful attack ad, Charlie Brown released two radio spots and a TV ad today.  His wife Jan Brown narrates the TV spot, which foregrounds Charlie and his son’s military service. (Sorry, not embeddable)

The radio spots are both solid attacks on Venturian Candidate Tom McClintock.  Two men, two paths contrasts Brown’s service and leadership with McClintock’s life in politics, and his record on veterans (including donating 5% of his campaign funds) with McClintock’s (voting against veteran’s funding).  Vote is a humorous spot discussing how McClintock can’t vote for himself because he won’t move into the district.  There’s also a lot on McClintock’s per diem expenses from the State Senate.  “L.A. Tom” is the frame they’re going with, and they ask, “if he won’t vote for himself, why should we?”

• CA-11: State Senator Ellen Corbett and Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi sent a letter to women in Jerry McNerney’s district urging them to reject right-wing extremist Dean Andal.  His record on women’s issues is really retrograde.

To the Women of Congressional District 11:

If you are anything like us, you want a representative in Washington that not only reflects your values, but who also respects you.

Dean Andal just doesn’t qualify. In fact, Dean Andal’s record on women’s issues shows just how out of touch and extreme his views are.

In 1994, as a member of the State Assembly, Dean Andal opposed a common sense law that would have allowed women to wear pants in the workplace instead of being forced to wear skirts and dresses.

Andal also voted against requiring health insurance plans to cover cervical cancer screenings. He even voted against making sure that information about sexual harassment be included in mandatory workplace anti-discrimination posters.

Yet the most egregious affront to women he offered in his short term in the Assembly was his vote to restrict the definition of rape to exclude attacks where an incapacitated woman cannot resist.

And what’s worse, Andal’s was the only vote in the Assembly against expanding the definition. The only one.

Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, all women should be proud of the progress we have made. That’s why it’s so important that we don’t send someone like Dean Andal to Congress. Someone with a record like Andal’s can be counted on to turn back the clock on all we have achieved.

• LA Board of Supes: There’s a runoff in this seat between Councilman Bernard Parks and State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas.  While Ridley-Thomas is a solid progressive who understands the fundamental dysfunction of state government and will fight for progressive values on the powerful Board of Supes, Bernard Parks has hired Republican fixer Steve Kinney to help him win the race.  Parks, who has a business-friendly record on the City Council, is receiving help from BizFed, a PAC notorious for pushing the same agenda.  The wingnuts at the Lincoln Club have reportedly offered him support as well.  At least the choice is now clear to voters – one candidate on the side of the corporate vultures, the other on the side of the people.

• Misc.  I should note that Chris Bowers’ House race forecast is up, and among California races, he lists CA-04 as a tossup, CA-11 as Lean D, and CA-26 & CA-50 as Likely R.  I think he’s selling a couple races short, but that’s a pretty good conservative estimate.

This is a big story:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who was to star at two major California fundraisers and an Orange County rally for 15,000 next week, has canceled her two-day swing through the Golden State, campaign sources said.

The change is a shocker, because Palin’s presence had electrified the GOP base in California. Party insiders were distributing 15,000 tickets to her Sept. 26 rally in Orange County — and fundraisers reported an almost instantaneous sell-out of her two $1,000-a-head Sept. 25 fundraising events in Orange County and Santa Clara.

What will be interesting to find out is just what Palin will be doing next Thursday and Friday instead.  Maybe they’re going to try to use her to shore up Ohio and Pennsylvania, given the way the polls are swinging back into Obama’s favor?

It’s an open question whether the fundraising events–designed to benefit the RNC and the CRP–will go on without her or will be cancelled.  It’s hard to imagine, though, that all the conservatives who made contributions–apparently up to a whopping $40,800–to hobnob with the GOP’s rising star would be willing to fork over that money for an event with no star power.

The fact that the McCain campaign would cancel Palin’s appearances at two fundraisers that were apparently going to be wildly successful events–most likely so that they can keep her parked out in swing states–indicates a certain amount of desperation.

State law mandates that every initiative that is going to appear on the ballot must have a legislative hearing sometime before Election Day. On Tuesday in Sacramento, Proposition 4 – “Sarah’s Law” – or Parental Notification for the third time – was heard by a joint Assembly-Senate health committee.

In a packed hearing room, opponents, including Planned Parenthood, the California Medical Association, the California Teachers Association, and other organizations representing nearly one million Californians watched as Assemblymember Dave Jones pinned the initiative’s author Katy Short to the wall, asking her question after question about the deceptive nature of Prop. 4. “Isn’t it true there is no Sarah? Isn’t it true she was a married woman? Isn’t it true nothing in Prop 4 would have applied to Sarah?” Katy Short could do nothing but resort to slamming the California Legislature.

When the opponents of Prop. 4 took the field, a doctor who treats teenagers, a representative from the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood President Kathy Kneer, turned the discussion to the dangerous effect of Prop. 4 on California’s teens and why voters should reject it for the third time. Following the scheduled testimony, when chair Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally asked for public comment, only a handful of supporters went to the microphone, whereas opponents lined up around the room, representing hundreds of coalition groups opposed to Prop. 4. It was no contest.

The good guys won, hands down. But one side note – an anti-choice fixture in the capitol, Albin Rhomberg, began to take individual pictures of opponents as they lined up at the microphone. This is something he has done for years to scare Pro-Choice activists. Chairman Dymally told him to sit down and stop taking photos…. But this is the kind of campaign from the proponent that we are all up against. For more info about how you can help defeat prop 4 and how to help, visit http://www.noonprop4.org.

Maggie Shandera Linden has more than 25 years of experience working in local, state and national politics, public affairs and community relations. She has worked in the halls of Congress, as well as the Capitols of California, Oregon, Nevada and Washington D.C. She co-managed the Campaign for Teen Safety (No on Prop 73 and No on Prop 85) and is one of the campaign consultants for No on Proposition 4.

Maybe it’s all the endorsements, or that the anti-equality side has thus far been confined to right-wing zealots and religious forces trying to impose their doctrine on the state, but Proposition 8’s chances of passage are getting worse.

Opposition to a California ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage is mounting following Attorney General Jerry Brown’s move to change the language on the initiative, according to a Field Poll released today.

The poll found that just 38 percent of likely voters support the measure, while 55 percent intend to vote no. That compares with 42 percent in support and 51 percent opposed in July.

Brown amended the Proposition 8 summary language after the state Supreme Court’s decision on May 15 to overturn California’s previous ban on same-sex marriage.

The pollsters found the amended language played a role in that growing opposition, especially among the 30 percent of likely voters interviewed who had never heard of Prop. 8.

Those voters were much more likely to oppose the measure when read Brown’s wording (58 percent against it and 30 percent for it) than those in the same category who were read the old version of Prop. 8 (42 percent against and 37 percent for it), according to the Field Poll.

Yes, how dare that Jerry Brown put into print what the initiative would actually do, which is eliminate the right granted by the state for same-sex couples to marry.  The Yes on 8 folks are whining that Brown “interfered” with the election, when actually, words with meaning did.

You can get the internals of the poll here.  The initiative is running weak among DTS voters (56-28 against) and young voters (58-31 against).  Hispanics are against it 51-36, which actually is not as solid as whites (55-39 against).  And the key stat to me is that among divorced or separated voters, Prop. 8 fails 65-33.  That makes perfect sense; those who have lived through a bad marriage have less illusions about how equality would ruin its sanctity.

The way I would view this is the way that California initiative watchers commonly view the “Pro” side of the argument.  You have to start out 55% or higher before the negative ads kick in.  Right now the Yes on 8 folks are outraising the No side 3:2, mostly with out-of-state checks.  They’re going to blanket the state with ads and so we should not let our guard down.

Contribute via the Calitics ActBlue page

Volunteer

As always, good stuff

Here is my analysis of this fall’s elections in California, broken up into 3 parts. Part 1 will cover the presidential race and the ballot measures, and the other two will be on the Congressional and State Legislature races; Part 2 Northern/Central California and Part 3 Southern California.

Cross-posted at Swing State Project: http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Here is the most recent registration data: http://sos.ca.gov/elections/ro…

Here is the list of candidates that will appear on the ballot: http://sos.ca.gov/elections/el…

Statewide Layout

Democrats: 7,053,860 (43.75%)

Republicans: 5,244,394 (32.53%)

Decline to State: 3,128,684 (19.40%)

Others: 696,849 (4.32%)

Key: I will list the incumbent first, in boldface (in open seats, the incumbent party first without boldface), and all minor parties after the two major parties.

D: Democratic

R: Republican

L: Libertarian

G: Green

AI: American Independent

PF: Peace and Freedom

I: Independent

Race Ratings

Toss-up: Margin by less than 5%

Lean: Margin by 5-10%

Likely: Margin by 10-15%

Strong: Margin by 15-20%

Solid: Margin by more than 20%

U.S. President: Sen. John McCain (R) vs. Sen. Barack Obama (D), Bob Barr (L), Alan Keyes (AI), Cynthia McKinney (G), and Ralph Nader (PF)

Profile: Obama’s win of our whopping 55 electoral votes is a foregone conclusion; no matter how many times McSame says he can compete here.

Outlook: Likely to Strong Obama

Ballot Measures: A whopping 12 measures will be on the California ballot this fall. Information can be found here: http://www.smartvoter.org/2008… Field has released polls on 1A, 2, 4, 7, and 11. http://www.field.com/fieldpoll…

Prop. 1A (High-Speed Rail): This measure would issue $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds for a $40 billion high speed train, connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, under supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The train would run from San Francisco to Los Angeles. So far, this measure is passing 56-30, and I strongly urge my fellow Californians to vote for this measure!

9/17/2008 Outlook: Likely Pass

Prop. 2 (Regulations on Animal Confinement): This measure would prohibit the confinement of farm animals that basically does not allow them to be comfortable, imposing a misdemeanor penalty and fine or imprisonment for violators, and bans cages for egg-laying poultry, gestation crates for sows and veal crates for veal calves. This measure is also passing by an overwhelming margin.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Strong Pass

Prop. 3 (Children’s Hospital Bond): This bond issue would authorize $980 million for improvements on children’s hospitals. A similar measure, Prop 61, passed 58-42 in 2004, so for now I can say that 3 will pass also.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Strong Pass

Prop. 4 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification): Those anti-choice folks just never give up, and are hoping that the third time will be a charm. Like its predecessors 73 and 85, this one would prohibit abortion for minors until 48 hours after physician notification, only this one mentions an alternative adult family member in the case of reported parental abuse. Still, the addition of that change does not change my staunch opposition to this at all. Right now, though, this measure is passing 48-39%. I can only hope those affirmative numbers go down.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Toss-Up/Lean Fail

Prop. 5 (Nonviolent Drug Offenses): This measure would allocate $460 million annually for expansion and improvement of treatment programs for nonviolent drug offenders, limiting court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes or break treatment rules or parole. So far no polls have been released, so I can’t make an accurate prediction as to how this measure will fare.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Not Yet Rated

Prop. 6 (Law Enforcement Funding and Criminal Law Revisions): This measure requires about $700 million of funding for police and local law enforcement, and makes 30 revisions to California criminal law. The funding would come from education, health care, and the environment, just to name a few. The last thing we need is money being diverted from services that keep people out of becoming criminals, so I am saying no to this measure. No polls on this have been released yet, though I hope concerns over the budget will send this to the ballot measure graveyard.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Not Yet Rated

Prop. 7 (Renewable Energy Generation): This measure would require government-owned utilities to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010, upping that requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. However, from an L.A. Times editorial ( http://www.latimes.com/news/op… ) this bill has many drawbacks, including new regulatory powers which could lead to confusion, requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature to remove, and the excluding of small renewable power-producing plants, which are actually leading the way in our transition to solar power. So I hope the affirmative numbers there go down fast and hard.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Toss-up/Lean Pass

Prop. 8 (Elimination of Same-Sex Marriage Rights): Basically, this measure is what it says; it eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Marriages between same-sex couples would be neither valid nor recognized by the state. After our hard-fought victory in the Supreme Court, we want to make sure that same-sex couples have the same legal rights as everyone else. So far, it looks like that they will still be able to have their marriage rights, though the margins are too close for comfort. We still have to fight to protect them. So vote NO ON 8!

9/17/2008 Outlook: Toss-Up

Prop. 9 (Victims’ Rights and Protection): This would amend the California Constitution to guarantee notification for crime victims, allowing victims’ input in the criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing, and parole; taking victim safety into consideration for bail or parole which, except for guaranteed notification, is already in place. In addition, judges and the state lawmakers would have less power in awarding restitution, releasing inmates early, and granting inmates the ability to earn parole. No polls have been released on this yet, though I hope it goes down also!

9/17/2008 Outlook: Not Yet Rated

Prop. 10 (Renewable Energy): This measure would authorize $5 billion in bonds to assist in buying fuel efficient/alternative fuel vehicles (though only the natural gas-fueled Honda Civic qualifies) and for research in renewable energy and alternative fuel vehicles. I am for alternative energy, but not to give more money to the biggest donor to the Swift Boat Liars, T. Boone Pickens. Basically, this is his plan to control a nationwide natural gas monopoly, giving bigger tax incentives to people that purchase natural gas vehicles (though there is already a federal subsidy for them), than people that purchase hybrid vehicles, though the latter is more efficient. So I hope this proposition goes down also.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Not Yet Rated

Prop. 11 (Redistricting): This would amend the constitution to shift authority of shaping district borders from the state legislature to a commission made of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 others, which is out of balance with the registration numbers, as you can see above. California voters have a history of rejecting redistricting ballot measures, and I do think this one will also, though by a small margin. So far, this measure is passing, though by just a plurality. Ballot measures’ affirmative numbers tend to go down over time, and California voters have a long history of rejecting redistricting measures, having rejected 9 so far including Prop 77 in 2005, which went down in a nearly 60-40 landslide.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Toss-Up/Lean Fail

Prop. 12 (Veterans’ Bond): This would authorize $900 million in bonds for veterans’ assistance in purchasing farms and homes. No polls on this measure have been released yet.

9/17/2008 Outlook: Not Yet Rated

Things are happening very quickly in the most hotly contested campaigns in California.  Here’s an update:

• CA-04: Watching himself falling behind in the race to replace John Doolittle, perennial candidate Tom McClintock decided to borrow one of his predeccesor’s smear campaigns and release an ad claiming that Charlie Brown dishonored servicemen by appearing at an anti-war rally.

The idea that wearing a camouflage jacket constitutes being “in uniform” is ridiculous, and so is the idea that a retired military officer has no free speech rights.  But the idea is to smear Charlie as some kind of radical leftist and anti-military, despite Brown’s long record of supporting veterans and McClintock’s longer record voting against them.

The ensuing press conference put on by the McClintock campaign was a wild affair.

SACRAMENTO – A press conference on congressional candidate Charlie Brown’s actions in 2005 at the home of an anti-war display nearly descended into conflict itself, with disruptions before, during and after the event and a near-appearance by police officers […]

But before the event even began, a handful of Brown supporters – accompanied by Brown’s campaign manager, Todd Stenhouse – were asked to leave so that they wouldn’t cause a disruption.

One man loudly protested that as a military veteran and the father of an active-duty U.S. soldier, he felt he could stay. “This is not Russia,” he said.

McClintock campaign consultant John Feliz and Stenhouse eventually got the man to agree to leave, but not before security at the Hyatt hotel where the press conference took place made calls to Sacramento police to remove the man […]

But a third man who was with the veterans pointed out that Brown was within his First Amendment right to do so, prompting Feliz to ask him to leave as well, while also saying Brown should re-enlist and face a court martial for his actions.

The man, who gave his name as Bret Sherlock, said afterward that he attended because he was tired of non-veterans like McClintock smearing veterans like Brown.

“Did he do anything illegal?” Sherlock said of Brown, adding that if anyone should be able to protest the war, it should be Brown, as both a veteran and a father of a soldier who has served four tours of duty in Iraq.

McClintock campaign spokesman Bill George said the video came from a “concerned citizen.” Neither McClintock nor Brown appeared at the press conference.

After the press conference concluded, Stenhouse tried to give McClintock’s campaign a pledge to join a Brown program that donates 5 percent of Brown’s campaign contributions to nonprofit community groups that work with charities.

Feliz angrily took it and threw it down without looking at it.

They don’t want to talk about issues.  So McClintock tries to smear a decorated veteran to win an election.  Typical.

More on the flip…

• CA-11: We’ve talked before about Dean Andal’s embarrassing fall from Congressional contender to also-ran, but it’s just getting worse and worse.  The questions over Andal’s role in a botched construction project at a local community college have continued, and he’s also been caught lying about his claim that he’s raised more money than any Congressional challenger in the country.  Now his mailers are hitting mailboxes throughout the district, and they’ve been revealed as lies.

What it says: “Instead of taking action to fix America’s energy crisis, ruling Democrats shut down Congress this month (August) for a five-week vacation – with Democratic Congressman Jerry McNerney casting the deciding vote to adjourn.”

Is it true? No. The vote was 213-212 in favor of adjournment. Under Andal’s argument, all 213 members of Congress who voted in favor of the annual summer break were the “deciding vote.”

Besides, party leaders don’t let freshmen decide anything.

It’s almost sad how bad Andal is doing.  The NRCC isn’t even spending in the district.

• CA-50: The latest registration numbers for the district are in, and while Republicans continue to hold an 11-point lead, the trend is in Democrats’ favor.  Republicans are also perilously close to the 40% registration line, under which it becomes harder for them to win, as more independent voters lean Democratic.  I don’t know if Paris Hilton ads and chicken suits will get it done for Nick Leibham, whose campaign is clearly just trying to get in the headlines.  But there are lines of attack on Bilbray, particularly over his single-minded focus on immigration and not the pocketbook issues that affect people’s lives, though Bilbray is enough of a nut to say that the two are functionally equivalent.

• CA-26: There’s another smear campaign going on in this race, where David Dreier and the NRCC are trying to hold onto this seat by dredging up old news about Russ Warner and old tax liens and business license payments.  These are incidents from as far back as 1992, and Warner’s business license has since been reinstated.  It’s a pretty negative mailer considering that Dreier sounds so confident about victory.  Warner is now out with his own mailer highlighting Dreier’s many ties to special interests (like the $200,000 he’s received from oil and gas companies).  The fact that Dreier and Bush agree 94% of the time makes an appearance as well.  The fact that this race is getting so nasty so early suggests that Dreier has seen some polling that has him worried.  Maybe it’s because the Inland Empire is gradually turning blue and Dreier’s days of easy campaigns are numbered.  Enough of the district is in the IE for that to matter.

• AD-80: Manuel Perez has snagged the endorsement of the Sierra Club.  They also have an ad up on the air, which is notable for an Assembly candidate.  

The newest major donor to the No on Prop 8: Equality for All campaign is one Brad Pitt.  It comes at a key time in fundraising over the initiative that would take away the right for gays and lesbians to get married.  The Yes side is seeing a major surge in donations, flooding into their coffers.  In fact, they are out raising us right now, Brad Pitt’s donation included.

The Mormon church is getting heavily involved in the campaign.  It looks like about 35% of contributions to the other side have come in from Mormons, or at least that is what they are claiming over at this Mormons for 8 website.  A high percentage of the large checks are coming from Utah.  

Here is the question: is a religious institution trying to buy this election and change the California Constitution?

They aren’t just donating.  They are fueling their GOTV activites.  Mormons have been invading neighborhoods en mass.  They are not using walk lists, but rather descend in large groups to knock doors and try and pass out the million yard signs they think is going to win them this election.  It’s flat out creepy.  It freaks out entire communities and usually the No on 8 campaign hears within a few minutes where the Mormons have decided to invade on any given day.

Look, I don’t have anything specific against Mormons.  It’s just that when a specific religious institution decides to play a large role in a political battle, it weirds me out.  Separation of chuch and state….

I know many of you have seen the polls and think we are going to win the battle over fundamental rights here in California.  But I have news from you.  The other side is winning the fundraising battle.  They are energized with volunteers and are counting on a sort of Bradley effect to put them over the top.  This is from an email from Dale Bankhead, the campaign manager for No on 8 (flip it):

You’ve probably heard that the polls show our side ahead. Some are saying that victory for our side is a sure thing. Don’t be fooled! This race is too close to call. The ugly truth we have learned from defeat after defeat in states across the country is that people lie on polls, especially about how they feel about LGBT people. In contest after contest, from Wisconsin to Colorado, we have gone into election day with polls showing our side with 7 to 10 points more support than we actually received at the ballot box.

This thing is close.  Want anecdotal evidence?  Key campaign staffers and leaders within the gay community are somehow squeezing their long awaited personal weddings in right now.  They are not running the risk that they will not be able to get married after the election.  So they are taking time out of working on the campaign to get married themselves.

The No on 8 campaign needs your help.  This is THE biggest campaign in California and we can’t win it without money and volunteers.

So give via the Calitics ActBlue page directly to the campaign.  And sign-up to volunteer.  They need people in their offices making calls and IDing voters.  This weekend there are a ton of field activities to participate in, as the Mormons and others on the Yes side try and pass out their million lawn signs.

[UPDATE] by Julia: Here is the quote from Pitt.  It’s a good one.

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.

As Larry points out in the comments on the dkos version of this post, the Yes side is outraising us 3 to 2 right now.  So give if you can.