UPDATE: Not so fast, Vidak has fallen below 50%. More info here.

Sacramento Bee Columnist Thinks Vidak Win is a blow to “Democratic Left”

by Brian Leubitz

I have a lot of respect for Dan Walters. We don’t agree on a wide range of issues (including his climate skepticism), you have to admire his persistence. He’s been doing this for a long, long time. And anybody who can stick around a depressing and crazy place like California’s capitol is worthy of respect.

However, he has a way of misreading political events, or forcing them into his own vision of what California politics should be.  But, I must say I was rather puzzled by his “Dan Walters Daily” video this morning, embedded to the right.

Basically, his point is that the Vidak win is a huge loss for the “Democratic left” who want to reform government and increase revenue. However, to be quite frank, his point holds no water whatsoever.

First, on the supermajority: Democrats now hold 28 seats. A supermajority is 27 seats, so they can still afford to lose one vote on 2/3 votes. And if Democrats had won 28 votes on election day, with no vacancies to worry about, would there really be all the handwringing? This is a solid 2/3 majority after all, only one vote short of the 29 we came into the session with.

Next, who are we replacing? Michael Rubio was never going to vote for sweeping revenue increases. Rubio was never going to touch Prop 13, even if Sen. Steinberg was thinking about it. Rubio clearly was an easier vote to grab than Vidak will be, but this is hardly the loss of a “Democratic left” champion.

Rubio was the most moderate Democratic senator. He was pushing CEQA reform that would have really left the purpose of the environmental protection scheme in question. The environment of our state is really far better off with Sen. Steinberg carrying the load on that legislation than the state senator from Chevron. Rubio was going to be one of the lost votes from the start on any major 2/3 vote that progressives wanted anyway.

As for Leticia Perez, she likely would have been a bit better than Michael Rubio. But let’s take a look at her campaign website, where she lists her platform:

“My campaign platform is simple: “1) I won’t raise your taxes. 2) I will raise the minimum wage to $9.25 an hour. 3) I guarantee that every child is taught to read and write English.

This is the devestating loss to the Democratic left? She announced that she would never vote for tax increases, and somehow that is a blow to the Democratic left? She was going to be lost vote #1, no matter how you slice it. Now, as you can see from points 2 and 3, she would certainly be better for the working poor and minimum wage issue than Vidak will be. But that is a majority vote issue anyway, and the decision on minimum wage is essentially left to the governor now. If Gov. Brown wants a minimum wage increase, he can pass it through the legislature, with Vidak or Perez in that seat.

Finally, you could argue that this breathes life into the California GOP. That might be true, but the math in this race is crazy. In 2010, when Rubio was elected, he defeated Tim Thiessen with a final tally of 71,334-46,717. In this week’s special election, Vidak won by a count of 29,837-24,584. This was a very low turnout election in a district with big distances for voters and many working poor that just couldn’t take the time off to vote in a single race special election. Furthermore, the district will change next year when Vidak has to run for re-election due to redistricting, and will continue to be a heavily Democratic district. There is a very strong chance for Democrats to take back this seat within 18 months.

Sorry, Mr. Walters. I just can’t see this as the big blow to the progressive wing of the Democratic party that you apparently think that it is.