Well, the votes are in, the matchups are set, and so I thought it was time for a baseline roundup of where I think the California House races stand as of now.  The main pieces of information that are causing me to reset my expectations are the primary results, the April 1-May 15 fundraising numbers and the new registration numbers from the Secretary of State’s office.  You can track all three yourself:

Primaries

FEC disclosures (you can search by candidate name)

Voter registration by Congressional district.

That said, let’s take a look, starting with the one threatened Democratic seat.

(A note: I’m going to start a state legislative roundup as well)

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  Good news and bad news out of this race.  The good news is that Dean Andal can’t seem to raise any money – just $11,000 in the pre-primary filing period.  The bad news is that Andal got about 900 more votes in his uncontested primary than McNerney did in his.  McNerney seemed to have a lot of trouble attracting votes in San Joaquin County, which brought back more votes than any county in the district.  While the NRCC and RNC will clearly be gunning for McNerney, the Barack Obama factor is certainly going to help him, as well has his incumbency status.  So it’s not time to pull the alarm just yet.  But McNerney does have some work to do.

REPUBLICAN SEATS

I’m going to do three tiers in setting apart the top seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04.  Last month: 1.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown.  Repub. challenger: Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in Feb. primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  Well, the battle is set.  Tom McClintock, the Alan Keyes of California, came out of his divisive primary triumphant, and now Charlie Brown has an opponent.  The Brown campaign released polls showing him leading McClintock in a head-to-head matchup.  Steve Weigand isn’t yet willing to bet the farm on a Brown pickup, but he recognizes the Roseville Democrat’s strength against the carpetbagging Republican from Thousand Oaks.  That Brown was able to get 42,000-plus votes against token competition on Tuesday shows that he has an energized activist base.  Peter Hecht has a good primer on the state of the race.  Expect Brown to hammer the message of Patriotism Above Partisanship against his knee-jerk wingnut conservative opponent.  Also, McClintock is broke after a costly primary and has a lot of catching up to do financially.

2. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  Russ Warner avenged his earlier loss to Cynthia Matthews in 2006 by winning handily on Tuesday, 67%-33%.  His turnout was not great, however (just 14,000 votes).  David Dreier got 74% of the vote, not great for an incumbent, and turnout was low district-wide.  Warner has been stepping up his game with a Web ad about Dreier’s frequent trips abroad and a companion site, Frequent Flyer Dreier.  My gut feel is that this is not an effective line of attack, especially when the easiest one is tying Dreier, a member of the House Republican Leadership, to George Bush and a failed conservative agenda.  I think there’s enough interest in this seat that such a message will get out there, however.  But Warner needs to improve on his June performance.  The new registration numbers are moving in Warner’s favor, however.

Second Tier

3. CA-45.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challenger: Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  Bornstein easily bested two challengers and won her race on Tuesday with just over 60% of the vote.  Adding up the Dem v. GOP vote you get about 22,000 Dems and 33,000 Republicans, which isn’t great.  But I feel Bornstein has some advantages.  Being an affordable housing advocate at a time when foreclosures are at an all-time high gives her authority on an important issue.  This article explaining her support for the Foreclosure Prevention Act is an example.  Manuel Perez’ win in AD-80, which partially overlaps the district, will be helpful too, especially if they engage in a campaign to register voters in the underperforming eastern regions of Riverside County like the Coachella Valley.  There’s a lot of room to run here, and it’s wide open for Democrats to exploit.  The registration numbers show just a 19,000-vote difference between Democrats and Republicans, and a dearth of registered voters relative to other districts.  This is an opportunity.  Bornstein also had pretty solid fundraising in the pre-primary filing (around $40K in 6 weeks).

4. CA-46.  Last month: 6.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  There’s a great profile of this race in today’s Los Angeles Times.

Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook has survived a few long-shot political battles. But the Debbie-versus-Goliath matchup she’s facing this fall is her biggest gamble yet.

The popular Surf City official is the Democratic hope to unseat GOP incumbent Rep. Dana Rohrabacher — seeking his 11th term — in an underdog campaign some observers believe may succeed.

Read the whole thing.  I need to see Cook’s fundraising numbers go up before I become a true believer, and her primary performance on Tuesday didn’t set the world on fire.  Cook got around 20,000 votes to Rohrabacher’s 35,000.  But Rohrabacher isn’t doing any meaningful fundraising at all, and he continues to stick his foot in his mouth with asinine comments like yesterday’s about torture being just a bunch of “frat boy pranks.”  Cook’s communications team is fabulous and understands the netroots, and they’ll be sure to get attention in this cycle (Blue America has already hosted her).  Rohrabacher acknowledges in the LAT article that he’ll have to pay attention to this race.  He’s right.

5. CA-50.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challenger: Nick Leibham.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  Nick Leibham had a good fundraising cycle (about $70K raised in 6 weeks) but a disastrous primary.  Cheryl Ede, who was not well-funded, got 43 percent of the vote, and Leibham was only able to manage 19,000 votes to Brian Bilbray’s 46,000.  The implication here is that Leibham has a problem with the activist support he’s going to need going into November.  That spells trouble – especially in a seat that’s winnable enough that Bilbray’s going to try and blur party lines in anticipation of a Democratic wave.  In such an environment, we need someone willing to offer a real politics of contrast.  This biographical ad is a decent start but Leibham has to get the message out there.

6. CA-03.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  The news is all pretty good for Bill Durston.  He had a fantastic fundraising cycle (77,000 in 6 weeks) and a strong showing in the primary, getting 26,000 votes to Dan Lungren’s 34,000.  Lungren, last seen in a Speedo on a lobbyist-paid trip to Hawaii, is absolutely going to have to work this time around.  Durston’s strategy in his second attempt to win this seat is slightly reminiscent of the effort against Richard Pombo in 2006.  He’ll need the same kind of support from outside groups to pull it off but it’s not impossible; like in CA-11, the registration numbers are all pointing in the Democratic direction, with less than 4 percentage points and only 15,000 votes separating Democrats and Republicans, the closest of any GOP-held seat.

Third Tier

7. CA-52.  Last month: 8.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Mike Lumpkin.  Repub. challenger: Duncan D. Hunter.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  The election night numbers show this seat to still be firmly Republican, with Duncan D. Hunter getting over twice as many votes in his race as Mike Lumpkin got in his.  Lumpkin managed only 58% of the vote, too, so he needs to lock down base support.  Lumpkin’s fundraising remains OK but Hunter’s got a big advantage there.  I personally liked Lumpkin’s rejection of those who would treat marriage equality as a divisive wedge issue.

8. CA-44.  Last month: 11.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick got only 15,000 votes in his uncontested effort on Tuesday, but Ken Calvert got only 25,000 votes in his.  This seems like one of those seats where nobody actually knows who the incumbent is.  In a Democratic wave election, this is on the outside edge of being competitive.

9. CA-24.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challenger: Marta Jorgensen.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6.  This was the shocker primary of the night.  Marta Jorgensen, who had dropped out of the race up until a couple weeks before the primary, ended up besting her two challengers, leaving party leaders in the district baffled.  There were hopes that this could be a battleground in November, but obviously Jorgensen – who had no expectation of winning and was told about her victory by the media – has a lot of work to do.  She introduced herself to the Calitics community today, and her record as someone who worked on the Draft Gore movement is admirable.  We’ll see how she approaches the next few months.

10. CA-41.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challenger: Tim Prince.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3. Tim Prince received just 32% of the vote in winning his primary over 3 challengers on Tuesday.  With Jerry Lewis apparently in the clear from a legal standpoint, even his role as one of America’s most corrupt politicians may not be enough to take him down.

11. CA-42.  Last month: 7.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challengers: Ed Chau.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0.  Ed Chau got around 7,000 votes in disposing of two challengers on primary night, while Gary Miller, running unopposed, got 32,000.  Chau needs to raise his profile throughout the district, as he lives outside it.  There is a small Asian community in the district and that would be a good place to start.

12. CA-48.  Last month: 13.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  In a district including Irvine, the housing issue is going to be enormous, so if Steve Young wants to have a shot he’s going to have to make that the big issue.  He got 18,000 votes in his uncontested primary; John Campbell got 40,000 in his.  It’s an uphill climb.

The campaign liaison to us blogger folks is providing us with constant updates about the write-in campaign of Dennis Morris, the legal scholar who launched a last-minute effort to step into the breach and get on the ballot to face Abel Maldonado in November in the 15th Senate District.  San Luis Obispo County, where the effort originated, now reports 2,385 write-in votes, an addition of 396 since the count on election night.  As far as the other counties, we have:

Santa Barbara: 413 write-in votes

Santa Cruz County 897 write-in votes

Which brings us to 3,701 votes, with 3,689 needed for passage.  Now, Monterey and Santa Clara Counties have not released their write-in totals, but Frank Russo is reporting that there were 1,182 write-in votes in Monterey County.  That brings us to 4,883.  And that’s without Santa Clara County:

And we don’t have any figures from Santa Clara County that supplied 24.4% of the Democratic votes in this district the last time the seat was contested in 2004. If Santa Clara County voters follow the rule of thumb of the other counties, there should be at least another thousand or more write-ins.

And in each of these counties there are a number of ballots not included in the initial election night sweep-vote-by-mail ballots or absentee ballots as they used to be called that were either dropped off at the polling place on election day or arrived in the mail at the registrar’s office on election day and were not opened until later. Also provisional ballots. These are thousands of ballots that will undoubtedly contain many more write-ins. In fact, Morris’ write in campaign got rolling-as much as it did-late. So a higher percentage of late voters would have been aware of it.

The caveat is that we don’t know anything about what these write-in votes say on them.  They could have Dennis Morris’ name.  They could have Abel Maldonado’s name, considering he petitioned at the last minute to file as a write-in candidate in the Democratic primary.  And they could have Mickey Mouse’s name.  We have no idea at this point.

Still, if all the votes come in at roughly the same level as they had, there’s at least theoretically a decent cushion of votes for Morris to get to the 3,689 needed.  That said, it’s not at all safe, and there’s nothing we can do but wait and see.  We’ll probably now sometime around the middle of the month, as the write-in canvass occurs after all other votes have been tabulated.

Dana Rohrabacher’s been saying stuff like this for years, only now he has an opponent who’s going to call him on it.

Today, the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight held a hearing on detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay, focusing on a recent FBI inspector general (IG) report documenting abusive practices at the facility. The report describes, among other things, a “war crimes file” created by FBI agents concerned about the interrogation tactics they witnessed at Guantanamo.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), however, sees nothing wrong with the accounts of abuse. While questioning IG Glenn Fine today, Rohrabacher insisted the report documented nothing more than “fraternity boy pranks and hazing pranks,” and hardly constituted torture:

ROHRABACHER: They seem like more like pranks, hazing pranks from some fraternity than some well-thought-out policy of how do you torture someone and get information from them. […]

I will have to tell you, when most people hear the word “torture,” which has been bandied around here, I don’t believe that they think of it as holding a growling dog near somebody but not the growling dog – you know, it’s one thing to have the growling dog eating someone’s leg or arm versus – which is absolute torture. It’s another thing to have a growling dog around, or putting panties on someone’s head, or discussing – telling him he had repressed homosexual tendencies in his presence. I mean, I’m sorry, these are acts of humiliation.

He apparently used the phrase “panties on someone’s head” 13 times in 8 minutes.

I could go on and on about how interrogation practices at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ban “outrages upon personal dignity,” or the UN Convention Against Torture, or sundry torture statutes in this country, and how (as DoJ Inspector Glenn Fine said today) such tactics are not only criminal but incredibly ineffective in gathering intelligence, and how as the world’s most powerful nation we have an obligation to uphold the highest standards of human rights lest the world sink to our level, but fortunately, I don’t have to say all that this year, because Democratic nominee Debbie Cook is on the case.  Here’s the statement her campaign emailed me:

“At a time when we need a serious discussion and thorough review of the allegations of torture coming out of Guantanamo Bay, Congressman Rohrabacher has used his position of trust to make jokes and liken the interrogations to nothing more than a frat party.  

We need a representative in Congress who will approach the serious issues facing our country with decorum and common sense, instead of cracking jokes. Torture is not to be taken lightly especially when the prestige and moral authority of the United States government is at stake.  

The voters of the 46th district deserve a Member of Congress who works hard, has a good grasp of the issues before them and who is taken seriously by their colleagues. That’s how you get things done in Congress.”

Rohrabacher is an embarrassment, and Debbie Cook is going to give the people of the 46th District a real alternative this year.

Your next Assemblyman from the 80th District:

Coachella, CA – Early this morning Manuel Perez declared victory in the Democratic primary in the 80th Assembly District. Perez won an overwhelming victory by building a strong multi-ethnic and diverse coalition in Riverside County and Imperial County.

“People power made the difference in this election,” declared Democratic nominee Manuel Perez. “My message of hope and values resonated across both counties as voters yearned for new leadership, new energy and common values.”

Progressives around the state could really learn from this guy.  I met Manuel Perez almost a year ago and was really thrilled by the transformative nature of his candidacy, someone who understands the issues facing California but can also put together the progressive argument in a broad and powerful way.  Plus he can reach out and help build a new generation of Hispanic leadership in the desert area that will leave its mark long after he’s out of the picture.  Mark my words, there’s a leadership position in this guy’s future, sooner rather than later.

The great thing is that the best chance we have for a pickup in November is not a Lou Correa-type Democrat but a real fighter for progressive values.  You don’t have to be afraid of your beliefs, you can speak to them and win.  That’s what Perez’ victory signifies.

(and a little labor money didn’t hurt either)

I think the results of yesterday’s primaries had some good news and some bad, and also brought to light the depressing realities of California politics.

• Turnout was horrendous.  These numbers will go up, but with all precincts reporting we’re looking at 22% turnout, the lowest in recent memory, far lower than 2006 and 2004.  There still is not much of a real political culture in California with respect to state politics, and I think that’s something we have to recognize.  I saw a lot of activism and citizen-led activity leading up to these primaries which made me somewhat hopeful, but it did not translate at the ballot box.  Of course, with so many uncontested primaries there was little at stake.  But as a measure of intensity of the electorate, there wasn’t much.

• IE campaigns win elections.  The outsized influence of IE campaigns is something we have to understand and work with.  Even the races where, as Robert said, progressives won in state legislature primaries, there were in general a lot of IEs, funded mostly by labor, on their behalf.  Rod Wright basically bought a seat in SD-25, with well over a million dollars of independent expenditures funded mostly by tobacco and business interests.  And the size of Bob Blumenfield’s victory in AD-40 suggests the importance of IEs.  There isn’t going to be a lot of appetite for reforming this from a set of state legislators who have IEs to thank for their positions in office.  Clean money elections is obviously the killer app, and I’m glad Loni Hancock will be in the State Senate to carry the bill, but it’s pretty depressing how easily these seats can be bought, particularly in low-turnout primaries where almost nobodyis paying attention.

• Measuring Congressional intensity.  Looking at turnout numbers in the primaries isn’t really a great measure of how the candidates will do in the general elections, but it’s a good benchmark of base support.  Among the winners were Bill Durston (within 8,000 votes of Dan Lungren) and Charlie Brown (just nipped by Tom McClintock in raw votes, but he got 42,000-plus out to vote for him in one of the highest-turnout elections anywhere).  Among the losers?  Well, pretty much everyone else.  But Nick Leibham can’t be happy about his totals, and he has a MAJOR activist support problem in the 50th district that he has to recognize and fix.  Russ Warner did sort of in the middle, well enough but with the need for improvement.  Considering she faced two challengers, Julie Bornstein didn’t do too badly either.

• Incumbency can be defeated, but it’s tough.  Carole Migden is something like the first incumbent to be beaten in a primary in California in a dozen years.  Mervyn Dymally was a sitting Assemblyman and something of a legendary figure so I’ll call him a sort-of beaten incumbent.  But it took lots of money to unseat these two and they had their share of political scandal.  Otherwise, it’s just real hard to get your message out.

• PDA is less than worthless.  I love and respect my friends in Progressive Democrats of America for their advocacy of progressive causes.  As an electoral engine, they are simply not a legitimate organization.  Only Cheryl Ede can hold her head up high as a PDA-backed candidate, and honestly I think that had more to do with Leibham than her.  Mary Pallant had PDA backing, more resources than the other two candidates in the race, and was thrashed by someone who suspended her candidacy and came back just weeks before the vote.  It takes more than screaming about the system and emailing frantically back and forth and writing resolutions to build a power base, and PDA needs to learn in a hurry.

• The legislative battlegrounds.  I’m very excited by Manuel Perez’ win in AD-80, where he was the only candidate to show strength in all parts of the district (he actually finished a close second in both Riverside and Imperial Counties).  He has a lot of momentum going into November against Gary Jeandron, the former sheriff of Palm Springs.  And Democrats got about 5,000 more votes than Republicans in that seat.  If Perez can unify the factions, he wins.  AD-78 looks good, too.  Marty Block squeaked out a win, and overall Democrats got over 8,000 more votes.  Joan Buchanan did well in AD-15 and has a decent base of support – this will be a close race against Abram Wilson.  I like what Alyson Huber did in AD-10, getting more votes than anyone on the ballot, Republican or Democratic.  In AD-26, John Eisenhut, a farmer, got almost as many votes in his unopposed primary as Republican Bill Berryhill did in his.  Ferial Masry is a longshot in AD-37, but the Democratic vote was within 5,000 of Republican Audra Strickland’s total.  Those are the 6 races that get us to 2/3.

In the State Senate, we’ll see what becomes of the Morris write-in.  But the good news was in SD-19, where Hannah-Beth Jackson got 47,000-plus votes to Tony Strickland’s 50,000-plus.  That’s relative parity, and a good place to be.  Because of the coattails Barack Obama will bring, I don’t mind some deficit between Democratic and Republican numbers in the primary, because there will be lots and lots of new voters coming out to support the nominee in the fall who will pull the lever for downticket candidates.  

That’s what I’ve got for now, I’m sure we’ll all be poring over the numbers in the days to come.