While Jerry Brown is on the verge of defeating Meg Whitman, recent polling suggests the US Senate race is actually tightening. It is an extremely high priority that we defend Barbara Boxer against Carly Fiorina – control of the US Senate may depend on it, and we need to ensure that we support a progressive hero like Boxer.

Here’s the SF Chronicle on Fiorina’s “surge”:

A poll last week by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed Brown opening an eight-point lead over Whitman, up from a virtual tie in September. But Fiorina had edged to within five points of Boxer, with 13 percent of likely voters undecided. A Rasmussen poll Friday showed Fiorina closing to within three points, and leading by five among those who said they are certain to vote….

Public Policy Institute President and CEO Mark Baldassare said voters are deeply unhappy with both Sacramento and Washington, but draw a distinction between the two very different jobs of governor and senator.

“You’ve got a Boxer-Fiorina race that revolves around how people are feeling about Congress, and you don’t have that same dynamic in the Whitman-Brown race,” Baldassare said. Aside from partisans, he said, “Independents are really the interesting issue. What do they want in Sacramento? And what do they want in Washington?”

There’s no doubt that the public is, quite rightly, upset with the failures of Congressional Democrats, and the Senate in particular. At the same time, it would be extremely self-destructive to take that out on Barbara Boxer, who has been an effective Senator and stood up for Californians and our values even in the face of intense pressure not to do so, such as her courageous and correct vote against the Iraq War eight years ago.

Independent voters are the most susceptible to Fiorina’s argument, although the choice here is clear and easy: Fiorina believes in sending jobs overseas instead of creating them here at home, doesn’t support expanded health care coverage, and supports the right-wing’s extremist social agenda that most California independents reject.

But there are some that are trying to argue that Boxer also has a problem maintaining progressive voters as well. That’s the argument in Christopher Cook’s new article at In These Times, which includes a quote from me that appears to be taken out of context:

Boxer also suffers from a nationwide “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats, says writer Robert Cruickshank, Public Policy Director of the Courage Campaign. “Voters, especially the so-called ‘Obama surge’ voters from 2008, have seen the U.S. Senate in particular fail to implement an agenda of change,” and are turned off. “All Senate Democrats are suffering as a result of the obstructionism employed by Democrats such as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman,” says Cruickshank, and some California Democrats “are indicating they won’t vote in November.”

I spent all night searching for that quote of mine – I never spoke to Cook, and though I recall writing those words, I certainly did not mean them to suggest that California Democrats won’t have Boxer’s back. They will. The point I was making there was that Boxer is hurting because of problems outside her control – like other Senate Dems, the self-destructive actions of people like Nelson, Lincoln and Lieberman made it impossible for Democrats to implement their agenda and therefore have made Boxer more vulnerable than she should be.

In fact, California Democrats aren’t showing much of an enthusiasm gap. They are quite likely to vote, especially to protect Barbara Boxer. Here’s what I had to say about Boxer in the Calitics statewide endorsements:

The choice here is stark and simple: a progressive champion who fought against the war in Iraq and led the effort to pass a strong climate bill (among MANY other accomplishments) or a right-wing extremist who praises the Tea Party and defends her record of shipping tens of thousands of jobs overseas. Barbara Boxer had our back in the Senate when few others did. She deserves our support now against Carly Fiorina’s radicalism. Further, if Boxer wins, it is very difficult for the Republicans to retake the US Senate, another reason to vote for Boxer and maintain the firewall.

Every California progressive voter I talked to understands the importance of this race and of defending Barbara Boxer. It’s time we spread that word over this final week before the election. We cannot afford to let Boxer lose.

The recent LA Times/USC poll is a classic example of “I dare not hope this is true” polling. After giving Jerry Brown 13-point lead over Meg Whitman, today’s numbers on Props 23 and 25 are also good news for progressives:

Prop 23: 32% yes, 48% no

Prop 25: 58% yes, 28% no

I have to believe these numbers, like Brown’s 13-point lead, make this LAT/USC poll an outlier. Props 23 and 25 are almost certainly closer than this spread makes it appear. They have Prop 25 leading among every demographic group, including narrowly among Republicans and conservatives, and by huge margins among independents and moderates. Prop 23 similarly trails among most key demographic groups.

These results will only actually come true if we keep driving people to the polls. Courage Campaign (where I work as Public Policy Director) has a growing list of GOTV opportunities around the state. Take a look and see where you can contribute – and if you know of GOTV activities we don’t have listed, let me know and we’ll make sure it gets added.

The numbers in the latest LA Times/USC poll are stunning: Jerry Brown has opened a 13-point lead over Meg Whitman with just over a week to go until the November 2 election. While that lead is clearly an outlier at this point – PPIC and SurveyUSA last week put Brown’s lead at around 7 points – it’s a doubling of the lead the LA Times/USC poll found just last month. And even if you don’t accept that his lead is quite that big, the trend is in Brown’s favor, as Whitman is collapsing with the parts of the electorate that matter:

Defections from Meg Whitman’s ranks on the part of women, Latinos and nonpartisan voters have fueled a surge by Jerry Brown in the race for governor, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll.

Here are the numbers:

Governor: October (September)

Brown: 52 (49)

Whitman: 39 (44)

The poll shows that Whitman is trailing among three key voter blocs: Latinos, women, and independent voters. As the Calbuzzers described it:

Among key constituencies who tilt the balance in statewide races in California, Brown leads 61-24% among independents, 59-30% among moderates and 61-27% among Latinos – not to mention his 55-34% advantage among women, who comprised 53% of the LAT/USC likely voter universe.

Ouch. And to make matters worse, Whitman has a -15 favorability rating, whereas Brown is +4. One poll respondent, a Republican schoolteacher from the Sacramento area, explained that it was the wealthy CEOs’ lavish spending on their campaigns that drove her to back Brown and Boxer:

Paula Bennett, a schoolteacher in the Sacramento-area town of Acampo, said she was drawn to Brown in part by the blizzard of cash Whitman has thrown at the race.

“I like the little guy; he didn’t have the money behind him like she did,” she said in a follow-up interview, adding that she sided with Brown for the same reason that she favors a mom-and-pop establishment over a retail behemoth.

“We don’t shop at Walmart. We shop at the local store. He just seemed like more of a down-home candidate.”

Although she is Republican, Bennett is also siding with Boxer. She said she was offended by both Whitman’s and Fiorina’s infusions of personal cash into their races.

Speaking of the Senate race:

Senate: Oct (Sep)

Boxer: 50 (51)

Fiorina: 42 (43)

Boxer’s lead is stable and Fiorina cannot crack the low-40s with the electorate. Like Brown, Boxer has significant leads among women, Latinos, and independent voters that virtually ensure Fiorina will lose and, assuming all goes well in Washington State, that Democrats will narrowly keep control of the US Senate.

So what explains this? California is clearly bucking the national trend against Democrats, even if that trend has moderated in recent weeks. Democrats are poised to pick up big victories of national importance here, even with the avalanche of money Whitman and Fiorina are spending on their own behalf.

Obviously, that spending has turned off more voters than it’s gained, as we appear to be witnessing a repeat of the 2009 NYC mayoral election where voter disgust at Michael Bloomberg’s wealth nearly lost him the race to a little-known challenger.

But the LAT/USC poll reveals a deeper problem: Californians do not want to elect a white man’s party that caters to right-wing extremists. Whitman in particular has suffered from the Catch-22 she’s always found herself in – she cannot win the general election without the votes of Latinos, but cannot maintain her right-wing base if she reaches out too strongly to Latinos, who her base hates with a virulent passion.

This isn’t a surprise. Way back in April I explained how the LAT/USC poll’s numbers on immigration made it clear that Californians do not support immigrant bashing and that any candidate who tried to use it to win the election would fail. Sure enough, the current LAT/USC poll shows clearly that Whitman’s attack on immigrants has backfired badly:

Are immigrant a benefit or a burden to California?

Benefit: 48

Burden: 33

Do you support a path to legalization so undocumented immigrants can keep their jobs and stay, or should they be deported?

Keep jobs: 61

Deported: 28

How well do you think Whitman handled the housekeeper incident?

Very/somewhat well: 39

Not too/not well: 53

Whitman, of course, told a young and very successful undocumented student that she didn’t belong in school and explained that she didn’t back a path to legalization – leaving deportation or exploitation via guest worker status as the only option for perhaps millions of Californians.

Voters clearly do not respond favorably to immigrant bashing. Whitman may think this is 1994 (after all, she does have Pete Wilson on her campaign) but clearly the California electorate has changed. Both Whitman and Fiorina have wooed their right-wing, mostly white base, and by doing so have made themselves unelectable.

Unfortunately, not all statewide Dems have such big leads. Gavin Newsom narrowly leads Abel Maldonado in the Lt. Gov race, 41-37. And Kamala Harris is down 34-37 to Steve Cooley in the race for Attorney General. Hopefully Brown and Boxer will have enough coattails to help Newsom and Harris win – with Harris’ campaign being of particular importance to California’s future, especially to the rule of law and equal rights.

The latest PPIC poll is out and it shows Democratic candidates Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer still ahead of their Republican opponents. PPIC has Brown over Whitman 44-36 and Boxer over Fiorina 43-38. Those numbers are roughly similar to the SurveyUSA numbers from earlier this week, although Boxer’s lead is larger according to PPIC.

Before we get to their polling on the ballot propositions, it’s worth spending a moment to explain why Brown and Boxer have leads. As Calbuzz points out:

Despite her massive spending – which is expected to reach $180 million – Republican Whitman has been unable to break away from Democrat Brown except among Republicans, conservatives and Southern Californians outside of Los Angeles….

In the race for  U.S. Senate, Boxer commands Democrats, Women, Latinos, liberals and – importantly – moderates. She also kills Republican Fiorina in Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

They also note that whereas Whitman and Brown are evenly tied among men and whites, Fiorina has a lead with both groups, keeping her in the game, if ever so slightly.

Perhaps in 1910 California that would have been enough – since white men made up the majority of the electorate (women couldn’t vote and nonwhite men were a small portion of the electorate). But here in 2010, California is a far more diverse place. And you can’t win an election by being what Allan Hoffenblum called “a white man’s party”:

Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant who publishes the California Target Book, which handicaps legislative and congressional races, says the GOP “is still perceived as a white man’s party. And the fastest-growing group of voters is people of color. Every time they hear angry rhetoric about immigration, it’s coming out of Republicans.”

As we’ve explained numerous times here at Calitics over these last 5 years, this is an accurate description of the California Republican Party. It is a party whose base hates Latinos, does not believe women deserve basic rights to control their own bodies, and wants to treat LGBT Californians like second-class citizens. That is not a party that is electable in this state, and the Democrats’ dominance of statewide elections since 1996 merely reinforces the point.

This is something that Arnold Schwarzenegger well understood. He realized that a Republican could not get elected statewide if they espoused anti-Latino, anti-gay, anti-woman sentiments. And yet the only reason Arnold became governor was he did not have to run in a GOP primary on his way to becoming governor.

Meg Whitman did. And therein lay her downfall. She had to prove to her “white man’s party” base that she too hated Latinos, and she tried to do so during her battle against Steve Poizner while not going so far toward racism that she alienated the Latino votes she would need to win the general election. As it turned out, Whitman’s anti-Latino attitudes persisted into the general election, with her shocking attack on a Latino student being just one example of how Whitman shares the anti-Latino values of her base.

Carly Fiorina has been even more overt in her courting of the “white man’s party” base, praising teabaggers and denying global warming. And while it’s given her a small lead among those white men (thankfully not all of us are ignorant bigots) it’s not enough to win in a state as diverse as California.

	Prop 19	Prop 23	Prop 24	Prop 25
Yes:	44	37	31	49
No:	49	48	38	34

So that’s the good news from PPIC. What’s the bad news? Well, the ballot propositions aren’t looking so great, as you can see at right. PPIC polled those four propositions (wish they’d also polled Prop 26) and found that voters aren’t really fired up about any of them. Prop 19 is in worse shape here than in SurveyUSA, and Prop 25 is “stuck in neutral” according to KQED’s John Myers. Prop 23 is failing, thankfully, but Prop 24 should be doing much better.

There’s still a long way to go over the next dozen or so days before the election, and it’s very important that progressives get engaged to make sure we win.

Brought to you by the good folks at PowerPAC, a good overview of Kamala Harris’s efforts to stop Prop 8. Her opponent in the Attorney General’s race, Steve Cooley, has pledged to defend Prop 8 in court.

Crossposted from the Prop 8 trial tracker. I should note that I am the Public Policy Director at the Courage Campaign.

The Courage Campaign and HRC released a new video ad today asking Californians to call senate candidate Carly Fiorina and demand she reject the extremism of NOM – one of her campaign’s biggest financial backers. The ad – running on the websites of the LA Times, Sacramento Bee and San Francisco Chronicle – features disturbing clips of NOM supporters from rallies, in which they can be seen and heard calling for the murder of gays and lesbians.

Fiorina recently refused to condemn a Spanish-language NOM-backed ad supporting her, despite PolitiFact.com labeling the ad’s content as false. It’s no surprise – NOM has poured more than $220,000 into expenditures supporting her campaign. But confronted with the hateful messages of NOM’s supporters, will Fiorina do the right thing or continue bowing to special interest dollars from outside of the state?

You can help us expand the ad buy by making a $25 contribution to the Courage Campaign, so that more people can learn the truth about the extremism of Carly Fiorina’s supporters.

Here are excerpts from the Courage Campaign/HRC press release:

“Californians deserve to know the truth about the out-of-state extremist group that’s allied itself with Carly Fiorina,” said Courage Campaign Chairman and Founder Rick Jacobs.  “Time and again, the National Organization for Marriage has shown itself to be one of the most toxic elements in the political process, willing to use any means, — including tolerance of hate speech and refusal to comply with federal tax and election laws — to advance an agenda that advocates discrimination against millions of loving families and promotes an environment that leads LGBT teens to take their own lives.”    

“Will Carly Fiorina continue to associate herself with a radical fringe group like the National Organization for Marriage, or will she reject the anti-gay animus NOM stands for?” asked Joe Solmonese, HRC president.

The ad also highlights NOM’s ongoing legal problems, which include refusing to comply with the election and disclosure laws of nearly a half dozen states, including California, as well as funneling charitable resources into political campaigns.  The latter was the subject of a September 20th story in the Washington Independent, as well as an IRS complaint that the Human Rights Campaign and Courage Campaign filed against NOM’s San Diego based tax-exempt arm, called the Ruth Institute, last week.