LA Times, SF Chronicle looks for balance

by Brian Leubitz

You have to give both the SF Chronicle and the LA Times some credit to promote moderate Republicans. The state is clearly better served by having (at least) two strong parties. With Tim Donnelly looking strong at the top of the ticket, you have to look for moderates elsewhere. Both papers endorsed non-partisan Marshall Tuck for the non-partisan State Superintendent position, because, you know, he doesn’t like labor and wants us to charter school and test our way to educational nirvana.

Unfortunately, ex-legislator Tom Torlakson, who now occupies that office, is much too deferential to the teachers unions. Torlakson, a former teacher, is a dedicated and knowledgeable advocate for education – but when tough choices need to be made, he too often ends up on the wrong side. For example, Torlakson has opposed attempts to consider student test scores as one factor in teacher evaluations, a dogmatic stance that cost the state federal dollars. (SF Chronicle)

It appears that the Chronicle is upset because Torlakson doesn’t support the failed “Race to the top” scheme. Note failed isn’t merely a personal opinion: it’s backed up by hard research. The grants were too small, the goals too big, and the guidelines were not necessarily the right path to meet our real educational goals. So rather than merely castigating (former teacher) Torlakson for standing up for teachers, perhaps we should investigate why he made those decisions. We simply can’t test our way to educational success, Torlakson knows this.

But you have to laud both papers for looking for better educational outcomes. But when we spend less per pupil than states with much lower cost states, perhaps we need to look in the mirror first. And perhaps we should be doing the same thing in the Secretary of State race, and it seems that both the Chronicle and the Times have looked to the Secretary of State race for some balancing.

The Times endorsed Pete Peterson this morning and the Chronicle endorsed Dan Schnur last week. Both are Republicans, though Schnur has now moved away from that label in an attempt to win the center. But neither has the looks of a career politician, and both editorials mention the fact that neither appear to be looking for the job as a stepping stone.

For the SoS gig, these are some laudable aims. But they’ve both looked past the best candidate. A candidate that has a history of working for a better campaign finance system, Derek Cressman. Cressman appeared last week in San Francisco to protest the big fundraising at the annual AT&T Speaker’s Cup, and would use the office as something of a bully pulpit. But more than that, he has the management experience to take on the real dysfunctions of the office that are the heart of the job.

Peterson and Schnur are both reasonable options, but in a Democratic dominated state, we need a Democrat with a history of advocating for real and substantive reform with the experience to run a big office. That’s Derek Cressman.

Republicans beginning to fear a nativist on a large stage

by Brian Leubitz

Gov. Brown is looking good in all the polling. He’s well over 50% against all the challengers, and the leading Republican is nativist Tim Donnelly. That raises something of an existential question for the future of the California Republican party: are they a niche right-wing party or can they compete for statewide races?

So, with that in mind, much of the establishment of the national GOP is looking to push Wall Street’s candidate, Neel Kashkari. The endorsements are flooding in:

Bush, who’s considering a 2016 run for president, joins 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, former California Gov. Pete Wilson and San Diego-area GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, who signed on with Kashkari on Monday.

*** **** ***

Kashkari’s endorsers make all the right noises about how “it’s clearly time for new leadership” (Issa) and how the former investment banker’s skills are “exactly what we need in leading California today” (Romney). But it’s probably not Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s 57 percent support in that poll that worries Republicans both inside and outside the state – it’s the 17 percent backing that San Bernardino County GOP Assemblyman Tim Donnelly has picked up.(SF Chronicle / John Wildermuth

That 17 percent is pretty close to Donnelly’s ceiling. He won’t get much in the way of minority votes, and he’s certainly not going to do well with independents. Brown could rack up vote totals that are rarely seen in politics. The Republicans know they aren’t going to beat Brown, but they don’t want to go down in flames. That kind of losing leaves a mark that you can’t wipe away the next day, or the next cycle.

And so you have Republicans from seemingly everywhere pouring in to endorse Kashkari. Given that he was at 2% a few days ago, and has only five weeks, it’s a big hill to climb. But, it’s a hill that establishment Republicans are desperate to conquer.

Former Brown consultant Steve Glazer’s work with Chamber PAC raises questions

by Brian Leubitz

Let’s put this out there, the 16th Assembly District, given the current candidate list, and barring any major craziness, will be electing a Democrat in November. But that is a statement that can be made in many districts across the state. And given that knowledge, the Chamber of Commerce and its allies are getting smarter. They are supporting moderate Democrats against more progressive candidates. In other words, the Democratic Party’s big tent is stretching further than ever.

One such moderate candidate is Steve Glazer, a member of the Orinda city council, and a consultant to Governor Brown. But what has been raising some questions this week has been his work on behalf of JobsPAC, the somewhat notorious PAC of the Chamber of Commerce and its right-wing allies. Robert Gammon of the East Bay Express dug into this relationship:

During the campaign, Glazer, a Democrat, has repeatedly criticized Sbranti’s union backing, while portraying himself as the true “independent” candidate in the race, not beholden to special interests. But public records show that Glazer, who is part of a new breed of pro-business moderate politicians now increasingly known as Corporate Democrats, owes his financial well-being in part to special interests: Big Oil, insurance, and tobacco companies. In addition, Glazer worked for a powerful political committee at a time when it was only supporting Republicans and was spending huge sums trying to defeat liberal Democrats for the state legislature.

Throughout 2012, Glazer worked as a political consultant for JobsPAC, an influential group operated by the California Chamber of Commerce. Records show that during that time, JobsPAC paid Glazer $172,500. And while Glazer was on the group’s payroll, its three big funders by far were oil companies ($660,000), tobacco interests ($334,500), and the insurance industry ($446,000). The single largest donors were Chevron Corporation ($610,000) and Philip Morris USA Inc. ($334,500).(EBExpress / Robert Gammon)

The June primary is a really big deal here. With one Republican in the race, we will likely see a Democratic likely winner emerge in June. There are plenty of Republicans to push the one Republican into the top two. The only question is which Democrat will join them. Steve Glazer has been working in this kind of race for a while. JobsPAC was involved in the Daly/Garcia race in OC, and getting Tom Calderon elected (before his recent fall from grace). And while Glazer has stated that he was working on supporting moderate Democrats rather than Republicans, he was on the payroll for a long time while JobsPAC was spending nearly all of its money on Republicans.

We are still learning a lot about Top-2 and how it will impact these races, but AD-16 should be a fascinating test case on the success of corporate Democrats in Dem-leaning districts.

Note: I helped design Tim Sbranti’s website

Sugary beverage warning stalled over $400,000 bill

by Brian Leubitz

That number you read above is not missing any zeros. Apparently the policy decision to help reduce diabetes fell to a bill of less than half a million dollars, which in the grand scheme of obesity costs, is quite small.

A state bill that would require health-warning labels on sugar-added drinks and sodas in California was sidelined Monday for further review of its enforcement costs even though its author argued that it would cut costs to taxpayers in the long term by reducing diabetes and other obesity-related diseases.

The Senate Appropriations Committee moved SB 1000 to the suspense file. Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) said he will work to reduce the $390,000 in immediate costs of enforcement for his measure so it can be revived for a floor vote. (LA Times)

Can it be really argued that the net expense of this will be positive for the state? Dialysis and other diabetes care is rapidly becoming one of the biggest expenses to our health care system. A single patient on dialysis can cost around $75,000 per year. $390,000 vs even a small handful of reduced diabetes cases would be a huge savings to the state. Expand that out to the entire state, and we could see significants savings.

Yet the beverage companies, specifically the two large soda companies, are in no mood to see such regulation. They don’t want to break the myth of having a good time with a refreshing beverage, or “quenching your thirst” with a “sports drink.” But with the threat of a soda tax in San Francisco, any small crack in the armor is not something that the beverage industry can tolerate. All this despite the fact that big majorities of likely voters favor the warnings.

Even if it would save lives, in today’s climate, the corporate bottom line takes priority.  

Field poll shows voters want lower taxes and services, just not any of the services they like

By Brian Leubitz

The Field polling organization occasionally asks voters how they feel about the balance of government services versus taxes. And in the most recent such poll, by a 54% to 35% margin, most California voters say they prefer lower taxes and fewer

government services to higher taxes and more government services. But if you are a Republican, you are going to want to stop reading there.

You see, voters aren’t really sure what they want. They say they want fewer services, but when it comes to choosing services that they would be willing to cut, well that’s a different story. When it comes to pretty much anything that costs a substantial part of our state budget, nobody wants to make any cuts.

However, when voters are asked whether state and local government spending in each of six specific program areas should be increased, reduced or left the same, there is much less support for spending reductions. Only small proportions of voter (between 8% and 15%) support less state and local government spending on the k-12 schools, mental health, road and highway building and repair, and law enforcement and police. In the case of k-12 schools and mental health, majorities favor increased government spending. In the case of road and highway building and repair, and law enforcement and police, pluralities support keeping spending at current levels. Voters are divided when asked about government spending on environmental protection and public assistance programs. (Field)

So, cut our taxes and reduce our services, except the services that we like, which are most of them. It’s a frustrating dynamic, to say the least, but it is a dynamic that the Republicans have been playing off for decades in California and beyond. It hasn’t been all that successful here, but it has worked very well elsewhere, and it is all they really have.

On another front, support for Prop 13 remains high. However, a big majority of voters would like to see the commercial property values reset on any property transaction, not just a complete sale. That change would be bigger than it sounds, as commercial property rarely changes hands completely. This would shift the balance that had been shifting heavily towards housing. But, who knows if it would ever happen, the Chamber of Commerce is still strong, and would bust out “job killer” in under 2.5 seconds.

Flawed polling in SoS race

by Brian Leubitz

With Sen. Yee dropping out of the Secretary of State’s race, the media and the polling operations have been in something of a frenzy to figure out how that will impact the race. And, so, you would think that a poll that was being conducted during that mess could have some very interesting data.

It could, but the Field Poll that was being conducted while Yee was arrested has a few very serious flaws. First, here are the up-front numbers after the Yee arrest: Peterson-R: 30%, Padilla-D: 17%, Curtis-G: 5%, Schnur-NPP: 4%, Cressman-D: 3%, Other/Undecided: 41%.

That’s all well and good, but let’s look at a few flaws in this poll.

1) The poll didn’t include all the candidates on the ballot. Ordinarily in a competitive race with just a few relatively well-known candidates, you can kind of forgive that. However, this is a different kind of race. There are a slew of unknown candidates. Even Padilla, who is the most known candidate in the race, was basically an unknown to 54% of likely voters. But the poll did not include two candidates who haven’t filed fundraising reports with the state: Jeffrey Drobman and Roy Allmond.

Now, to be clear, neither of these two will be your next secretary of state. And they won’t pick up a ton of votes. But Allmond is running as a Republican, splitting the generic Republican vote. Drobman is running as a Democrat and may cause problems for Democrats as well. However, that split of base Republican vote could be meaningful. Peterson, with his $1800 or so that he has in the bank still seems likely to grab one of the top-two positions, but that is hardly a given.

2) The poll was split between pre and post-Yee. The margin of error is higher than most Field polls, with a 5.5% pre-Yee MoE, and 6.5% post-Yee MoE.

3) Winning the June primary is essentially meaningless. We do not have head-to-head matchups in this poll

Conclusion: I normally love the Field Poll data, and some of the things about the coverage that have been bothering me have nothing to do with Field at all. The media should know that winning the June election doesn’t really make you a frontrunner, but that doesn’t stop Breitbart declaring that Peterson is “favored” to win. Yes, he is favored to win the vote totals in June, but that and a quarter will get you a gumball.

Give me data for a head to head matchup between Peterson and Padilla, and then see what we get before any leads are declared. Note that this is also an issue in the Controller’s race. SacBee declared Mayor Ashley Swearingen the leader in that race, despite the fact that Democratic vote is split. Top-2 is apparently creating a lot of confusion for both reporters and readers, but in many ways, it isn’t that different than a regular primary when it comes to vote consolidation. Most Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate in November, so comparing June vote totals is more than a bit confusing. Perhaps headline writers could do a better job on this front?

I mean, come on, do you really think this video at the top of this post is going to push Peterson to the win?

Bill sent to interim study as lack of votes became apparent

by Brian Leubitz

With the recent negative coverage from the movie Blackfish, activists from across the nation were looking to the Assembly today. The orca hearings in Sacramento got a lot of press coverage, but the bill will not move forward this year:

In a move that effectively kills the legislative effort for the year, the legislation aimed at ending SeaWorld’s killer whale shows was sent to interim hearings. The author agreed to the committee chair’s request when it became clear that the votes were not there to move the bill. The action spares legislators and SeaWorld the uncertainty that a simple defeat of the bill in committee would have brought since bills sent to interim cannot be reconsidered. Presumably, hearings will be held after the close of the legislative session that could shape the debate in 2015.(IVN / Shawn M. Griffiths)

As you might expect, SeaWorld was very, very opposed to the bill and brought out all the stops. Their argument is fairly well laid out in this Fox5 video, but the short version is that the whales are better off performing because that is the most stimulating part of their day. That question will get some more study this year as the bill is likely to come up again. On the eve of the hearings, activists delivered over a million signatures in support of the measure, and the attention is unlikely to totally recede anytime soon.