Statewide elections bring big challenges to Republican playbook

by Brian Leubitz

California Republicans really want to be like other Republicans. They want to win lots of elections and support some crazy, right-wing policies. But, it turns out in California, that’s kind of a non-starter. In fact, the odds are so stacked against that craziness, that Republicans statewide are well behind out of the starting gate. From Jim Newton of the LA Times:

Aaron McLear, senior advisor to the Kashkari campaign, pointed out to me last week that, for a Republican to win statewide, he or she needs to carry 95% of Republican voters, two-thirds of independents and about one-third of Democrats. That is, as he said, “tough, really tough.” (Jim Newton / LAT)

Much of this is demographics, as Newton discusses later in that article. I mean, how long can a party in California continue with nativist rhetoric. Heck, the former Minuteman leader (Asm. Tim Donnelly) was a serious Republican candidate for Governor this June. It is hard for a party to simultaneously take the Minutemen and Latinos seriously. You can’t be both racist and support a diverse California.

But it is clearly more than that for the CRP. It would be easy to just say that they should run a more moderate candidate. They’ve done that. Meg Whitman wasn’t really of the right-wing, and neither is Neel Kashkari. But unless another Arnold Schwarzenegger comes along, with something exceptional (like say a huge movie career), the branding of the California Republican Party is like a lead anchor around his or her poll numbers. It is exceedingly difficult, in the modern media atmosphere, to transcend party identification. Even Meg Whitman, with all of her millions, couldn’t accomplish the task.

One candidate can’t change lead a party from the wilderness, even if his name is Arnold Schwarzenegger. The California Republican Party is intent on becoming a regional party, and if that is going to change, it will take a long-term overhaul.

Ballots are in the mail. I’m voting yes.

by Brian Leubitz

In case you missed it, the election started a few days ago. Ballots went in the mail early this week, and by the end of this weekend, millions of votes will already have been cast.

So, how are you voting on those pesky ballot measures? NextTen has a helpful guide, California Choices, with information about the measures and who has taken a position on either side.

But here’s how I’m leaning as of right now. I probably won’t actually cast my ballot for another week or two, but this is my general inclination right now: Yes. On all of them. So, a quick rundown:

Prop 1: Water Bond: Yes

This is far from perfect. I’d prefer more money in conservation as opposed to storage projects, and there are a lot of implementation details still to be decided. However, with the current drought, I think it is pretty clear that we need to be spending money on water infrastructure. This gets us one step along the way.

Prop 2: Rainy Day Fund / Budget Stabilization: Yes

A little bit of smoothing in our boom and bust budget is probably a good thing. This law requires a reduction in reserves by school districts, which makes some education folks a bit nervous. But, in theory, the state won’t be making the massive cuts to education when the economy takes a bit of a hiccup. Again, some questions of how this will actually work are still to be ironed out, but this is generally worthy of a Yes vote.

Prop 45: Health Insurance Rates: Yes

Dave Jones is working hard to strengthen his office’s ability to review health insurance rates. The opponents argue that the review could delay plans making it to the health care exchange. I have been reassured by Insurance Commissioner Jones that this will not be an issue, timely review is indeed possible. If all works right with this measure, health insurance plans will just have to show that they are spending their money wisely and on medical care. I’m leaning towards Yes.

Prop 46: Medical safety: medical negligence limits and drug testing: YES

I’ve written about this measure several times. The caps on non-economic damages is unfair, provides cruel incentives, and doesn’t do what it purports to do (lower insurance costs). Privacy concerns about the drug testing are valid, but surely we can come up safeguards. This measure is long overdue in California. Please, Vote YES ON 46.

Prop 47: Criminal Sentencing: Yes

Sentencing reform championed by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon. It will reduce non-violent offenders in our prisons, reduce the ridiculous amount of money we spend on our prisons while allowing us to increase money for treatment programs. All of this makes sense, I’m voting Yes.

Prop 48: Approve Tribal Gaming Compacts: Yes

A referendum that is more about the relationships between various tribes than anything else. Some current gaming tribes are less than pleased about a new casino being opened up within Central Valley city borders and off a reservation. I don’t love all the casinos opening up, but they are going to happen given the current state of the law. I can’t see any reason why this one is really any worse. I guess I’ll vote yes.

LA Times Editorial Board Member pens op-ed against deceptive campaign tactics by insurance funded No on 46 campaign

by Brian Leubitz

The members of the LA Times Editorial Board don’t frequently go this far out on the limb against a ballot measure campaign. But check out this op-ed from a member of that board, Jon Healey, calling out the No on 46 campaign:

Even by the political world’s low standards of truthiness, a new commercial being aired by the No on Proposition 46 campaign is jaw-droppingly deceptive.

*** **** ***

Opponents are also trying to persuade voters that the measure would expose their personal health to more prying eyes. But that is, in a word, baloney. Proposition 46 increases the risk of medical data being hacked to the same degree that building a snowman increases the risk of low temperatures. Yet a new television commercial being run by the No on 46 campaign would have you believe that the measure would practically put your medical records up on EBay.

*** **** ***

The implication is that the proposition would either create or pump more personal information into a database that’s less protected than other online repositories. None of that is true. (LA Times / Jon Healey)

I support Prop 46 for a number of reasons. The cap on non-economic damages in MICRA has been devastating for patients across the state. It makes some patients “cheaper” by emphasizing concrete economic damages like lost income. Yes, an insurance company CEO would have brought home more definable money than a child, but does that really mean that only malpractice against the rich and established should give rise to a claim? It means that killing a patient is frequently cheaper than causing expensive long-term health consequences.

Yes, Prop 46 can be a bit confusing, but it has one clear underlining goal: improving patient safety. That is what the CURES requirement would do by decreasing prescription interactions, and that is what the drug testing requirement would do. Maybe you have quibbles about the means to the end goal, but the goal is clear: patient safety.

Could CURES, the prescription database, use some work? Of course, but to blithely state that the government should not maintain any of records? Newsflash: the government already has a ton of personal data. They have your income tax records and social security records. We trust the government with that data, yet somehow hackers are going to focus their efforts on a prescription drug database?

This is California, the home of innovation. We can build a database that makes patients safer and maintains their privacy. Are we really going to shy away from all computerization of our records, or should we only trust the insurance companies with our records?

All of these objections are a way of making the issues fuzzy by the NO campaign. But Prop 46 would bring at least some semblance of hope to the families that have had to deal with the loss of a loved one to medical malpractice that things can get better. That’s why California leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Candace Lightner, the founder of MADD, are supporting Prop 46.

I recommend you see through the typical campaign insanity and vote YES on Prop 46.

GOP candidate for governor pictures very different GOP than actually exists

by Brian Leubitz

Neel Kashkari made a big speech this weekend at the California Republican Party’s convention. It was meant to do two things: shore up his base and project a vision of a moderate party that could face California’s future challenges. In many ways, these goals are diametrically opposed to each other.

It may have accomplished the base aspect, with convention goers seeming to be happy. Or at least they told the media that they were happy. Of course, it still wasn’t enough for Controller candidate Ashley Swearingen to be convinced:

Delegate Matt Kauble of Cerritos said he voted for Kashkari’s tea party rival, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks), in the June primary but was impressed by Kashkari’s passion about relieving poverty and his desire to appeal to a multiracial audience.

*** **** ***

Ashley Swearengin, running for controller, told reporters Friday that she hadn’t made up her mind between Kashkari and Brown because she hadn’t yet had a chance to meet with the Republican. State party chairman Jim Brulte labeled her strategy “Felony stupid” in an email exchange with other party members. (LA Times)

I must say, “felony stupid” is really an underused term. I think I’ll add it to my daily conversational repertoire. At any rate, base consolidation is a question best answered by FlashReport and the similar outlets. But the question of whether he, and the CRP, can speak to the broader California electorate is a different beast. So that’s where he comes up with this:

“When they said we don’t care about the poor, we don’t care about minorities, they have no idea what they’re talking about,” Kashkari said.(LA Times)

He backed all that up with historical connections, including the GOP’s support of the Civil Rights Act. And that is partially true. The civil rights legislation of the 60s and 70s wouldn’t have occured without the support of Northern Republicans. Except that most of those Republicans (see Chaffee, Lincoln) have left the GOP for the Democratic Party. And then there is the small matter of the now widely acknowledged Southern strategy.

Wouldn’t it be great if Kashkari’s vision were actually true? I would love to live in a world where there was robust debate between two parties focused on how to best ensure that no American went to bed hungry or homeless. But that world is not this one. No matter how you try to dress up the Republican party, especially the California Republican party, it is still a right-wing organization with signed contracts of inflexibility.

Maybe in another generation or so we could see two (or, preferably, more!) parties that can speak to the California electorate giving voters real options. But the CRP that Kashkari hopes to lead is not that one.

Effective legislator will bring new energy to SoS office

by Brian Leubitz

I’m not as big of a critic of Debra Bowen’s time in office as some others. To be clear, while the office could have done a better job in some areas, like Cal-Access and some other very important data tools, she has made a concerted effort to make the voting process transparent. That being said, maybe we need a different type of leader in that office now.

With the recent news that Sen. Alex Padilla was leading Republican electoral neophyte Pete Peterson by a relatively slim 43-36 lead in the recent Field Poll. Of course, name ID on both candidates is very low, and much of those numbers are due to party ID alone. Peterson has a history in the think tank world that makes him appear pretty nonpartisan. And he probably would play most issues pretty straight down the middle. But, there are a few differences, and these differences tend to come up at the most important times.

During the primary I endorsed Derek Cressman because he has a history of fighting the all-consuming power of money in politics. He had this to say of Sen. Padilla:

As a lifelong champion for campaign finance reform and open government, I am proud to support Alex Padilla for Secretary of State. Alex will bring his energy, smarts and experience to work to get things done — and he’s a champion of the reforms that will make California elections more fair and just. (Derek Cressman on Alex Padilla’s website)

I know there is a bit of hand wringing out there, especially after that poll. But Sen. Padilla will work to make our elections fair and increase transparency. As a legislator, he has looked for ways to innovate, and he will continue to do so as Sec. of State.

You can find out more about his campaign on his website here: www.padilla4sofs.com