Tag Archives: CA-36

Marcy Winograd Asks For Your Vote – For Real Change

(Calitics promotes diaries from candidates and elected officials. – promoted by Robert Cruickshank)

Dear Friends,

I’m Marcy Winograd and I humbly ask for your vote in my challenge to Jane Harman in the June 8 Democratic primary.  I agree that the opportunity to serve is not an entitlement.  That’s why when Congress debates health care or the wars or the foreclosure crisis, I will take the debate to my district with town halls and meetings.  The people are entitled to participate in a national debate. Unfortunately, my opponent was one of the few in southern California who failed to hold one town hall during the epic health care debate. 

Our Democratic district deserves a real Democrat as its representative, not someone beholden to big banks, Wall Street, or the weapons industry.  We are at the crossroads and the choice is clear.  Together, we can all win.  Just watch.

EDIT by Robert: More (including a video) over the flip.

Together We All Win

I’m proud of my record, from my support of Daniel Ellsberg in the ’70’s to my more recent efforts putting the California Democratic Party on record to end new oil drilling and to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m even more excited about my plans to represent the 36th district, beginning with a transition from Harman’s permanent war economy to my Green New Deal, which will draw on the technical talent of our region to make it a center for green jobs in America. As a long-time teacher, I look forward to being the nation’s advocate for restoring world-class education–a voice stunningly absent in Congress. And much of my work will be to undo what Jane Harman & the Blue Dogs have done.  I’ll champion peace initiatives, not perpetual war with its attendant civil liberties violations – illegal wiretapping, preventative detention, kidnappings, and torture. On the home front, I’ll work to freeze foreclosures, modify home loans, repeal unfair trade agreements that outsource jobs, and amend the bankruptcy bill to forgive medical bankruptcy.  In addition, I will relentlessly defend our greatest public safety nets: our pensions, Social Security, and Medicare.  Republicans are on the offensive pushing a commission to “study” (cut) Social Security.  Unlike my opponent, I have been very clear where I stand on these safety nets.  We cannot allow them to be cut or privatized.  

I also look forward to working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus–Congress’ largest caucus–to make it a swing voting block that can advance progressive programs like the enactment of single-payer health care and the partnership of big banks with community banks. The 36th district, where Democratic registration outnumbers Republican by 18%, is a progressive district, and it’s high time we had a representative who believes in core Democratic values: diplomacy, social responsibility, and constitutional rights. As the founder of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles and an organizer of the CDP’s Progressive Caucus, I will be proud to make the Congressional Progressive Caucus a key advocate for change in Washington.

Above all, I’ll be what the Founding Fathers & Mothers imagined our Representatives to be: One of the people. I’ll be out in the schools and neighborhoods, living my life as I do now, where people work and shop. This district will once again be able to meet its Congresswoman in a town hall, and access will not be limited to the rich and powerful.

Indeed, the opportunity to serve is not an entitlement. I’ve earned my right to office from a lifetime of service, and I’ve built my grassroots campaign without a dime of corporate money. I ask all Democrats to remember what it’s supposed to mean to be a Democrat, and to give me your vote on June 8th. Thank you.

Marcy Winograd

A REAL Democrat for the People


36th Congressional District Candidate

Campaign Headquarters: 310 822 3400

http://www.winograd4congress.com

Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/Winogr…

Twitter:  http://twitter.com/marcywinograd

CA-36: Harman Holds Substantial Lead over Winograd

First, let me say this: I am a big fan of primary challenges.  But to make it really get past the statement phase, you really have to catch lightning in a bottle.  Of course, Republicans are doing it all over the place these days, but that’s not the case for Democrats.

So, with that I give you news from the Harman – Winograd primary challenge. According to a new poll for the Harman campaign, she is up by 41 points, 58-17.  Now, much of this is about name ID, where Harman is known by the community, and Winograd basically isn’t. Harman’s favorable/unfavorable ratio is at 64/18, while Winograd’s is at 20/6.

Now, the caveats: this poll is a fairly small sample, so the margin of error is almost +/- 5%.  But with the lead being so large, that shouldn’t matter all that much.  What these numbers are telling me is that Harman is going to win the primary on the strength of her name ID.  With only a few weeks to go before the election, Winograd is left playing the statement role.

Back in 2006, she garnered about 38%, and she might just reach that number.  But, for now, it looks like Harman has herself in a position for a comfortable win come June 8.

Marcy Winograd for Congress: Marcy Winograd’s Open Letter to CDP Delegates

CA-36 congressional candidate Marcy Winograd’s March 14, 2010 open letter to delegates follows:









Delegates, Floor Fight? You Bet!

Winograd vs. Harman: Choose Our Street over Wall Street




Delegates, I need your support to block the endorsement of Blue Dog Jane Harman on the floor of the California Democratic Party convention this weekend. Harman is a formidable opponent, particularly with her campaign consultant Harvey Englander, the man who engineered the passage of Howard Jarvis’ Prop 13.



You will hear Harman’s appointees argue that we should not usurp the local caucus’s power to endorse. Delegates are aware that incumbents enjoy institutional support and as such, many are unwilling to expend political capital or perceived accessibility to incumbents even though those incumbents may vote against core Democratic values. Our Party’s bylaws however, provide for exactly this type of challenge because when a candidate is endorsed, that endorsement reflects the will of the entire statewide Party, not just local delegates. Moreover, when a corporate Democrat, funded by military contractors and personally invested in those same contractors, takes us to war without exercising her oversight responsibility, all of us pay the price.



You may hear that we must respect what Party activists in the 36th congressional district want. Please know that I am proud to be endorsed by the majority of grassroots Democratic clubs in my district, including the San Pedro Democratic Club; Torrance Democratic Club; Progressive Democratic Club (Harbor); Gardena Valley Democratic Club; Progressive Democrats of America-36th District.


Our efforts begin on Friday night when many progressive delegates convene with national radio broadcaster Jim Hightower at the Palm Restaurant, 1100 Flower Street, across from the Marriott Hotel, where the convention will be held. All are welcome. At that time, I will ask you to commit yourself to gathering signatures for my petition to overturn Harman’s endorsement in the local caucus Saturday evening.



That local caucus, comprised of many elected officials and their appointed delegates, will undoubtedly endorse Harman, the candidate who once introduced herself to convention delegates as “the best Republican in the Democratic Party.”



Following her local caucus endorsement, we need to collect 300 delegate signatures within a few hours on Saturday night to overturn the endorsement and push this fight to the floor on Sunday morning. Dozens of Winograd for Congress supporters will circulate with clipboards, fanning out to collect the required petition signatures.



To block Harman’s endorsement on the floor, I will need 50% plus 1 delegate to reject her candidacy.



Winograd vs. Harman: What’s the Difference?



I am a proud progressive, a public school teacher on leave from Crenshaw HS in South Los Angeles, and an organizer of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.



This is not a contest between two corporate Democrats.



It’s between Our Street vs. Wall Street.



Homes vs. Banks.



Jobs vs. Wars.



At stake are the values and soul of the Democratic Party.



Who are we? What do we stand for?



As a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America’s Los Angeles chapter, I helped write, along with author Norman Solomon and Progressive Caucus Chair Karen Bernal, the resolutions putting our Party on record calling for an end to the US air and ground wars in Afghanistan. I also put our party on record calling for a cap on usurious bank interest rates, parole and sentencing reform, and an end to unfair trade agreements.



As a leader in the anti-war movement, I organized a 1,000-strong town hall with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and then led a delegation to Washington to introduce
our representatives to wounded veterans with Iraq Veterans Against the War. On the election protection front, I worked hard to elect SOS Deborah Bowen and to make sure she stayed in office to enforce her ban on most touch screen machines. In the labor movement, I organized with Cesar Chavez and became active in my own union: United Teachers of Los Angeles.



I support clean money, both in word and in deed. I am not taking a dime of corporate
contributions because I am the People’s Candidate for the People’s House.



My opponent is smart and tough. Unfortunately, she has used her strengths in the service of:




* big banks and military contractors


* supporting a bankruptcy bill that makes it easier for banks to hike your credit card rates

* punish you for medical bankruptcy

* foreclose on your home

* voting to deny you affordable generic medications for breast and brain cancer, HIV, and Parkinson’s disease

* defying a majority of House Democrats to take us to war in Iraq, then escalate in Afghanistan

* working to re-elect George Bush by pressuring the New York Times to suppress the story of Bush’s massive illegal wiretapping program

* finally, becoming the subject of an FBI investigation after being caught in an NSA wiretap allegedly offering to use her influence on the House Intelligence Committee to get spying charges dropped against AIPAC analysts – this in return for their reported promise to defund House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party if Pelosi refused to make Harman Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.







Enough.



I am not in the pocket of any lobby group – and am deeply committed to the pursuit of peace with justice in the Middle East.



It’s time for a change – and a commitment at home to transforming our war economy into a new Green economy. We need a Green New Deal along the lines of the Works Progress Administration. Together, we can put Americans back to work repairing our infrastructure, strengthening our public school system, developing new energy, and building mass transit.



Enough of perpetual wars and occupations that create greater instability and rob our treasury of trillions needed for health care, education, and housing.



The ILWU Southern California District Council, University of California AFT, Mexican American Bar Association, Progressive Democrats of American, and the Armenian National Committee are among my endorsers.



I ask all delegates to the California Democratic Party to help me challenge Jane Harman to a floor fight at the California Democratic Party convention. Thus far, my opponent has refused to debate me, but rumor has it she will make a rare appearance at the annual convention.



I look forward to the challenge — and to the moment on the floor when delegates will have an opportunity to stand tall.



Thank you,



Marcy Winograd

36th Congressional District Candidate

www.winogradforcongress.com





Redistricting California 2010, v2.0: Let Only 6 Republicans Be Safe

Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here’s what version 2 looks like, overall:

Statewide Map, Version 2

For comparison, here is Version 1:

Statewide Map, Version 1

Because redistricting diaries often seem to devolve into discussions of the morality of gerrymandering, I will state my thoughts up front in order to try and prevent discussion from thus devolving.

1) In an ideal world, my ideal scenario would be that all Congressional districts in all States would be redistricted by non-partisan commission, so that all districts were fair and no political party was disadvantaged on the national level.

2) We don’t live in an ideal world. If Democrats roll over and play dead during redistricting after the 2010 census, that will do nothing to stop Republicans from gerrymandering every last seat out of states they control, like Georgia, Texas, and Florida. That will result in a national Congressional map unfairly favorable towards Republicans.

3) So Democrats should draw politically favorable maps in states we control. Congressional Redistricting is a blood sport, and unilateral disarmament is not a viable solution. Taking the high road is the Michael Dukakis way, and it is the wrong way.

4) If Democrats draw strong enough maps in states like California that really hurt the GOP, then maybe the GOP will eventually cry uncle.

5) After that, maybe the GOP would agree to adopt a fair national solution in which all states, whether GOP controlled or Dem controlled, drew fair and competitive maps via commission or some other neutral mechanism. That might not happen, but electoral reform of that sort is certainly more likely if we fight back than if we let the GOP roll us.

Now, on to the substance:

Political Impact

The bottom line is that under this map or something similar, California’s Congressional delegation would have many more Democrats and many fewer Republicans. Overall there are now 42 seats classified as Safely Democratic, 4 Lean Democratic. Under this map California would likely send delegation with 46-49 Democrats and 6-9 Republicans to Congress. Currently, California’s Congressional delegation is 33D – 19R, so that is a substantial improvement.

If a handful of GOP incumbents are able to hold on in districts that voted in the mid-50s for Obama, it is possible the number of Democrats could be a bit lower than 46. But even in a very large GOP wave election, the number of Democratic seats would be unlikely to fall much below 42-46, because the vast majority of seats are at least D+10 or very close to it, which is more than high enough to withstand a 1994 or 2006 sized wave election.

Version 1 Change Version 2
Dem 39 +3 42
Lean Dem 5 -1 4
Swing 5 -2 3
GOP 4 +2 6

Below, I analyze the districts that change from my previous version.

Northern California

In Northern California, CA-4 is conceded to the GOP. In exchange CA-3 becomes more strongly Democratic and CA-10 much less gerrymandered. Indirectly, this also filters all the way down to San Bernadino County to help make CA-29 and CA-45 a bit more Democratic.

Northern California, Version 2 map

Districts Altered:


CA-2

Incumbent: ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+11
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 39% Obama, R+14
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 40% Obama, R+13.
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 72% White
District 1.0 Demographics: 78% White
District 2.0 Demographics: 77% White

CA-2 shifts a bit northwards from version 1, getting rid of El Dorado and Amador Counties to move into Nevada County and take in more of the Sacramento suburbs in Placer County. This might make the district about 1 point more Democratic.


CA-3

Incumbent: Dan Lungren (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 65% White
District 1.0 Demographics: 56% White
District version 2.0 Demographics: 45% White

CA-3 is reworked thoroughly from the previous version. In my previous version, GOP incumbent Dan Lungren was in trouble. In this new version, he is pretty much doomed if he runs in this district. Only 250,000 people in this district remain in Sacramento County, mostly in competitive northern suburbs, with a mix of Obama and McCain precincts. On top of those people, all of Solano County (except for a thin sparsely populated strip of CA-10) and West Sacramento are tacked on, turning a lean Democratic district into a solidly Democratic district.


CA-4

Incumbent: ?Dan Lungren? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R), ?Tom McLintock? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+10
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 79% White
District 1.0 Demographics: 57% White
District 2.0 Demographics: 78% White

The flip side of making CA-3 more Democratic is making CA-4 more Republican. The new CA-4 is a suburban swing district no more. It is now a solidly GOP district, combining suburban parts of Placer County with the Sierra Nevadas (minus Lake Tahoe) and strongly GOP north Fresno. 1/10 of the district is also made up of some particularly strong GOP precincts in Sacramento County, most of which are already in the current CA-4. GOP incumbents Dan Lungren, George Radanovich, and Tom McClintock would all have a reason to run here, making for a potential 3-way GOP primary, as substantial amounts of territory each has previously represented is included in this district.


CA-7

Incumbent: George Miller (D)
Previous District PVI: D+19
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 27% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 50% White, 31% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 50% White, 28% Latino

CA-7 gives up Antioch in order to pick up Berkeley. In order to keep Richmond contiguous with Oakland while also enabling CA-7 to add Berkeley, there is a thin coastal strip of CA-9 running through Berkeley as well. George Miller should have no difficulties in Berkeley, and when Miller retires, another strong Democrat should do fine in this district as well. Disproportionately few votes in this district are actually cast in San Joaquin county due to the high Latino population there. So the potential problem of someone from Berkeley winning a Democratic primary but then losing a general election (which applied to my previous version of CA-10) ought to be reduced in this modified version of CA-7.




CA-10

Incumbent: John Garamendi (D)
Previous District PVI: D+11
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 56% White
New District Demographics: 46% White

CA-10 is not the monster that the previous district was. The entire Sierra Nevadas section of the district is gone in version 2, and that population is instead picked up in Sacramento County (which now makes up about 4/7 of the district). The Sacramento section looks on its face like it would be Republican because there are large swaths of rural areas in the south-east of the county. But actually most of the population is in relatively Democratic suburban areas (like Elk Grove), and CA-10’s section of Sacramento County voted similarly to the county as a whole. Berkeley is also traded to CA-7 in exchange for Antioch. That makes CA-10 a little less Democratic than it would be, but only by a few points because Antioch is pretty strongly Democratic as well (65% for Obama). This also has negates the chance that someone from Berkeley with limited appeal in the Sacramento suburbs will be a future Democratic nominee in CA-10.

Southern California

An additional district in Southern California is conceded to the GOP (CA-48), in exchange for strengthening a couple of relatively weak Swing/Lean Democratic districts, and reducing gerrymandering in Orange County.

Southern California, Version 2 map

South-East LA & Orange County, Version 2 map

Districts Altered




CA-22

Incumbent: ?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+16
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 32% Obama, R+21
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 32% Obama, R+21
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 57% White, 49% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 62% White, 24% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 62% White, 26% Latino

Because CA-4 does not pick up the lake Tahoe area from CA-10, it has to make up population by pushing down on CA-22 into Fresno. This means that CA-22 also has some more population (114,000) to make up. It does so by crossing into San Bernadino County and relieving Adam Schiff of the most heavily Republican precincts around Barstow and Hesperia. So while the political makeup of CA-22 does not really change, it helps make CA-29 more Democratic, and indirectly helps to make CA-41 and CA-45 more Democratic.


CA-29

Incumbent: Adam Schiff (D)
Previous District PVI: D+14
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 45% White, 8% Asian, 34% Latino

As mentioned above, CA-29 sheds some heavily GOP areas to the 22nd district. To equalize the population, CA-29 adds Upland, which has some Democratic precincts to go with its Republican ones, and GOP Yucca Valley and Twenty Nine Palms. Though these areas are still generally GOP, they are a bit less Republican than the areas he loses. I also noticed that there were two prisons with combined populations of about 25,000 people in the middle of the desert/hills of rural San Bernadino county. I was sure to add those to CA-29, serving to increases the relative proportion of the vote cast in the heavily Democratic LA County part of the 29th. So Adam Schiff’s district becomes a bit more Democratic by picking up some relatively less GOP precincts and by adding some prisoners. I thought about putting Lake Tahoe in the 29th district, but didn’t in the end.




CA-40

Incumbent: ?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+8
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 46% White, 16% Asian, 32% Latino

CA-40 is now entirely within Orange County, and, like the rest of the districts in Orange County (except CA-47) is remodeled from version 1.0. This is probably just about the most Democratic district that can be made in Orange County without taking substantively from CA-47. It combines progressive and Democratic leaning Laguna beach with Costa Mesa, Irvine, and some Obama voting areas (with lots of apartments, which presumably explains their Democratic trend) around Laguna Woods/Aliso Viejo. This part of the district is 57% white, and makes up half of the district. The rest of the district (35% white) pecks around the fringes of CA-47, picking up Democratic leaning precincts in parts of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Placentia. Effective mobilization of young and minority voters would be key to any potential pickup of this district for Democrats. Another note is that if the Asian American voters I picked up turn out to be disproportionately Vietnamese, that would also make this district marginally more Republican.




CA-41

Incumbent: Jerry Lewis (R)
Previous District PVI: R+10
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 58% Obama, D+5
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 33% White, 11% Black, 45% Latino

CA-41 becomes substantially more Republican and less white than the previous version. It gives up its more rural areas of San Bernadino County (and its prisons) and is pulled westward towards Los Angeles. As the white population declines and the Latino population increases, both Black and Latino voters become a substantially greater proportion of the electorate. Only 50,000 people in the district now live in non-urbanized areas now (in the mountains just to the East of San Bernadino). I would guess this district voted about 58% for Obama, though it is possible that it is even more Democratic than that. The city of San Bernadino, for example, voted 66% for Obama.




CA-43

Incumbent: Joe Baca (Blue Dog D)
Previous District PVI: D+13
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 17% White, 65% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 23% White, 62% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 22% White, 63% Latino

From version 1, CA-43 shifts further to the West, adding Chino and Montclair. The Latino majority actually slightly increases in the process. Joe Baca would have no trouble running here, and he would probably have little difficulty in CA-41 either if he preferred to run there.




CA-44

Incumbent: ?Ken Calvert?, ?Mary Bono? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 44% White, 42% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 60% White, 25% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 62% White, 26% Latino

Version 2 of CA-44 is no different politically than version 1.0 (though possibly it is more like R+11 now). But geographically, it shifts further into Riverside County, adding much of Mary Bono’s GOP base areas, and even picks up a small section of San Bernadino County. This district would likely result in an interesting primary between Mary Bono (who is probably seen as too moderate to go unchallenged in a GOP primary) and Ken Calvert (who is reportedly being investigated by the FBI). Perhaps (I am only half kidding here) Doug Hoffman would run here as well, providing a true Conservative alternative…




CA-45

Incumbent: Mary Bono (R)
Previous District PVI: R+3
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 55% Obama, D+2
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 45% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 35% White, 51% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 34% White, 52% Latino

CA-45 becomes more Democratic than in version 1 by exchanging white GOP areas for Lake Tahoe. I would have liked to expand the Latino majority in this district, but was not really possible without reducing the Hispanic percentage in other Latino majority districts like CA-42 and CA-51. It was also tough to find somewhere suitable to put Lake Tahoe – I didn’t want to waste a lot of Democratic votes, but there were not many non-majority minority and non-Republican districts in Southern California that could easily extend northwards through Inyo and Mono Counties. The Inyo/Mono/Alpine/Lake Tahoe portion of the district voted 64% for Obama, while the rest (which is 57% Latino) voted about 60% for Obama. Mary Bono would be more likely to try her luck in a GOP primary in CA-44 than to fight a losing battle here.




CA-37

Incumbent: Laura Richardson (D)
Previous District PVI: D+26
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 67% Obama, D+14
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 31% White, 19% Black, 11% Asian, 38% Latino

For version 2 of CA-37, I managed to knock the black population up a notch to 19%, by running through a different section of Long Beach. 37% of the district (Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach) is in Orange County and voted for McCain 54-46. But that Orange County section is overwhelmed by the LA County portion, which includes Compton (96% for Obama), areas of LA nearby, and part of Long Beach. The overall Obama percentage goes up to 67%, partly because it actually gets more Democratic, but also because I think I originally slightly underestimated how Democratic this district was. The vote around Compton is really overwhelming – though it might be less so with Obama not on the ballot, this seat still should be very safe.




CA-46

Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher (R)
Previous District PVI: R+3
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 37% White, 22% Asian, 30% Latino

Only 30% of CA-46 is in Orange County now, but it does get substantially more Democratic (relative to version 1) because the areas of Orange County that are retained (chiefly the area around Westminster) are relatively Republican, while some of the areas of Orange County in version 1.0 (particularly Costa Mesa and Laguna Woods) voted for Obama. Those Democratic Orange County areas are donated to CA-40. Some of the areas in LA County that are added to CA-46 are only relatively weakly Democratic as well, and there are even a few McCain precincts in the LA county part of the district. It would be easy to make this district more Democratic by switching around some precincts with the neighboring 37th and 39th districts, but I didn’t do so in order to keep the minority populations well up in those VRA districts. This district makes much more sense geographically than the elongated snake in version 1.




CA-48

Incumbent: ?John Campbell? (R) ?Ed Royce? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 42% Obama, R+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 71% White, 11% Asian, 13% Latino

In Version 2.0, CA-48 is conceded to the GOP, becoming a thoroughly Republican district entirely contained within Orange County. It is just about the most heavily GOP district that could be created entirely within Orange County. In the northwest, the district starts in GOP north Fullerton. It takes in all of heavily GOP, high turnout Yorba Linda. More of the same as it heads through heavily GOP areas of Tustin and  Anaheim. It heads east to pick up more GOP areas surrounding the 40th district, including Mission Viejo, Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel. It then turns back to the North-West, through a thin coastal strip of Laguna Beach (hopefully not picking up too many Democrats), and ends by adding Newport Beach. By taking in so many GOP voters, it is possible to make the remaining Orange County districts both more Democratic and more compact. It also allows the 44th District to move into Riverside and San Bernadino counties, making other seats in the inland empire more Democratic.

I also made some minor alterations in the distribution of the Latino districts in LA in order to make the Latino percentages high in each, but that doesn’t alter their political status (safely Democratic).

You Almost Feel Bad for These Republicans Challenging Jane Harman…Almost

Jane Harman isn’t exactly popular around these parts.  Or around her district, to tell the truth.  But while Marcy Winograd challenges her from the left for the CA-36 seat, this attack from the right is rather silly. There are two fine candidates in the primary, both profiled in the Daily Breeze today.

Pete Kesterson, a tea party activist, and is running on a campaign in opposition to “out of control debt.”  But, this man has just about every strike possible against him.  While he is running his campaign on “fiscal sanity,” he has filed for bankruptcy twice and currently under-earning his monthly expenses by $1,000.

His opponent, Mattie Fein, just moved from Washington, DC to Venice to run fir the seat. But, you know, we learned that a carpetbagger can occasionally squeak out a win in CA-04, so just to make this Keystone Cops thing complete, Fein abandoned a house in Kentucky after having “fallen victim to unscrupulous lending practices.”

This crew sounds like something straight out of opposition research central casting, you’d almost think Harman recruited these people into the race herself.  Either way, this is a safe Democratic seat, whomever comes out of the primary stands a fantastic chance in the general.

Redistricting California 2010: Let Only 4 Republicans Be Safe

I decided to try my hand at redistricting California’s Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave’s Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here’s what the map I came up with looks like overall:

Here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:

Read on for a detailed analysis and breakdown:

California redistricting after the 2010 census presents a great opportunity for Democrats. In 2000, a bipartisan incumbent protection map was drawn, which very effectively protected all incumbents – both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, since that map was drawn, only 1 seat has changed hands. That was CA-11, lost by Richard Pombo to Jerry McNerney in 2006. With time, as California has continued to become more strongly Democratic, the Congressional map has effectively turned into a GOP gerrymander.

My goal was to make as many seats as possible that voted about 63% for Obama, while making as many of the rest of the remaining seats as possible at least competitive and winnable for Democrats, and conceding as few seats as possible to the GOP. My vote estimates are not exact (I did not add up all the precincts), but should generally be accurate, and any errors should be small enough to not really effect the overall partisan status of each district. My vote percentages take into account only Democratic and Republican votes, disregarding 3rd party votes which do not alter the outcome – so 63% for Obama necessarily means 37% for McCain as well. However, if CA 3rd party voters cast votes for major party candidates in Congressional races, on net it should probably help Democrats – a majority of 3rd Party votes in California were cast for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. I also assumed that California will keep 53 districts, though it is possible that California will lose one (or who knows, even gain, if the census count is high).

In theory, it would be possible to redistrict California so that every Congressional district voted for Obama. But that would require either a bit more gerrymandering than I was willing to contemplate (like running a district from downtown San Francisco to Shasta County), or would require weakening some Democratic seats to the point that they might actually become winnable for Republicans. So instead I settled on trying to create the maximum number of seats with a PVI at or near about D+10. If a Democratic incumbent in a seat which is about D+10 loses their seat to a Republican, they probably deserve to lose it – corruption, scandal, $100,000 in the freezer, and we are probably better off without them. But even if the GOP did manage to momentarily pick up a D+10 district, Democrats would have an excellent chance of picking it back up in the next cycle. Other than scandal, it would take a truly formidable national GOP wave, greater than that of 1994 or 2006, to lose more than a handful of D+10 seats. And in that case, the GOP would control Congress regardless of what happens in California.

I also made a statewide precinct map showing the Obama/McCain vote in 2008 on the precinct level. It is not entirely complete, because no votes were cast in some irredeemably rural “precincts” and some precincts have changed. But for the most part it should get the job done in the areas where we have to worry about looking below the county level. I could have never done Southern California in particular without this. There are 8 shades of blue and red, equally incremented by 6.25 points each, so that for example, the lightest blue means that Obama won the precinct with 50-56.25% of the vote, while the darkest blue precincts voted 93.75-100% for Obama. There’s also a bigger version of the same map if you want to a more zoomed in view (big image, you were warned).

In addition, here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote with the size of each precinct adjusted in proportion to the actual number of votes cast in the precinct, rather than its geographical size. With the caveat that this slightly understates Republican strength because the few counties missing in the previous map voted for McCain, this is in one sense a more true depiction of the the Presidential vote in California. It also really brings home what a great proportion of the vote was cast in the LA and Bay areas. There are really not that many substantial clusters of red precincts that cannot be overwhelmed with surrounding blue areas. While in the geographic precinct map, it looks like McCain won some substantial areas, the reality is that he won in very few places – McCain only won in the most sparsely populated areas of the state and in select CA suburbs and exurbs. (Click here for a zoomed in version of the same map).

I’d also recommend anyone interested in California redistricting read Silver Spring’s earlier work on redistricting California, (which gave me some of the ideas that went into this map), which drew a map with 44 Democratic, 7 GOP, and 2 swing seats while increasing Latino and Asian American opportunity districts and generally respecting community/political boundaries. But I wanted to see if I could push the map further, conceding fewer GOP seats and further increasing Hispanic and Asian American representation, without endangering any existing Democratic incumbents.

The future political shape of California

California voted 61% for Obama to 37% for McCain. Disregarding 3rd party votes, Obama got 62% to McCain’s 38%. Obama also managed to narrowly win 8 of 19 GOP held districts which had been gerrymandered to be safe GOP, proving by example that there are potential progressive gains to be made in California.

Because California is unlikely to become much more Republican over the next 10 years, the likelihood that an aggressive redistricting plan will backfire, like the 2000 GOP gerrymander of Pennsylvania, is minimal. The chief reason for this is that California is a Majority Minority state in which the white population will to continue to decline as a share of the population. Yet white voters made up 63% of the electorate in California in 2008 even though they only make up 42% of the population. Simply put, as time passes, the electorate in California will continue to become less white, and more racially representative of the population as a whole. So there are really only two ways that the GOP can gain any ground (or avoid losing it) in California – they must either suddenly start getting support from minority voters, or they must start receiving levels of white support that they only now really get in parts of the South and a few other places. Given the GOP trend on issues like the confirmation of Sonia Sotamayor, it seems unlikely that the GOP can possibly pick up any meaningful sort of ground among minoritiesby 2020, assuming that the GOP does not suddenly transform into a very different party.

According to exit polls, the 2008 vote in California broke down by race as follows. White and black voters exceeded their share of the population, while the percentage of the electorate that was Asian American or Hispanic was only half the percentage of the population that was Asian American or Hispanic.



















































Actual 2008 Vote
% of Electorate Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
White 63.0% 52.0% 46.0% 53.1%
African American 10.0% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
Latino 18.0% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
Asian 6.0% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
Other 3.0% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
Total 62.3%

Now, what would the 2008 vote in California have looked like if the electorate had the same racial breakdown as the population as a whole? Assuming that each racial group gave the same % to Obama, he would have done 3 points better (7 on net). And that even includes cutting the African American percentage of the electorate by nearly HALF. This is what the future of the California electorate looks like, and it looks hopeless for Republicans.




















































What if the 2008 Electorate looked like the population?
% of Population Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
White 42.0% 52.0% 46.0% 53.1%
African American 5.9% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
Latino 36.6% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
Asian 12.2% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
Other 3.3% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
Total 65.6%

So what if the GOP were able to get a massive swing of white voters? With the 2008 electorate, McCain would have had to win white voters 2 to 1 to have pulled even in California (much less win it). In fact, he lost white voters 52-46. With the future electorate, things are naturally even bleaker for the GOP. In fact, with an electorate that looked like California’s population (the future electorate that CA is trending towards), Obama could have lost white voters 53-45 and still done better than he actually did in 2008.




















































What if the 2008 Electorate looked like the population?
% of Population Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
White 42.0% 45.0% 53.0% 45.9%
African American 5.9% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
Latino 36.6% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
Asian 12.2% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
Other 3.3% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
Total 62.6%

It would obviously take much more for Republicans to even come close to winning Statewide elections. In fact, for McCain to have won California without making gains with minorities and with the 2008 electorate, he would have needed to win white voters 66-32. If the electorate had broken down by race the same way as the population, he would have had to win white voters 83-15. And that only just barely gets a narrow GOP win.

Coming close to winning statewide elections is precisely what it would take for the GOP to start putting more than a handful of the D+10 seats in any danger at all. There’s just flat out no way that they can do that in California without appealing to a meaningful number of progressive voters in the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. And frankly, if the GOP starts appealing in places like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, then they will have rejected most of what they currently stand for and progressive Democrats will have already won (or failed spectacularly to the point of creating a GOP wave far exceeding 1994 or 2006). It would be foolishly Rovian to claim that is impossible, but it is a very high bar to hurdle, especially because the national GOP is so deeply averse to even the facade of quasi-moderation of exhibited by Republicans like Schwarzenegger, Crist, and Snowe.

Political Impact

The political impact of this map would be to increase the number of Democrats in Congress from California. Barring major scandal, California should have an approximately 40-13 Democratic delegation (including all 33 current Democratic incumbents). That’s likely to be at least 44-9. And in a best case scenario, in which all the swing seats turn blue, California even has a chance to send an overwhelming 49-4 Democratic delegation to Washington. Moreover, most of the new Democrats elected would likely be reasonably progressive Democrats.

The drawing of a Congressional map along these lines would also have the effect of neutering the net national partisan impact of Republican gerrymanders in states like Florida and Texas. While my personal preference would be to have all districts drawn by a non-partisan commission, it is no good if only Democrats do that in states where Democrats will control redistricting, while the GOP goes on a gerrymandering binge in states expected to gain seats like Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Utah. But with an aggressive redrawing of the lines California, Democrats can in one fell swoop come close to making sure that redistricting will not be a net negative on the national level. By carefully drawing the seats so that newly Democratic districts have strong progressive bases in areas like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, we can also increase the likelihood that better Democrats will be elected from those districts.



















District Political Status
Dem 39
Lean Dem 5
Swing 5
GOP 4

Safe Democratic seats

I classify 39 seats as reasonably safe Democratic seats. All of these districts voted 60%+ for Obama (D+7), and 28 of them voted 63%+ for Obama (D+10).

Lean Democratic seats

There are 5 Lean Democratic seats (3, 20, 42, 45, 50). The 20th is already in Democratic hands (and could probably be made safer pretty easily), and there would be a very good chance of picking up the other 4 seats in 2012, especially if Obama again does well in California. These seats all voted 55-58% for Obama and are likely to become more Democratic – 3 of them are new majority Latino seats, and the others have substantial minority populations whose turnout should gradually rise).

Swing Seats

These are seats that voted from 51% to 53% for Obama (4, 40, 41, 44, 48, 49). 40, 41, and 48 all have white populations that make up less than 50% of the district’s population, and should continue to become more Democratic as minority turnout increases. There is no guarantee that Democrats will necessarily be able to pick up all (or any) of these seats, but strong candidates ought to be able to run competitive races and win in these districts.

GOP Seats

Finally, there are 4 safe GOP seats. These all voted about 32-41% for Obama and are designed to be completely unwinnable for Democrats. These districts all serve to suck in the maximum number of Republicans possible, making surrounding districts more Democratic.

In retrospect, if I were to redraw the map, I might consider conceding one more safe GOP seat in the Orange County/Riverside/San Bernadino area. If the most heavily GOP areas remaining were combined into one more district, it would be pretty easy to make a number of swing/lean Dem seats a bit more Democratic.

The Voting Rights Act

I endeavored to follow the requirements of the Voting Rights Act in full, and tried to even go a bit beyond its strict requirements. From the districts drawn in 2000, I managed to substantially increase minority voting strength for both Latinos and Asian Americans, while maintaining effective black control or at least substantial influence over 4 districts. :











































































VRA Status of New Districts
District Type # of Districts % of Districts % of Population
Majority White 19 35.8% 42.3%
Plurality White 11 20.8% 42.3%
Total White 30 56.6% 42.3%
Majority Latino 15 28.3% 36.6%
Plurality Latino 1 1.9% 36.6%
Total Latino 16 30.2% 36.6%
Plurality Asian 3 5.7% 12.5%
Effective Black 4 7.5% 6.7%

Increase Latino voting strength

5 new Majority Latino seats are added. They are the the 18th, 21st, 25th, 42nd, and 45th. CA-32 also changes to an Asian plurality district, which is offset by the change of CA-26 to a Latino majority district. Factors such as how complete the census count of Latinos is and how concentrated Latino population growth actually is will have a big effect on the actual location and shapes of these districts, but in reality it ought to be possible to add a number of new Latino majority districts.

Increase Asian American voting strength

The 12th, 15th, and 32nd districts become Asian American plurality districts. Although Asians are not a homogeneous group politically or ethnically, and although Californians have sometimes elected Asian Americans in districts without a particularly large Asian community (like Doris Matsui in Sacramento), Asian voters will now have more of a guarantee that they can elect candidates of their choice.

Maintain African American voting strength

I tried to maintain African American voting strength as much as I could, but trends are working against the maintanance of the existing 4 districts which are effectively controlled by African American voters (CA-9, CA-33, CA-35, CA-37). Particularly in the 3 LA districts, Latino population growth is gradually overwhelming the African American population, particularly in CA-35. Additionally, population growth has not kept up with the state average in these districts, meaning that they will need to expand – and there are really no more concentrations of black voters nearby that can be added to the 3 districts. On the basis of population, one could probably justify merging the African American areas of the 3 existing districts into two districts with higher African American populations, but I did not do this in order to try and protect all incumbents. If a merger of these districts does not happen in 2010, the voters may well make it happen anyway, making a merger in 2020 a near certainty. But despite these difficulties, I managed to actually slightly increase the black population % in CA-9 and CA-33. In CA-35 and 37, the African American percentage drops, but the main threat to effective black control of these districts (Latino voters) are decreased as a share of the population. By making these districts more white and more Republican, Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson are probably actually safer, because the main threat to their incumbancy is a primary challenge from a Latino Democrat. While one could arge that this disenfranchises Latinos, there is really no other way to maintain black VRA districts that I can see, and the Latinos removed from CA-35 and CA-37 help make it possible to create other Latino majority districts in the LA area.

Breakdown of the Districts

Finally, let’s look at the new districts themselves, in aggregate and individually. Because I de-packed many overly Democratic districts, the average and median district becomes more Republican, while a greater number of districts become Democratic.




































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































District Summary
District New Dist Est. Obama% Old Dist Obama % Change in Obama % Designation VRA Status Region
1 63 67 -4 Dem Majority White Northern California
2 39 44 -5 GOP Majority White Northern California
3 57 50 7 Lean Dem Majority White Northern California
4 53 45 8 Swing Majority White Northern California
5 62 71 -9 Dem Plurality White Northern California
6 72 78 -6 Dem Majority White Northern California
7 63 73 -10 Dem Majority White Bay Area
8 81 87 -6 Dem Majority White Bay Area
9 83 90 -7 Dem Effective Black Bay Area
10 63 66 -3 Dem Majority White Bay Area
11 61 55 6 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
12 79 76 3 Dem Plurality Asian Bay Area
13 64 76 -12 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
14 73 75 -2 Dem Majority White Bay Area
15 69 70 -1 Dem Plurality Asian Bay Area
16 66 71 -5 Dem Plurality Latino Bay Area
17 65 74 -9 Dem Majority White Central California
18 60 60 0 Dem Majority Latino Central California
19 63 47 16 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
20 56 61 -5 Lean Dem Majority Latino Central California
21 67 43 24 Dem Majority Latino Central California
22 32 39 -7 GOP Majority White Central California
23 62 67 -5 Dem Majority White Central California
24 63 51 12 Dem Majority White Greater LA
25 65 51 14 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
26 62 52 10 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
27 62 68 -6 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
28 76 78 -2 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
29 61 69 -8 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
30 64 72 -8 Dem Majority White Greater LA
31 73 82 -9 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
32 63 70 -7 Dem Plurality Asian Greater LA
33 94 88 6 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
34 65 76 -11 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
35 76 86 -10 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
36 64 66 -2 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
37 64 81 -17 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
38 63 73 -10 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
39 62 67 -5 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
40 52 48 4 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
41 53 45 8 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
42 58 46 12 Lean Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
43 63 69 -6 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
44 41 50 -9 GOP Majority White Greater LA
45 55 52 3 Lean Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
46 60 49 11 Dem Majority White Greater LA
47 60 61 -1 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
48 52 50 2 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
49 51 46 5 Swing Majority White San Diego
50 57 52 5 Lean Dem Majority White San Diego
51 62 64 -2 Dem Majority Latino San Diego
52 38 46 -8 GOP Majority White San Diego
53 63 70 -7 Dem Plurality White San Diego
Average 62.17 63.37 -1
Median 63.00 66.88 -4

Northern California

I defined the Northern California region as pretty much everything from Sacramento northwards. It includes 6 districts. 4 Should be Democratic, while CA-2 is Republican and CA-4 is a swing district. This is the whitest part of the State, and therefore probably the part of the State where there is the greatest potential for the GOP to make gains (even if it seems improbable at best that they will make much headway in liberal areas like Sonoma County). For that reason I decided not get too overly aggressive here. It would be possible to avoid conceding a GOP district in the far North-East, but unless you did something like draw a tentacle from Nancy Pelosi’s district up into rural GOP areas, it would be very hard to then also avoid creating a strong or leaning GOP district in the Sierra Nevada’s East and South-East of Sacramento. So I didn’t even try. Instead, I took advantage of the opportunity to move Nancy Pelosi’s district north without endangering the 1st or 6th districts, giving her Marin County across the Golden Gate bridge, which, as we will see, makes it possible to squeeze a great deal out of the Eastern side of the San Francisco Bay.

Northern California





Sacramento Area





San Francisco Bay Area

Every single seat based in the San Francisco Bay area is safely Democratic. A number of these districts also extend outwards to the east, in order to avoid wasting too many votes in ultra-Demacratic districts. But many districts remain entirely within the Bay area, and if one were willing to draw pinwheels flowing out from San Francisco and the San Mateo Peninsula to places like Bakersfield, Fresno, and Barstow, you could pretty easily squeeze out another one or two utterly safe Democratic districts.

Northern Bay Area





Southern Bay Area





Central California

Given the GOP lean of much of this region, having only 1 GOP district is not bad. Latino voting strength is greatly increased in this area. Although it might not be at all certain that all of the Latino districts will immediately have an effective Latino voting majority, they will with time. This is the most obviously gerrymandered part of the state, but that is necessary in order to increase Latino voting strength and to increase Democratic strength in less heavily Latino areas. The actual lines in this area will be greatly affected by the actual distribution of Latino population growth within counties.

Central Coast





Central Valley





LA Area

I am using a broad definition of the LA area, including areas beyond the city of Los Angeles proper, including Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura counties. In this area, and especially in LA County, some of the districts are better thought of as general ideas than specific exact proposals. I am fairly certain that someone who knows the area better than I do could draw the urban lines a bit more sensibly while maintaining or increasing all the political benefits and fully complying with the Voting Rights Act (a major cause of strange district shapes). Additionally, the 2008 Population Estimates are only available on the County level – so the actual population will be distributed somewhat differently than in the lines I drew. The exact lines should not be taken too literally, but it should be possible to draw roughly similar districts with the same basic demographic and political results. I may have mistakenly drawn some Democratic incumbents’ houses out of their district, but in reality that would probably be easy to avoid, if it matters. The greater LA area also has the greatest concentration of minorities in California.

That is the chief reason why I was more willing to draw some districts that were only lean Democratic or swing seats – because of their high but still relatively low turnout Latino and Asian American populations, many districts are safe bets to become more Democratic as that turnout increases. So even if these seats do not all flip Democratic in 2012, there is a great chance that they will flip some time between 2014 and 2020. Still, you can make a good argument for either conceding another seat to the GOP (or sending another district or 2 deep into the heart of LA), and if I were redrawing the map I would probably concede a third safe GOP seat in the Orange/Riverside/Burnadino area in order to make the surrounding districts more Democratic. But the overall point is that there is no reason for any district in LA County to be Republican, and from LA County, a number of districts can be safely extended outwards to make even more Democratic seats. It also ought to be possible to create more Latino majority seats and an Asian American plurality seat.

Southern California





Northern LA area





Southern LA area





Eastern LA area





San Diego

Last but not least, the San Diego area. Democrats currently hold only 2 of 5 seats in this area, while Obama won 54-44. With the exception of CA-51, the minority population in San Diego is relatively small. But even without relying on votes from Los Angeles, it should be possible to make 3 fairly strong Democratic districts, one heavily GOP district, and a swing district out of this area.





Breakdown of the Districts

And now to all 53 of the individual districts, one by one.

























CA-1

Incumbent: Mike Thompson (Blue Dog D) v. Wally Herger (R)
Previous District PVI: D+13
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 63% White
New District Demographics: 66% White

CA-1 pairs Napa Blue dog Mike Thompson with Butte County (which narrowly voted for Obama) Republican Wally Herger. The district basically consists of Napa, Yolo, Colusa, Sutter, ande Butte counties, along with the section of Sonoma County previously in CA-1. Those areas combined voted 60% for Obama, and that is the basic partisan orientation of this district. If that’s not Democratic enough, it could easily be made stronger by trading some Sonoma area territory with CA-6. Some relatively unpopulated parts of Yolo and Sutter Counties are cut out to provide a path for CA-4 to connect Yolo and Placer counties, and the city of Marysville in Yuba County is thrown in to equalize the population.

In the event that Herger decided to actually run in this district, he would almost certainly lose. Half of the districts population lives in Napa, Yolo, and Sonoma counties, and would vote heavily for Thomson. In the other half of the district, Herger might win, but would have a lot of trouble winning by enough to offset the heavily Democratic Napa/Yolo/Sonoma margin. It is also easier to imagine Thomson appealing to voters in Butte County than it is to imagine Herger appealing to San Francisco Bay area liberals.

But more than likely this is a moot point, because Herger would almost certainly take one look at CA-1 and opt to run in CA-2 instead, which includes a lot of his rural GOP base areas.

























CA-2

Incumbent: ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+11
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 39% Obama, R+14
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 72% White
New District Demographics: 78% White

CA-2 serves to pack as many rural Northern California Republicans as possible into one district. It is the whitest district in California, and is very strongly Republican. CA-2 includes compact rural counties in Northern California, and snakes down through Placer, El Dorado, and Amador counties to pick up rural/exurban GOP areas, leaving closer in Sacramento suburbs in Placer County to CA-4, and leaving the more Democratic Lake Tahoe area to CA-10.

As discussed with CA-1, Wally Herger would probably run in this district, even though he lives in the new CA-1. Tom McClintock would also probably want prefer to run in this district than in a swing district, even though he lives in the new CA-5. In the event of a primary between Herger and McClintock, Herger would probably prevail because slightly more of the new CA-2 comes from Herger’s old district than from the old CA-4, and Herger has longer standing actual ties to the area than McClintock.

























CA-3

Incumbent: Dan Lungren (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 65% White
New District Demographics: 56% White

CA-3 is now entirely within Sacramento County, and is substantially more Democratic than the old CA-3, which voted narrowly for Obama. There is a delicate balancing act here between hurting Lungren and keeping Matsui secure. It would be possible to make CA-3 even more Democratic, but not without dragging CA-5 under roughly D+10, which I wanted to avoid. It is not a complete certainty that Lungren would lose in this district, but it is a certainly that he would face very competitive elections every 2 years until he does.

























CA-4

Incumbent: None
Previous District PVI: R+10
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 79% White
New District Demographics: 57% White

The new CA-4 is a bona fide suburban swing district, combining 99% of Democratic Solano County (4/7 of the district) with GOP leaning Sacramento Suburban part of Placer county, and sparsely populated areas in between to connect them. There is no real incumbent in this district, but Charlie Brown would be well positioned to win here. This district is much less Republican than the old version, which he only barely lost in 2008. If not, a Democrat from Solano County would have a good chance of winning here. The only potential hitch is the fast pace of growth in Placer County. If that tends to increase GOP margins, this district will become more Republican with time. On the other hand, if the Sacramento suburbs liberalize as they grow, this district will stay roughly even or move slightly more Democratic. It would be pretty easy to make this district more Democratic by extending it further into the Bay Area, but I kept it more compact and suburban based.

























CA-5

Incumbent: Doris Matsui (D)
Previous District PVI: D+15
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White
New District Demographics: 46% White

CA-5 becomes more Republican, but not Republican enough to put Doris Matsui in any realistic danger. It now crosses over (barely) into Yolo County to pick up West Sacramento, but otherwise is based very much in Sacramento proper.

























CA-6

Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey (D)
Previous District PVI: D+23
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 72% Obama, D+19
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 70% White
New District Demographics: 71% White

CA-6 ditches highly progressive Marin County to pick up less-progressive-but-still-progressive areas further North along the coast. Lynn Woolsey still has absolutely nothing to worry about, and could easily take on some more GOP turf or donate some heavily Democratic areas to CA-1. Alternatively, CA-2 could be sucked into CA-6/Marin and become a swing or Democratic district rather than being conceded to the GOP, but that would make it much more difficult to make CA-4 a swing district, and much more difficult to turn CA-10 into a Democratic district with a strong base in the Sierra Nevadas, and would also necessitate some more county splitting.

























CA-7

Incumbent: George Miller (D)
Previous District PVI: D+19
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 27% Latino
New District Demographics: 50% White, 31% Latino

CA-7 moves out of Solano County, and into San Joaquin where it picks up Lodi, Tracy, and Manteca (most of the county other than Stockton). The district also cedes areas around Richmond to CA-10 and CA-9, resulting in a more Republican District. My intention was to bring it down to about D+10, but it could be a couple points off in either direction. If it is too Republican, it would be very easy to fix that and make this district more Democratic. CA-7 isn’t D+19 any more, but it does not really need to be. Long time incumbent George Miller, who has been in Congress since 1974, will not be in any danger of suddenly now losing his seat simply becase it becomes a bit less Democratic.

























CA-8

Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi (D)
Previous District PVI: D+35
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 81% Obama, D+28
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 45% White, 30% Asian
New District Demographics: 61% White, 18% Asian

Nancy Pelosi’s CA-8 plays a very important but subtle role in this overall map. By crossing the Golden Gate Bridge and taking in Marin County, her district becomes slightly less Democratic. But that’s not the main point. By taking in Marin County, it allows CA-6 to push northwards, and just as importantly, it sucks CA-12 into San Francisco (making it Asian plurality in the process), and sucks all the districts to the South-East of it towards San Francisco. This dominoes through the districts and ultimately provides the impetus to pull more Republican districts in the Central Valley further in towards areas like Santa Cruz, San Jose, and Alameda.

























CA-9

Incumbent: Barbara Lee (D)
Previous District PVI: D+37
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 83% Obama, D+30
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 36% White, 20% Black, 17% Asian, 23% Latino
New District Demographics: 37% White, 22% Black, 16% Asian, 21% Latino

The percentage of African Americans in Barbara Lee’s new 9th District is not just maintained, but actually increased, even while the district becomes a little bit less Democratic. I did this by trading ultra-liberal but predominantly white areas of her district (principally Berkeley) for predominantly white liberal areas in Contra Costa County, along with Richmond, which has a fairly high black population. So the district now consists of Oakland, Richmond, and areas of Contra Costa county like Orinda, Walnut Creek, and Pleasantville.

























CA-10

Incumbent: ?John Garamendi? (D)
Previous District PVI: D+11
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 56% White
New District Demographics: 60% White

This new version of CA-10 is rather different from the previous CA-10, and is drawn under the assumption that John Garamendi wins the CA-10 special election. This district is probably the most bizarrely shaped of all the districts I drew, but it makes sense, at least from the perspective of drawing a distrcit that would be good for Garamendi. Republican George Radanovich also lives here (in Mariposa), but he wouldn’t have much chance if he ran in this district.

Nearly 4/7 of the population of CA-10 live in Contra Costa or Alameda Counties, and those areas are all very heavily Democratic (Berkeley – where Garamendi went to college, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Pinole). From there, it snakes through sparsely populated parts of Solano, Amador, and Sacramento counties, picking up Garamendi’s home along the way. Then it enters the Sierra Nevada mountain range through Calaveras county, where Garamendi was born and has a ranch. It picks up Republican leaning areas near Yosemite National Park (Garamendi was Deputy Secretary of the Interior), and picks up a mixture of Rural Republicans and more liberal Lake Tahoe/ski areas up and down the Nevada border, stretching from Inyo County in the south to Nevada County in the north. I have to say, I was sorely tempted to cross into Fresno and Tulare counties to pick up Sequoia and King’s Canyon National park, and into San Bernadino to take in all of Death Valley, but I restrained myself.

Alpine, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, and Toulumne counties collectively voted McCain 52% to Obama 48%. If you assume that liberal areas around Lake Tahoe (parts of Placer and El Dorado counties) roughly cancel out extraneous GOP areas, and that the Contra Costa/Alameda county parts of the district voted about 75% for Obama, then you end up with a district that voted about 63% for Obama, litte changed from the current partisan stance of CA-10. And there we have it – a district that takes care of some hard to deal with GOP areas in the Sierras, avoids wasting Democratic votes along the Nevada border on a GOP district, that opens up space in eastern Contra Costa County for CA-7 to dilute GOP votes in San Joaquin county, and that John Garamendi should be able to effectively represent despite the district’s bizarre geographic shape, given his background. Whew!

As a more compact alternative to this, instead of reaching all the way to Berkeley, the district could combine the Sierras with a different and nearer Democratic area, such as the city of San Joaquin. But then this district would not include Garamendi’s home, would be only weakly Democratic rather than safe, would be less progressive, and would really be more like a reconfigured 19th than the 10th.

























CA-11

Incumbent: Jerry McNerney (D)
Previous District PVI: R+1
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 51% White, 26% Latino
New District Demographics: 45% White, 27% Latino

CA-11 is altered significantly to make it more Democratic. It now takes in all of the city of Stockton, in exchange for which it gives up some relatively conservative areas to CA-7. It also expands a bit more in Alameda County, taking on Livermore as well as a bit of territory from Pete Stark and Barbara Lee. The end result is a much safer district for McNerney. I guesstimate that it voted roughly 61% for Obama, but that could be off by a few percentage points. If it is too Republican, that is easy to fix.

























CA-12

Incumbent: Jackie Speier (D)
Previous District PVI: D+23
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 79% Obama, D+26
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 45% White, 31% Asian
New District Demographics: 35% White, 38% Asian

CA-12 moves further into San Francisco to accomadate Pelosi’s shift into Marin County. In the process, it turns into a district with a slight Asian American plurality.

























CA-13

Incumbent: Pete Stark (D)
Previous District PVI: D+22
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 29% White, 35% Asian, 23% Latino
New District Demographics: 37% White, 26% Asian, 28% Latino

CA-13 is still primarily based in Alameda County, where 2/3 of the district is located, retaining Pete Stark’s home town of Fremont, along with Union City, Newark, and most of Hayward. It then crosses through unpopulated mountains to the east and reappears on the outskirts of Modesto, where it basically picks up the parts of Stanislaus County that were formerly in the 19th district. The end result is a district which is still strongly Democratic, but not packed as full of progressive Alameda County voters as before.

























CA-14

Incumbent: Anna Eshoo (D)
Previous District PVI: D+21
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 73% Obama, D+20
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 53% White, 21% Asian, 19% Latino
New District Demographics: 52% White, 22% Asian, 20% Latino

Like CA-12 before it, CA-14 is sucked towards San Francisco because of CA-8’s trip across the Golden Gate Bridge. In San Mateo County, it adds San Carlos, Foster City, and San Mateo. Saratoga in Santa Cruz County along with CA-14’s old section of Santa Cruz County are removed. This has no real political impact, and CA-14 remains a veritable Democratic fortress.

























CA-15

Incumbent: Mike Honda (D)
Previous District PVI: D+15
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 69% Obama, D+16
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 36% Asian
New District Demographics: 35% White, 39% Asian

Moving parts of CA-9 and CA-13 out of Alameda County has left some people there that need to go somewhere. They go into Mike Honda’s 15th district, which is now up to 39% Asian American. No real partisan effect, except CA-15 may get a bit more Democratic.

























CA-16

Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren (D)
Previous District PVI: D+16
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 66% Obama, D+13
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 28% White, 26% Asian, 40% Latino
New District Demographics: 29% White, 19% Asian, 45% Latino

60% of CA-16 remains within Santa Clara County. To get to the rest of the district, it crosses the mountains and ends up in Stanislaus County, where it takes in the city of Modesto. strengthening the Latino plurality in the process. This only makes the district 3 or 4 points more Republican, and Zoe Lofgren has nothing to worry about.

























CA-17

Incumbent: Sam Farr (D)
Previous District PVI: D+19
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 41% White, 48% Latino
New District Demographics: 60% White, 19% Latino

Sam Farr’s district becomes much whiter than before, principally because it gives up predominantly Latino areas inland (Salinas, Hollister, Watsonville) to the 21st district in order to help give that district a strong Latino majority. In exchange, Farr adds the rest of Santa Cruz county (except for Watsonville), parts of Santa Clara county (Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno), as well as some conservative inland areas in San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. But 78% of the population lives in Monterrey, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties, all of which are strongly Democratic, so Farr’s district remains strongly Democaratic even while becoming much whiter. As a rough estimate, this district probably voted about 65% for Obama.

Apparently this diary is too long for Calitics’ html checking to accept… 🙂 Read the rest at Swing State Project, which has laxer html screening.

That’s all, folks!

If you liked this diary, do me a favor and contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to support strong Health Care Reform. A strong public option, no trigger, no opt-in, no opt-out. Strong subsidies to make the mandate affordable, open the exchange to everyone, and for crying out loud there’s no reason we should have to wait all the way until 2013 to have it go into effect!

2010 Congressional Races Roundup – June 30, 2009

We’re setting a course for the center of the sun in the state budget process right now, but today is also the last day of the second quarter, an important day for Congressional candidates, who must file fundraising reports based on close of business today.  So this is as good a time as any to take a look at the Congressional races and where we stand at this point.  I have not yet done similar roundups for 2010 statewide offices or legislative races, but plan to do so in the near future.  If you find any of these challenges attractive, I urge you to pass a few bucks along to the candidate of your choice.  This quarter will help or hurt the candidacies in terms of their perception of viability.

A word on the notations.  PVI refers to the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index.  I’ve also included the Presidential performance from last year and the particular Congressional performance, where applicable.  That information is available for the whole nation at this link.  Open Congress also has a good Wiki on all the seats involved.

flip it…

SENATE:

CA-Sen.  Incumbent: Barbara Boxer.  Challengers: Chuck DeVore, Carly Fiorina.  Barbara Boxer, who’s having a virtual fundraiser tonight with Carl Pope of the Sierra Club in San Francisco, has actually not been seriously threatened in any of her re-election efforts, a fact that escapes those who assume her liberal bona fides somehow make her perpetually vulnerable.  Boxer has raised the possibility of disgraced HP CEO Carly Fiorina running, and using her ample personal fortune to amass a campaign war chest.  If that happens at all, look for Fiorina to announce in the next few weeks, after the end of the Q2 fundraising cycle.  And even if she does run, I don’t think it’s at all certain that she wins the primary and gets to the general election.  Her spotty voting record provides fodder for opponents, as does her terrible record at HP.  And Chuck DeVore, while certifiable, has the ear of the conservative Yacht Party base in California and can be expected to do well against any primary foe.  I would not be at all surprised to see DeVore oppose Boxer.  RedState claims that Cornyn has gone to begging Steve Poizner to drop out of the Governor’s race and join the Senate race, which if true further shows the lack of faith in Fiorina’s abilities among Republicans.  Either way, I don’t think Boxer is in much trouble.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

1. CA-10. Challengers: John Garamendi, Mark DeSaulnier, Joan Buchanan, Anthony Woods, Adriel Hampton.  PVI: D+10.  The timing of the special election should be announced in a matter of days, but all the candidates are already running, holding forums and raising money.  Garamendi’s endorsement from the SEIU State Council continues the pattern of DeSaulnier locking up the local labor vote, while Garamendi gets the national organizations.  The question is who will offer boots on the ground.  Meanwhile, Anthony Woods has caught the attention of progressive and LGBT bloggers due to his personal biography, as well as national news, which can only help add to his profile.  Then there’s Joan Buchanan, the only major female candidate in the race, who could benefit from that.  We’re just at the beginning of this quick sprint, but it should get very interesting.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney. PVI: R+1. 2008 General: Obama 54-44. 2008 Congress: McNerney 55-45.  I’m almost ready to give this to McNerney outright.  He’s fallen off of NRCC target lists in their radio and Web ad campaigns.  He received the support of local Republicans in San Joaquin County.  He’s amassed a pretty decent war chest.  And Warren Rupf, the sheriff of Contra Costa County who may have given something of a challenge to McNerney, announced that he would not run.  Right now, the leading candidates include a vintner and two other folks with no political experience.  McNerney didn’t have any political experience before winning, either, but these just don’t sound like serious challengers.  McNerney is well-positioned, and one assumes that after 2010 his district will be gerrymandered to help him solidify this seat.

2. CA-36. Incumbent: Jane Harman. PVI: D+12. Primary Challenger: Marcy Winograd.  2008 General: Obama 64-34. 2008 Congress: Harman 69-31.  Marcy Winograd is starting early and running a real campaign, with visibility in the district.  She has run print ads in local publications, and has already put up TV ads touting her stance on single-payer health care, which are running during Olbermann and Maddow in the LA area.  So there’s no question she is offering a real progressive alternative in this district.  Harman’s AIPAC/warrantless wiretapping scandal has waned, and she has stayed on the right side of activists with her energy and health care stances.  So there’s a ways to go to see if Winograd can reach a critical mass in the district.

REPUBLICAN-HELD SEATS

1. CA-44. Incumbent: Ken Calvert. Challenger: Bill Hedrick. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49.5-48.6. 2008 Congress: Calvert 51-49. Bill Hedrick remains the best opportunity for flipping a seat in California this year.  He came within a few percentage points last time around, and the national Democratic Party – as well as the pundit class – has taken notice.  Hedrick is doing fundraisers and writing articles to raise awareness, while Calvert’s signature accomplishment in this Congress is getting the Ronald Reagan statue in the Capitol Rotunda.  I do wish Hedrick would denounce this shameful ad put out by the D-Trip, trying to hit Calvert on hypocrisy for not “supporting the troops” with his vote against Afghanistan and Iraq funding.  I’m fairly certain, from talking to Hedrick, that he would have opposed that bill as well.  And we should never equate funding “the troops” with funding a war.  I think it’s disgraceful.  

2. CA-03. Incumbent: Dan Lungren. Challengers: Gary Davis, Amerish Bera, Bill Slaton.  PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49.3-48.8. 2008 Congress: Lungren 49-44.  This is the other race listed by Stu Rothenberg as “Leans Republican,” one of only three Republican-held seats to be so honored.  Clearly, national Democrats are excited about this race.  As The Hill notes, the Democratic challengers run the gamut of major issue areas:

The three candidates cover some of the country’s most pressing issues – healthcare, education and energy.

Physician Ami Bera, who has shaped healthcare policy, filed for the race in April. Former Elk Grove Mayor and current City Councilman Gary Davis, who also works for an education nonprofit, announced in May that he would run. And last week, utility company executive Bill Slaton announced he is also getting in the race.

The biggest foe Dan Lungren has, however, is demographics.  The district just gets more and more blue with each passing day.  I don’t know if Davis, Bera or Slaton will necessarily be the right candidate to capitalize on it, but if Lungren keeps spending tax dollars to erect religious slogans in the Capitol Visitors Center instead of paying attention to the race, he could get stung.  Lungren is also being targeted by that B.S. DCCC ad about “supporting the troops.”

3. CA-45. Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack. Challenger: Steve Pougnet.  PVI: R+3. 2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Bono Mack 58-42.  Back in May, Democrats added Mary Bono Mack to their target lists, perhaps because of the entry of Steve Pougnet, the Mayor of Palm Springs, into the race.  This past week, Bono Mack showed that she may be feeling the pressure by voting for the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill.  Teabaggers and conservatives are targeting the 8 Republicans who voted with the Democratic majority on that bill, including Bono Mack, which could give her a rough primary.  That can only benefit Pougnet, who should have national support from LGBT groups as well.  Bono Mack will be a tough out – she’s won many a race in that district – but the ACES vote reflects how difficult it may be for her to thread the needle.

4. CA-50. Incumbent: Brian Bilbray. PVI: R+3. Challengers: Tracy Emblem, Francine Busby.  2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Bilbray 50-45.  Brian Bilbray is one of three California Republicans (Dan Lungren and Ken Calvert are the others) on the NRCC’s list of vulnerable incumbents.  So clearly this district is getting some attention.  After this past weekend’s puzzling raid of a Francine Busby fundraiser, it should get some more.  Today, the house party host spoke out about the tactics of the police.  There’s no reason to tie Bilbray to this episode, but clearly this could spark some determination among local Democrats and get Busby’s name distributed nationwide.  Meanwhile, there’s another candidate in the primary, Tracy Emblem, who is committed to self-funding and spending up to $500,000 to win the primary.  Emblem recently touted her support for HR 676 and will appear at a Health Care Reform Community Forum in San Diego with John Conyers on July 11 (despite positioning herself as a moderate).  Solana Beach City Councilman Dave Roberts, a conservaDem who supported Bilbray in the past, also might jump in next month.

5. CA-48. Incumbent: John Campbell. Challenger: Beth Krom. PVI: R+8. 2008 General: Obama 49.3-48.6. 2008 Congress: Campbell 56-41.  This always looked to be the sleeper race of 2010, with Campbell spinning off into crazytown (he just co-sponsored the birther bill) while the district moderates in tone.  And Irvine City Councilwoman Beth Krom looked to be a great, energetic challenger.  Unfortunately, tragedy struck the Krom family when Beth’s son Noah died after falling from a cliff earlier this month.  Krom has vowed to stay in the race, but obviously this is a blow.  We at Calitics wish her all the best.

6. CA-26. Incumbent: David Dreier. Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI: R+3.  2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Dreier 53-40.  Not a whole lot going on in this race right now; we’ll see how the fundraising numbers shake out.  Russ Warner was so behind in money due to David Dreier’s giant war chest in 2008 that he had a hard time competing.  He drained enough of that war chest to make a better go at it this time around.  But Dreier is a 30-year institution in the district and is unlikely to go quietly.  The DCCC is paying attention to this seat, as they are all seats held by Republicans where Barack Obama won, but at some point that will narrow.

7. CA-24. Incumbent: Elton Gallegly. Challengers: several. PVI: R+4. 2008 General: Obama 51-48.  2008 Congress: Gallegly 58-42.  The big news out of this race is that the DCCC is actively recruiting Jim Dantona to run for this seat.  Before this time, all the usual suspects – 2008 candidate Marta Jorgensen, 2006 candidate Jill Martinez, Mary Pallant, Tim Allison – were in the running, and it was unclear who could break out of the pack.  Dantona has an interesting resume.  He worked for longtime legislative Dem David Roberti, and lost a county supervisor race in rock-ribbed conservative Simi Valley by only a handful of votes.  He has a big personality and could fare well if properly funded.  He does tend toward the middle of the road ideologically.  This could be a push to get Gallegly to retire, which he’s wanted to do for years.

8. CA-46. Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: McCain 50-48. 2008 Congress: Rohrabacher 53-43.  Rohrabacher has decided to take a high profile among those neocons calling President Obama weak for his lack of belligerent statements on the situation in Iran, at one point calling Obama a “cream puff.”   Rohrabacher’s district remains on national Democratic target lists, but thus far nobody has come forward to offer a challenge.  We’ll see.

9. CA-04. Incumbent: Tom McClintock. PVI: R+10. 2008 General: McCain 54-44. 2008 Congress: McClintock 50.3-49.7.  Charlie Brown remains mum about his intentions in this seat, and as long as he does, it remains low on the list of potential pickups.  If Brown goes all in for a rematch, it shoots up the list.  McClintock remains the anti-government conservative he always was, and in Placer County, that may work, but he is so extreme that a well-chosen candidate like Brown who already has the name recognition could give him the same kind of stiff challenge as in 2008.

10. CA-25. Incumbent: Buck McKeon. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49-48.  2008 Congress: McKeon 58-42.  No news yet on a challenger for this district, which Obama took in 2008.  When one emerges, we can assess the chances in this seat.

CA-36 Harman Votes For “Off Budget” War Spending After Blasting It

I previously wrote about a situation where Jane Harman condemned those planning to oppose Iraq war funding in 2007 as being in favor of letting troops die from IED’s, and how she herself ended up voting against the war funding.  Apparently, Harman’s condemnation of herself is becoming a habit.

This time it’s over passing war funding in emergency supplemental budgets.

Jane Harman explained quite clearly in 2007 how wrong it was to be budgeting quite predictable war funds outside of the normal budget process.  In a post titled simply enough “Put the Iraq War on Budget”, Jane Harman was clear on her thinking:

We have already spent at least $400 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But only about 9 percent of those funds were approved through the normal appropriations process.

The rest was passed in “Emergency Supplemental” appropriation bills not subject to budget caps or the normal congressional oversight process. These supplementals – because their numbers do not appear on the budgetary bottom line – allow the White House to pretend it is maintaining a semblance of fiscal discipline. But our deficits are already spiraling out of control and there is no way to bring the budget into balance without taking the staggering war costs into account.

The Bush Administration has claimed emergency spending is necessary because the costs of a protracted war on terror are not known. Nonsense. Both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars were almost entirely financed through the regular appropriations process – not emergency supplementals.

The White House will soon ask for over $100 billion in new emergency war spending, Adjusted for inflation, that is more than we spent in 1968, the most expensive year of the war in Vietnam. And the lion’s share of that funding was done through the regular process.

There must be no more blank checks for this President, and I predict this will be the last “emergency” supplemental in the new Democrat-controlled Congress.

This week we saw a repeat of almost the exact same situation: The administration asking for just shy of $100 billion for war spending, without any restrictions (aka a blank check).

Given her clear statement she’d never again approve non-emergency war spending outside of the normal budget process, you’d think it would be easy to predict what Jane Harman would follow her own admonition and vote No when faced with the exact same situation this week. It turns out, she voted Yes.

So, simply using Harman’s own criteria about “off budget” war funding, her consistent votes in favor of it show that she supports:

– purposely mischaracterizing war funding to avoid having to budget for it;

– making our deficits which are already “spiraling out of control” get even worse;

– making the Federal budget impossible to balance by refusing to take the staggering war costs into account.

That means that it’s not just Marcy Winograd who’s criticizing Harman over her support of irresponsible and progligate war spending – the person that Harman sees when she looks in the mirror is too!

CA-36: Winograd Announces By The Beach

winograd2

Yesterday at the Venice Pier, Marcy Winograd announced her campaign for Congress in front of about 75-80 supporters and friends, and many leaders of the progressive activist community in Los Angeles.  The campaign showed their thrift and commitment to recycling by using the old Winograd ’06 campaign posters and skillfully pasting a “’10” sticker in the appropriate place.  It’s going to be that kind of campaign.

After a few speakers (I particularly enjoyed Julian Barger from the Harbor area of the district calling Jane Harman “Congresswoman Helmsley” for her double standard on civil liberties for her vs. civil liberties for all Americans), Marcy gave a short speech where she emphasized her no-holds-barred progressive values and offered a true contrast to her incumbent opponent.  She called for a “new New Deal” to put America back to work, announced support for John Conyers’ HR 676, questioned the continued bailout of the banks and the use of Predator drone strikes in Pakistan, argued for rapid transit and renewable energy in the Los Angeles area, and said of her primary challenge, “this will reverberate throughout the country.”

winograd1

Winograd spoke to various concerns of families in the district, noting that areas of Torrance are experiencing skyrocketing foreclosure rates, and that business has declined over 20% in the port at San Pedro.  This is an area where, with a longer campaign time frame than her quick run in 2006, Winograd can make headway in all areas of the district and throughout the South Bay, speaking to the economic concerns of the area and drawing contrast with Jane Harman’s more conservative approach.  Obviously, the greater concern about Harman more recently has been her defense of the Bush Administration’s the warrantless wiretapping and her generally hawkish stance abroad.  But there is an opening for a core economic argument, still the major preoccupation of voters, to be made.

Winograd’s announcement got covered in LA Weekly and the CoCo Times.  Mainstream news pieces about this primary challenge never fail to emphasize that the 36th is a “moderate” district and that Winograd will have to “broaden her appeal” to win over those voters.  This assumes that Democratic primary voters, or virtually anyone, makes election choices based on firm ideological footing.  Poll after poll has shown that on the issues, Americans portray a far more progressive belief system than their typical electoral choices.  Maybe consultants and Democratic strategists need to “broaden their appeal” to potential candidates that can articulate a progressive agenda.

CA-36: Harman Primary Gets Going

So I’m quoted in this Politico article about potential primary challenges to Jane Harman.  I’ve said clearly that she’ll either face a primary or drop out, and now multiple challengers, including 2006 opponent Marcy Winograd, have stepped up.  One thing that people don’t totally remember about that 2006 challenge is that Marcy got in the race in February for a June primary.  She ended up raising and spending about $380,000, but she did not have time for a national fundraising base or a netroots strategy.  She basically just went ahead and ran, and she got 38% of the vote.  Starting the primary a year out this time will simply yield better results.

The other part, which Alex Eisenstadt acknowledges, is that Harman was a target long before the recent revelation of wiretapped conservations between her and suspected Israeli agents offering vague quid pro quo deals on getting some AIPAC members out of legal trouble.

It’s true that Harman holds a firm grip on her comfortably Democratic district, having won 69 percent in the 2008 general election.

Still, her left flank remains exposed in large part because of her hawkish, pro-military reputation. After Sept. 11, 2001, Harman was an early advocate for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and she threw her support behind the American-led invasion of Iraq. She went so far as to criticize the FBI and the CIA for moving too slowly to respond to terrorist threats.

Those stances continue to rankle local progressives, and the recent controversy has only revived the frustrations that seemed to crest in 2006 with Winograd’s challenge. Last week, Winograd organized a protest outside Harman’s district headquarters, with activists calling on the California Democrat to resign. The environmental organization Greenpeace is coordinating a mailing in the district pressuring Harman, who has a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, on energy issues.

David Dayen, a California activist who writes for the liberal blog Calitics, said he expects progressive organizations to ramp up their efforts against Harman in the weeks ahead.

“I don’t get the sense that in May, the year before this primary is happening, there is going to be a lot of clamoring over Harman, but I do think you’re starting to see progressive groups get involved,” said Dayen.

I reject the theory later in the piece that CA-36 is a moderate district.  The PVI is D+12, and the formerly conservative areas have moderated their views.  Torrance, the supposed “Orange County of LA County,” just elected two Democrats to its City Council.  What’s more, Harman votes substantially to the right of the district and has for years.

Winograd will be holding a campaign kickoff on Monday at the Venice Pier around 4:00pm, so she’s obviously serious about making this run again.  And she’ll be taking questions in a liveblog session at Firedoglake today at 11am.  John Amato of Crooks and Liars fame may also make a run at this seat.

…Transcript of the FDL session here.