First, kudos to Brian Leubitz, out tonight talking blogs to a more traditional crowd who hopefully will take opportunity to get more involved in self-publishing. It’s so easy to preach to the choir when it comes to social media, and Brian is expanding the base for the progressive blogosphere. You can check out some of my live tweets from Brian’s discussion with the Diablo Valley Democratic Club over at @adriel4congress.

A bit disappointing tonight in that we expected to have a brief candidates forum, but it was called off due to the apolitical library venue. Chris Buchanan was again subbing for his mother, Joan, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi was a no-show. I got some good advice on weaknesses in my first forum from a local delegate.

This looks to be a real fight, no quarter asked, none given.

Just wanted to drop a note about the great candidate’s forum in Dublin tonight. It was my first time seeing Anthony Woods speak and I join in the assessment that he’s got a great future in political leadership. Sean Mykael McMullen of Bear Flag Blue and the DeSaulnier campaign did some great live tweeting, and my friend Kaushal Khalla took a bunch of photos (OK, most of them are of me) and posted to Facebook.

http://twitter.com/seanmykael

http://www.facebook.com/album….

As I mentioned a few days ago, I attended the East Bay DFA meeting last night. It was great to hang out with some folks who are regular contributors to Calitics.

The meeting began with a recap of the CDP convention, where a member of the group, Hilary Crosby, was elected to the position of CDP Controller.  Several other members of East Bay DFA were elected to caucus positions, including Karen Weinstein to Women’s Caucus Chair.  This is really a remarkably successful club.

Once all the collective high-fives were issued and the pizza was devoured, the CA-10 candidates got up there and did their thing. You might want to check Matt Lockshin’s twitter feed for the live tweeting action.  

Joan Buchanan began, pointing out that No Child Left Behind is still vastly underfunded. But, once she finished up with her schpiel, the first question was from a supporter of Nancy Skinner. Skinner, the progressive Assembly Member from AD-14, sent her volunteers over the East Bay Hills to get Buchanan elected. It seems many of these progressive folks are a smidge bitter that she’s ready to run for another office so soon after a bitter fight to get her elected in AD-15. She handled it fairly well, saying if she won, she would do everything to ensure that AD-15 stays in Democratic hands.

John Garamendi went next, and gave a patented John Garamendi speech. It was fiery and passionate. He addressed the issues of why he is running for the seat, why he would be the most effective candidate, and all the people he knows.  He’s been in this game for a while.  Which is a contrast to…

Anthony Woods, who went next.  You could tell Woods wasn’t quite so seasoned. He spoke off of notes, which I think did him a bit of a disservice. He knew the issues, and in a small room like that, getting people to feel like you are really addressing them is more important than getting every word right.  That being said, he did get pretty much every word right. The speech was great, people liked his story and his positions.  Whether he wins this race or not, Woods is well positioned to be a leader in the area in the future.

Finally, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier mentioned how Reps. Tauscher and Miller both called him about running for the seat. How he had all the big name endorsements. He’s really quite progressive, from the Constitutional Convention bill he’s carrying in the Senate to his legislative scorecards.

In the questions, we got views on Afghanistan, the death penalty, and a range of issues. I’m sure the voters will hear quite a lot from these four going forward.

Finally, I had a little debate with Sen. DeSaulnier about the propositions.  I will grant him that it was a friendly room to me; the people in DFA strongly oppose Prop 1A and the rest of the package.  And DeSaulnier recognized that, and to his credit acknowledged that it was a result of extortion. He admitted it was not his idea of good policy, but said that it was the best deal they could get in the Legislature.  I of course disagree, but props to him for being honest about.  More props to him for pushing Prop 1C over the rest of the measures while still acknowledging that he didn’t think that there was actually $5 billion to be had in lottery liquidity.

X-posted at The Progressive Connection

The more I find out about the CA-10 poll John Garamendi released on Monday, the worse it smells. The press release about this poll from the Garamendi campaign gave out limited information as to how the poll was conducted, which raised a number of questions. However, Peter Charles left a comment at Calitics where he shared more information about the details of the poll. Those details exposed three glaring errors that jumped out from the information that was provided to the poll’s participants.

When the participants were given bios of the three Democratic candidates, here’s what they heard about Mark DeSaulnier, Joan Buchanan, and John Garamendi:

3a. Democrat State Senator Mark Desaulnier has served in the state legislature since 2004. Before that he served on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors from 1996 to 2004. His top priority issues will be rebuilding the country’s economy, implementing clean energy programs, and regulating Wall Street banks. He is endorsed by Congress members Ellen Tauscher and George Miller, local firefighters, teachers, police and environmental groups.

3b. Democrat State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan was elected to the State Assembly last November. Before that she served for 10 years on the San Ramon (ruh-MOAN) Valley school board. Her top priority issues will be more jobs and improving the economy, increasing renewable energy programs, and reforming public education. She will likely be endorsed by local elected leaders, school board members, teachers, and civil rights and womens groups.

3c. Democrat John Garamendi is California’s Lieutenant Governor. He has lived in the Sacramento portion of Congressional District 10 for 30 years. He previously served as Deputy Secretary of the Interior for Bill Clinton. He is running for Congress to continue reforming health care, rebuild our economy around clean energy, and reform bank and credit card laws. He will be endorsed by local nurses, firefighters, teachers, police officers as well as former President Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

The problem here is that the pollster misrepresented all three candidates, and he did it in a way that predictably favored the candidate who hired him.

As we’ve noted extensively at The Progressive Connection, John Garamendi does not now, nor has he ever “lived in the Sacramento portion of Congressional District 10.” That’s just an outright falsehood, as are the representations made about both DeSaulnier’s and Buchanan’s record of public service.

Mark DeSaulnier joined the state legislature in 2006, not 2004. Before that, DeSaulnier served on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors from 1993 to 2006. Thirteen years, not eight. Four terms, not two.

And Joan Buchanan served on the San Ramon Valley school board from 1990 to 2008.  Eighteen years, not ten. Five terms, not three.

You have to ask yourself this question. If a pollster will lie about both his own candidate’s and the opposing candidates’ biographies, what else will he lie about?

And those aren’t the only problems. To get into the really wonkerific world of why Garamendi’s polling sample is all wrong, flip it…

This is how the Garamendi press release described the polling sample:

The poll was conducted between May 1st and May 4th by Jim Moore and JMM Research. Interviews were conducted with a 400-person sample from the 10th congressional district. Turnout was projected at 30 percent, and likely turnout was projected to be 55 percent Democratic, 33 percent Republican, and 12 percent independent. The poll had a +/- 5 percent margin of error.

For starters, a +/-5 percent margin of error is large. For those of you who are new to polling, +/-5 means that you need to give a five percent leeway to each candidate in the race. Relative to this particular poll, that means that Garamendi’s numbers could be as much as 5 points higher or lower, AND DeSaulnier’s and Buchanan’s numbers could also be as much as 5 points higher or lower. So while, at one extreme, it could reflect a blowout with Garamendi at 29 and DeSaulnier/Buchanan at 8/6, the converse could also be true. You could also have Garamendi at 19 and DeSaulnier/Buchanan at 18/16 — or a dead heat.

But there are also real and significant flaws in the poll’s underlying assumptions.

To explain this part, I’ve gathered the following data from the March 2009 SoS registration statistics, along with the CA-10 primary results from June 2008, and the Proposition results from CA-10 in the June 2008 primary.

Voter Data for CA-10

	Total Voters	%	Total Dems	%	Total Reps	%	Total DTS	%	Other	%
March 2009 Registration for CA-10	367,306	100%	173,498	47.24%	106,275	28.93%	73,015	19.88%	14,518	3.96%
June 2008 CA-10 Primary Results w/win %	85,814	N/A	55,427	64.59%	30,324	35.34%	N/A	N/A	63	.03%
CA-10 Voter Turnout as a % of Registration	85,814	23.36%	55,427	31.95%	30,324	28.53%	N/A	N/A	63	.43%

Got that? 23.36% voter turnout in last June’s Congressional primary.

But what’s fascinating about this is that Democratic and Republican registration amounts to 76.17 of the total voters; DTS and the others account for the remaining 23.84%. Now, if you were registered either Democratic or Republican for the June primary, you automatically received a partisan ballot. If you were DTS, you would have received a partisan ballot only if you specifically requested it; otherwise, you would have received a ballot that did not allow you to vote in, specifically (for our purposes), the Congressional race. Of the remaining parties, only Peace & Freedom fielded a candidate, so the members of the other parties would also not have had a Congressional vote.

Now, there were two propositions on the ballot as well, where all voters could cast their vote, regardless of party affiliation. It’s interesting to note that the total number of votes cast on Props 98 and 99 (regarding eminent domain) in CA-10 was significantly higher than the number of votes cast in the CA-10 Congressional race.

	Total Voters	% Turnout
CA-10 Congressional Race	85,814	23.36%
Prop 98	113,139	30.8%
Prop  99	112,584	30.65%

So we can assume that at least 113,139 voters turned out in CA-10 in the June primary. But of those 113,139, only 85,814 cast a ballot in the partisan Congressional race — or 75.84% — almost exactly equivalent to the 76.16% who are registered with the two major parties. That would tend to prove the notion that DTS voters seldom pull Democratic or Republican ballots in primaries.

All of which is a really long-winded explanation for why I don’t see any way to justify setting up a poll to reflect a 12% DTS participation in the coming CA-10 special primary.  That pretty much leaves us with a deeply flawed +/-5 MoE poll that, in all likelihood, overestimates turnout and takes 12% of its data from people who are demonstrably unlikely to vote in the upcoming special election (remember, the margin of Garamendi’s lead is 11%), while undersampling Democrats by 10%.

Obviously, the Garamendi campaign was hoping to make a big splash with this poll and establish its candidate as the strong frontrunner. Instead, because the poll is so thoroughly riddled with errors of both fact and judgment, they’re just looking desperate.

That’s the verdict according to a J. Moore Methods poll that dropped over the weekend and that found its way into my hands this afternoon. Remember that this is an open primary – if someone gets more than 50% they win; if not then the top candidates from each party go to a runoff. According to the poll, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi leads among likely voters (36% have no opinion):

(Rupf is Republican Warren Rupf, Sheriff of CoCo County)

The personal ratings are included, which show that Garamendi also has a big name ID and favorability advantage over all his challengers. Voter turnout is projected to be 30%, with 55% Dem, 33% Rep, and 12% DTS.

Of course, Garamendi doesn’t have a 50% lead here, and the election hasn’t even been scheduled yet. There’s time for either DeSaulnier or Buchanan to try and catch up, but it’s going to be a difficult climb. Garamendi’s high public profile and ability to raise money for this campaign will be significant advantages. DeSaulnier, a solid progressive who would also make an excellent member of Congress, can counter with strong on-the-ground support, but it’s unclear if that can trump Garamendi’s built-in advantages.

This leads me to wonder if Buchanan plans to stick around in the race – I can’t see her getting very far against this kind of opposition. Or perhaps DeSaulnier might step back and let Garamendi take it. So far as I can tell, however, both fully intend to continue their run.

Neither Anthony Woods nor Adriel Hampton were included in this poll, but I can’t imagine either one would meaningfully impact the outcome.

So as far as I can tell this is Garamendi’s to lose. We’ll see if this poll shifts the landscape at all.

There are a few weeks in each legislative session that I get simply barraged with press releases from legislative staff. And this week is one of them, as the deadline for bills to pass out of their respective policy committees is on Friday.  But before I move on… here’s a rant:



First, props for trying to reach out to bloggers, that’s a point for you.  But I would give one point of free advice to all you press flacks out there, please include the text of the press release in the email. I really don’t want to open a PDF just so that I can get the privilege of having all of your pretty formatting work out every time. And by text, I mean text, not an image of text. Ok end rant.

Now, to some of the actual bills that have emerged from policy committees that are taking up space in my inbox.  First, how about one from an environmental champion, Lois Wolk:

Wolk´s Senate Bill 679 prohibits the use of state park lands for non-park purposes without legislative approval. Even with legislative approval, the bill would not allow a project to move forward unless the use of the park land was compensated for with a parks´ designation for land with equal environmental and fair market value. (Press Release here)

And how about a couple from Sen. Leland Yee. SB 557 would allow law enforcement to sieze property from human traffickers. And in response to the SF Bay Oil Spill last year, he has gotten SB 1217 passed out of the policy committee. It would regulate bar pilots and provide more transparency in the process.

And how about one from freshman Assembly member Joan Buchanan? Her AB 1317 was passed out of the Assembly Committee on Health. The bill would provide access to parent of newborns for tests to screen for a wide range of disorders, such as sickle cell anemia.

I suppose I am encouraging more emails with this post, so I guess all you Assembly staff can feel free to shoot me more emails with tales of your boss’s big breakthrough.

There have been a few voices suggesting California Lt. Governor John Garamendi abandon his bid to replace Liebermanesque Ellen Tauscher and instead run in California’s third congressional district against Dan Lungren.

And if you are a Democrat – especially a Progressive Democrat – that is good news. Strategically, such a move would be counterproductive for Democrats.

It Makes No Sense for California Democrats

The biggest problem in California is the Republican Veto. This means that Democrats may have a majority in the legislature, but not a functioning majority. With the artificial budget control by Republicans, it actually hurts Democrats if a legislator ascends to congress in a Special Election. With state Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan both running for Tauscher’s seat, in all likelihood a Democratic legislator will win unless Garamendi runs.

There are two forces at work that make it counterproductive for Democrats to support a legislator in a special election:

• California law requires a vacancy in the legislature to be filled by a special election which can take as long as five months from the time the vacancy occurs.
• California law also bases the 2/3 necessary to pass the budget off of the total number of legislative seats, not the total number of legislators serving

Together, these two rules mean that electing a legislator creates a situation where it will take even one more GOP vote to pass a budget. As we see pretty much every year, it is the last vote that is the hardest and requires the most caving by Democratic legislative leadership.

So if Garamendi doesn’t run in the 10th, it actually strengthens the GOP in California who are all but expecting a legislative special election to weaken the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, it makes sense for them to stall on the budget until the vacancy occurs to force even more cuts to the budget.

And it could get even worse. The last East Bay congressional special election occurred when Ron Dellums resigned from congress in 1997. This set off an infamous series of special elections where there were legislative vacancies for over a year. Absent Garamendi running, the frontrunner is Mark DeSaulnier. If he wins, he would have to give up his senate seat setting up a second special election. Assemblymember Tom Torlakson can’t run, but Assemblymember Joan Buchanan has already indicated a willingness to run for higher office in a special election and if she won, it would set up another special election (and it is doubtful Democrats could hold her seat).

However, if Garamendi were to win it does not strengthen the GOP hand in Sacramento. In fact, since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would get to appoint a replacement, it could actually help passing a budget if Schwarzenegger picked a legislative Republican.

In short, the realities of California’s constitution mean we want legislative vacancies on their side of the aisle, not ours. A vacancy on our side dramatically increases the ability of the California Republican Party to hurt California more via budget cuts.

It Makes No Sense for Progressive Democrats

I would have loved a move like this in 2006 and it still would have been good in 2008, but right now we are in an entirely different situation then we were back in the days many of us were fighting to expand the playing field. Back then, it was the traditional dogma we were fighting against, but ironically now some of the strategies we once used have become the dogma which is clouding the judgment of some.

If Garamendi were to run in the third instead of the tenth, it would actually be counterproductive for progressives. The battle is no longer to get in the majority, the battle lines are within our safe majority. It actually helps progressives standing within the caucus more to have Garamendi then it does to have Garamendi and a conservative (DeSaulnier or Buchanan).

But more likely is that Garamendi running in the third would result in a moderate winning in the 10th and Lungren being re-elected. While Garamendi does have name recognition, his entire gubernatorial campaign has raised less than $200,000 under the federal rules he would be operating under. While he would be able to raise enough money for a sprint in a special election, it is unlikely he could raise enough to win as a challenger absent serious national support in a year when the DCCC is playing defense and it makes far more sense for small donors to contribute to senate candidates then try and expand the majority in the House.

Even if Garamendi won in the third, he would be a far better Representative coming from the 10th. Since Democrats lost control of the next redistricting, Garamendi would have to spend all of his time running for re-election while the moderate winner in CA-10 would be free to spend time screwing progressives (the Ellen Tauscher tradition).

The Worst Case Scenario

The best thing for conservatives is for Garmendi to run in the third. This will make it nearly inevitable that the GOP will have a far stronger hand during budget negotiations, ensure Ellen Tauscher is replaced by another moderate, and give Garamendi at best a 50-50 chance of picking up a seat that won’t change anything in DC.

While I’m sure supporters of DeSaulnier will keep pushing this absurd idea, the fact that it is the best case for conservatives might be why Ellen Tauscher thinks DeSaulnier will do such a great job carrying on her work.

Progressives should applaud Lt. Governor Garamendi running in CA-10. It makes it likely that Ellen Tauscher will be replaced with a progressive stalwart and will hopefully prevent the disaster of either of the conservative legislators winning the seat and making things Sacramento even worse.

Tuesday night Matt Lockshin, the internet director for the California Democratic Party put up a poll on the subject:

Hopefully this bad idea will end and we can replace Ellen Tauscher with a progressive.

With John Garamendi’s announcement yesterday, and the State Democratic Convention kicking off tomorrow, I had a feeling this announcement might be coming today.

She’s has made it official…Joan Buchanan is entering the race for California’s 10th Congressional District.

Joan Buchanan For Congress

After consulting with hundreds of community leaders, voters, elected colleagues and activists across our region; after considering the extraordinary financial challenges facing the country; and after carefully evaluating where I can make the most significant contribution, I have decided that I will be a candidate for Congress in our district.

We now have 3 great Democratic candidates in the race for the 10th…not to mention the newcomers who have yet to had a chance to really prove themselves and tell their stories.

I had really hoped that the race for the 10th wouldn’t come down to this…at the same time, I can’t blame Joan Buchanan for running. This really is a possible once in a lifetime opportunity for her. I just fear things are going to get very ugly between people that I respect & admire, and am in no hurry to either watch or participate in the trainwreck.

But we’re here now and all we can do is move forward.

I’m still hoping John Garamendi will reconsider, and run against Lungren in the 3rd. I really do think it’s what’s best for everybody…Garamendi included.

As for Joan Buchanan & Mark DeSaulnier…a decision to support one or the other is not going to be easy an easy one to make.

On a personal level…I really like Joan Buchanan. I also have a lot of respect for what she was able to accomplish in taking back the 15th for Dems. She’s just so new in the legislature though, that there are a number of issues in which I have no idea where she stands…also, I do worry about who would replace her in the 15th.

Mark DeSaulnier on the other hand, I’m learning is a pretty great guy himself. Not only has he been involved at the local level on a number of issues for years, the impression that I get from everybody I meet with in the district, is that he is absolutely adored by his many supporters. The enthusiasm for DeSaulnier is infectious. He also has the support of the party & local labor groups behind him, which does count for something I suppose.

And then there is still Adriel Hampton to consider and the candidate that I am really interested to hear more from, Anthony Woods.

Joan Buchanan has it right…

This isn’t the Spring I expected!

I think we’re all in that club right now.