Progressive Sundae: - Front Page

CA-10: 9/1 Election Results

babaloo — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:00:00 GMT

First off, there won't be any results from the CA-10 race until 10:00 p.m. As reported by Lisa Vorderbrueggen, the registrars in the district have been ordered by Gov. Schwarzenegger to hold the results until CA-10 first responders who are serving away from home on the fire lines in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Mariposa Counties have had an opportunity to vote. Since they have until 10:00 to cast their votes, the running tallies will not be posted until then.

Of course, the regular polls close at 8:00, and the registrars will immediately commence with counting votes just as if there were no hold. So look for the first results, when they come at 10:00, to be fairly complete. Tonight there will be no hitting "refresh" for updates, no cheering if the numbers shift a little bit. Instead, just look for pretty much one big information dump.

You can follow the results at the Secretary of State's site.

CA-10: The Last Video?

babaloo — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:02:04 GMT

Thank goodness this election is almost over. The anonymous videographer known as midwestpinch1 is back with what we can only hope is the last video in the race.

CA-10: Late SUSA Polling

babaloo — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:13:43 GMT

KPIX Channel 5 has released a final SurveyUSA poll on the race in CA-10. Taken 8/26-8/28, the survey shows very little movement from the previous SUSA findings. John Garamendi is still in front, with 25%; Mark DeSaulnier is at 16%; and Joan Buchanan is at 12%. Among Democrats, only Anthony Woods increased his numbers significantly, moving from 5% to 9%. For comparison, you can check the results of the 8/11-8/12 polling here.

SUSA surveyed 555 likely voters, with a MoE of +/-4.2%. My favorite part, though, was their disclaimer:

Because turnout in a stand-alone special primary election is difficult to predict, and because voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their own party affiliation, it is possible that candidates will not finish in the order shown here.

In other words, feel free to ignore this poll.

CA-10: New Garamendi Commercial

babaloo — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:08:49 GMT

If you're in the district and you watch cable, you may have noticed that John Garamendi has tweaked his TV spots in recent days. His "On Healthcare" commercial has been modified -- gone are the opening and closing "yee-haw" segments where he canters up on horseback. In their place are family scenes with his wife and grandchildren. You've got to give the guy credit -- it only took him five months of running and a LOT of mockery before he realized that the rugged rancher image was totally laughable in CA-10.

Now he's out with his closer for GOTV weekend, a recitation of his endorsements from the conservative editorial boards of the local papers. You can catch the new opening here.

And I have a question. If you're endorsed by a news conglomerate, is it just a little dishonest to quote from the same endorsement but cite the different mastheads under which it was published, thereby implying a wider base of endorsers? Just wondering...

Republicans In CA-10: Turning Lemons Into Lemonade

babaloo — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:22:57 GMT

As has been pointed out frequently over recent years, CA-10 has become a Democratic stronghold, with a registration advantage of D+18 and a Cook PVI of D+11. So what do those numbers mean in the context of the current special Congressional election? Well, they mean that it is a fact -- you can take it to the bank -- that our next member of Congress will be a Democrat.

So if you run a nutty right-wing PAC, what do you do with that lemon besides just suck on it? Well, here's how Move America Forward (MAF), "part of a pro-war lobby... headed by California Republican activists, talk show hosts and staff members of the public relations firm Russo Marsh & Rogers, which has strong ties to the Republican Party," is attempting to make lemonade.

The MAF Freedom PAC outlined their plan in a recent email that seriously reminds me of the underpants gnomes' business strategy:

Collect underpants
?
Profit!!!

Only in the case of MAF Freedom PAC, the strategy looks more like this:

Force a November run-off
?
Victory!!!

I'll let them explain the plan:

Conservatives looking to take back California's 10th Congressional district from liberals are gaining strength, thanks to voter anger at President Obama's agenda to socialize medicine and hurt veterans' healthcare, among other issues. But most important are the men who are challenging the front-runner, liberal California's Lt. Gov. John Garamendi.
Republicans David Harmer and Chris Bunch, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, can force the six liberals who are running in the 10th District to face a runoff in November -- but they need our help now to force a run-off election and victory. We can stop the Obama Agenda by taking back this congressional seat, which sits across the Bay Area from Nancy Pelosi's own district.
"This is a district that can swing," political consultant Ray McNally said. "There's a lot of uncertainty and voter angst out in the country, and Democrats are losing ground."

Yeah, right.

Meanwhile, there's a second CA-10 fact that you can take to the bank: no candidate in the September 1 election will reach the 50%+1 threshold necessary to avoid a November run-off. There are quite simply too many strong candidates for any one of them to reach that level.

And that's the beauty of the MAF Freedom PAC scam. They know they're helpless to influence the ultimate outcome of this race; yet they also sense an opportunity for self-promotion and enrichment.

DONATE NOW TO STOP THE LIBERALS IN CALIF.
Now is the time to strike. The nonpartisan SurveyUSA firm shows Garamendi with support of only 26 percent of respondents. His next closest Democrat contender has 15 percent. The only way Obama's candidate can win is with 50 percent of the vote plus one. If we SPLIT THE VOTE by flooding the polls with votes for any candidate other than the liberal leader, John Garamendi, (regardless of whether they are for Harmer or Bunch) and Garamendi gets even 49.999% of the vote, WE FORCE A RUNOFF where it will be a clear choice.
We can keep Garamendi from going automatically to Washington and force him to square off in a battle against a conservative who CAN win and show the rest of the country that Obama's radical agenda is running out of support!
WE CAN STOP THE LIBERAL AGENDA by getting involved now, just a week before the Special Election. If we do not act now, we will allow the left-wingers to continue their march toward Obama's radical agenda of socialism and the destruction of the American way.

Naturally, the email contains a money ask, although you may have noticed that MAF doesn't say how the funds raised from this letter will be used to achieve so-called victory in CA-10. Yet by setting the bar for this "victory" so ridiculously low, they've guaranteed that they'll be able to return to their list next week trumpeting their success. I can see it now...

YOU DID IT! Thanks to your donations, conservatives were able to stop Obama's liberal agenda and FORCE A RUNOFF in November where WE CAN WIN!
DONATE NOW TO STOP THE LIBERALS IN CALIF.

And as P.T. Barnum famously never said...

CA-10: Yet Another Video

babaloo — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:12:55 GMT

The mystery videographer known as midwestpinch1 is at it again, this time with a video about John Garamendi's support for the mistreatment of farm animals.

As a side note, I recently got a phone call from the Garamendi campaign. When I questioned the caller about Garamendi's stance on the humane treatment of farm animals, he made no apologies and, instead, defended Garamendi's position on Prop. 2 by citing a UC Davis study which claimed that allowing animals to move freely in their cages would raise the cost of eggs to and cause egg farmers to go out of business.

So apparently Garamendi and his campaign have decided that they're good with being at odds with over 65% of the voters in CA-10.

Channel 2 News On The CA-10 Race

babaloo — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:00:00 GMT

KTVU Political Editor Randy Shandobil reported on the CA-10 race on last night's Channel 2 News...

It's kind of amazing to see the impunity with which Garamendi offers up a lie that can be (and is) easily debunked by a good reporter, and then responds, "So what's the point?"

The public option is essential to health care reform

Mark_DeSaulnier — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:22:53 GMT

By Senator Mark DeSaulnier

The introduction of health care cooperatives into the reform debate is a dangerous distraction. Health care co-ops will not increase competition in a business dominated by giant insurance companies, but rather fail in the most critical need of health care reform: cost control.

Co-ops have been around for a long time in the United States and have been successful in some industries-grocery stores, community credit unions and electricity. However health care co-ops have a very different record.

Conservatives herald co-ops because, during the 1930s and 40s, health insurance co-ops covered hundreds of thousands of Americans, in large part due to the financial support of the federal Farm Security Administration (FSA). But this and other health care co-ops have a history of failure without tight federal regulation and significant taxpayer investment.

A local health insurance co-op, as described by many conservatives in Congress and the media could not grow large enough or quickly enough to compete with health insurance industry behemoths and near-monopolies that control the majority of the market.

The only entity large enough to create an organization capable of introducing competition into the health insurance market is the federal government.

A public option capable of competing with Big Insurance will force insurance companies to lower premiums and improve quality of service.

The public option will provide an affordable, basic coverage plan to all who want it. For those who prefer to buy insurance from a private plan, competition from the public option will aid in lowering the costs of coverage.

Claims that the public option will simply overrun the health insurance market and eliminate private companies are absurd. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, even among those with incomes that make them eligible for assistance that will aid in paying for a public option, just one-third would chose that public option. Moreover, under the reform proposal in Congress, three million more people would have primary medical coverage through an employer than under current law, according to the CBO.

The public option creates competition in a market dominated by a few massive conglomerates. It lowers health insurance premiums across the board and increases quality of care. As the debate in Congress and throughout our nation rages on, we must be a clear for voice advocating for the public option. It the only true reform that can control costs and provide health care insurance for a greater number of Americans.

CA-10: Contra Costa Times Endorses

babaloo — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:37:40 GMT

The Bay Area News Group (Contra Costa Times, Tri-Valley Herald, etc.) yesterday endorsed John Garamendi in the CA-10 race (although it's not online). Of course, Garamendi wasted no time in sending out an email crowing about the endorsement. What's interesting about the email, however, is what Garamendi omitted.

Here's Garamendi's email, with his excerpt from the endorsement:

Garamendi is our choice for the 10th Congressional District
THE DEPARTURE of Ellen Tauscher as representative of the 10th Congressional District to serve in the Obama administration has left a void that will be a challenge to fill.
The diverse district, which runs from Fairfield through much of Contra Costa County and into southern Alameda County, has become increasingly Democratic.
It is heavily favored to elect a Democrat to replace Tauscher, especially without a Republican officeholder seeking the seat.
Among the five Democrats running are three state officeholders: Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan.
Of the three, only Garamendi has experience working in Washington, D.C., as deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior in the Clinton administration. Garamendi also has broad experience in state government with two years in the Assembly and 14 years in the state Senate. He twice was elected as California Insurance Commissioner, where he helped make significant consumer reforms.
Of all 14 candidates, we believe Garamendi has the right combination of experience, knowledge of key issues and dedication to serving the public interest that make him the best choice to fill Tauscher's seat.
With eight years' experience as insurance commissioner, Garamendi has valuable knowledge needed to make informed decisions about health care reform. As a rancher and with service in the federal Department of Interior, he has credibility with agricultural interests and environmentalists, which puts him in a favorable position to work on critical water issues that affect the Delta.
Garamendi lives on the edge of the 10th Congressional District, but has considerable knowledge about the area, expertise on issues affecting the region, and is not beholden to special interests.
Tauscher's replacement will be going to Congress at a critical time, with major issues confronting the nation, including economic recovery, health care, energy, the war in Afghanistan and reform of financial institutions. The 10th Congressional District needs someone with broad experience and dedication to the public interest. We believe John Garamendi best meets those criteria.

And here's the part of the endorsement that the Garamendi campaign probably didn't want its Democratic supporters to see:

We have serious questions about [DeSaulnier's] commitment to the public interest independent of acceding to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions.
Many of the financial problems that afflict Contra Costa County today stem directly from decisions DeSaulnier championed while he was supervisor. Most notably, in 2002, at a time when the county faced a $31.5 million shortfall, was already laying off workers and was already experiencing increased public employee pension costs, DeSaulnier supported unsustainable pension increases that hiked benefits for public safety workers by as much as 50 percent.
The plan allowed public safety workers to retire at age 50 with a pension worth 3 percent of their salary for each year served.
Such excessive public employee union benefits have strained some local jurisdictions to the brink of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy, which would allow the rewriting of unaffordable employee contracts, might be the only way out for some jurisdictions. But Democratic legislators, DeSaulnier and Buchanan among them, have backed an effort to remove the use of local government bankruptcy. They are pushing Assembly Bill 155, which would require state approval of such bankruptcies, severely diminishing local control of fiscal policy.

Now, the Bay Area News Groups is owned by MediaNews Group, whose founder and owner is one William Dean Singleton. It probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that Singleton is rabidly anti-union -- witness the editorial screed that his flagship paper, the Denver Post, published on Page One, above the fold, when Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed an executive order allowing collective bargaining for Colorado's state employees. So it's hardly shocking that Singleton's hatred for public employee unions would be reflected in BANG's endorsements.

Here's the problem that I see. Making no bones about their anti-union prejudice, BANG's editorial board has "serious questions about [DeSaulnier's] commitment to the public interest independent of acceding to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions" but in the same breath claims that "We believe Garamendi has the right combination of experience, knowledge of key issues and dedication to serving the public interest."

So BANG has set up a political equation where public employee unions are the antithesis of the public interest. According to their logic, because DeSaulnier supports those unions, he is disregarding the public interest. But if you apply that equation to BANG's comments about John Garamendi, then logically, his dedication to serving the public interest must necessitate that he has repudiated the public employee unions.

And that raises the question of exactly what was said by Garamendi in his interview with the BANG editorial board. How did he convince an editorial board that he was dedicated to serving the public interest when that same editorial board clearly believes that public employee unions are damaging to the public interest? Could it have been that part about him not living in the district, so he's not "beholden to special interests"? Because that sure sounds like some ugly code to me.

CA-10: Buchanan Now In For $750,000

babaloo — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:19:26 GMT

Today is the deadline for candidates to file their FEC Pre-Special Report, which in this race will cover the period from July 1 through August 12. At the moment, Joan Buchanan is the only candidate whose report is up. And the bombshell is that she lent her campaign another $250,000 back in mid-July. So it turns out that she was already at $500,000 before she made a loan of another $250,000 last Friday. Buchanan's fundraising has continued to be anemic, with a mere $30,000 for the six-week period (and a grand total of $94,000). But with her own money added in, she's easily at the head of the pack money-wise.

On the debit side of the ledger, Buchanan spent nearly $400,000 in the last six weeks ($531,000 total), almost all of it on salaries for her field operation. So she's in the final two-week stretch with an army of paid canvassers and plenty of operating capital. And if you're wondering what has possessed her to invest so much of her own money into her campaign, I can tell you that she's spent a fair amount of money on polling. So she must be seeing something that's encouraging her to keep spending.

UPDATE: Garamendi's report is up. He raised $217,000 in the period for a campaign total of $517,000.

Expenditures for the period were $341,000 ($381,000 total). Garamendi reports CoH of $133,000, less debt of $82,000, effectively leaving him with about $50,000. He's also raised another $45,000 since the Pre-Special reporting period, according to his 48-Hour reports. Garamendi's campaign had spent $50,000 on TV as of 8/12.

UPDATE 2:
And DeSaulnier's report is up. DeSaulnier raised $169,000 for the period ($380,000 total).

Expenditures were $206,000 ($278,000 total). The campaign reported $108,000 CoH and $128,000 debt, including a $15,000 loan from the candidate. So DeSaulnier is limping into the final stretch with virtually no money. That's what happens when you do things like pay Ellen Tauscher's fundraisers nearly $40,000.