California campaign finance: more evidence of blue wave

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday April 19, 2018 · 10:34 AM PDT

2018/04/19 · 10:34

Recently the first quarterly campaign finance reports were published and the California congressional campaigns show evidence of blue wave. Republican incumbents have raised about $19 million. Democratic incumbents have raised $40 million.

Incumbents typically raise more money than the challengers. Majority members typically raise more than minority members. And vulnerable majority members raise the most money.

For better or worse, congressional politics has become a team sport. The cumulative amounts of money that each team raises makes a difference because when a campaign gets serious, the safe incumbents will transfer money to leadership funds who will then fund the close races.

There are 12 Republican incumbents (two Republican retirements) and 39 Democratic incumbents. The 24th CD is potentially competitive (but not really), but the 39 Democrats are not seriously challenged. All Republican incumbents are being challenged. Some challenges are highly charged, others are a little less likely. Democrats will make progress in California. We just don’t know how much progress.

Republicans are defending 14 seats with $19 million in cash. Democrats are assaulting those seats with $40 million in cash. Money is not the only factor in campaigns—not even the most important factor. But it is one factor that we can measure. By this measurement, I think I can see the formation of a blue wave.

A skeptic's view of Trump's medical records

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday September 15, 2016 · 3:54 PM PDT

2016/09/15 · 15:54

Donald Trump has released something related to his medical conditions to Dr. Oz on a daytime TV show. It was apparently a letter signed by Dr. Bornstein who is Donald Trump’s physician. I have a suspicious mind and this all smells bad to me.

Is it completely nuts to imagine Trump going to Dr. Bornstein with a letter that his campaign staff prepared and offering him $10,000 to sign the letter. Is it possible that Bornstein never examined him at all?

Suppose Trump wanted to hide something quite terrible. He would go to this doctor, get him to sign the letter and then discuss it on TV with a doctor with far higher popularity than medical experience. No one, particularly Dr. Oz, would suggest that the doctor was a complete fraud and that the letter had no basis in reality.

I don’t like being suspicious. But I am. Particularly with Trump.

"To the victors go the spoils". That would be our new policy???

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday September 07, 2016 · 10:46 PM PDT

2016/09/07 · 22:46

A few weeks ago, Trump said that in the old days, to the victor went the spoils. It is a concept popularized by Julius Caesar in about 62BC while conquering Gaul to pay off debts. According to Trump, we should have kept a small force in place in Iraq to take the oil from their reserves as the spoils of war. Tonight he repeated that assertion.

I’m not sure what has shocked me the most: that a nominee of a major party would say such a thing or that it would go essentially unchallenged. Suppose our policy in the Iraq War had been “to the victor goes the spoils.” How would that have set with our allies. Would they want some of the booty also? How would that go over with the UN (not the it would matter with the Trump Administration). In general, how would that go over in the Muslim world.

Suppose that had been our policy in the Gulf War. Would we have taken the Iraq oil plus the Kuwaiti oil? In WWII, would we have taken whatever we could out of Germany and Japan? I don’t want to suggest that the US has always had pure motives in entering wars or that we have never exploited populations following an armed conflict.

But Trump would destroy even a pretense of a higher purpose. We could quickly and easily become the most reviled country in the world. Why doesn’t this get more attention? Are there just too many dumpster fires out there to report on all of them?

California Politics

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday April 05, 2016 · 11:40 AM PDT

2016/04/05 · 11:40

Recent polls show Kamala Harris with a sizable lead over Loretta Sanchez for the US Senate seat vacated by the retiring Barbara Boxer. Because of the “top-two” primary system, this means that the two Democrats would face off in the general election. The history and utility of this system is not the subject of this diary—others have done a great job discussing this.

This diary is about the future. California has constitutional offices up for election in two years. There are some interesting conflicts brewing: Gavin Newsom vs. Antonio Villaraigosa for Governor; Darrell Steinberg vs. Kevin DeLeon for Lt. Governor; Dario Frommer vs. Dave Jones for Attorney General. There are many other candidates and other offices—this is just a sampling.

Will a Republican make it into ANY general election race in 2018? Donors are not idiots. They understand as well as anyone that no Republican has won a statewide election since 2006. We cannot say that a Republican will never win another statewide election, but it is very difficult to envision it right now.

First, we have to envision a Republican making it into a general election. With a statewide registration of 27.62% which Republican can make a lucid case that they can win enough votes to get into the general election? Not just for 2018, but beyond.

And for those in Northern California, there is a convention of the California Republican Party on April 29, 30 and May 1. The keynote speaker is Carly Fiorino, and Ted Cruz and John Kasich is on the schedule. It is not known is Donald Trump will show up.

Does anyone know if there will be some protests? Or should I just show up?

Moving from Hillary to Bernie

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday December 26, 2015 · 5:26 AM PST

2015/12/26 · 05:26

I was an Obama supporter, though I never hated Clinton. I admired her intelligence and experience and would never vote against her in a general election. Obama was a very special candidate and has become a very accomplished President. I will always be glad for my work on his behalf.

This time around I presumed I would vote for Clinton. I liked Sanders’ positions much more, but Clinton understands that working with the Republicans is more like warfare than a discussion. I think that she would not go in exactly the direction that I want, but she would get farther. And the direction certainly isn’t as terrible as the Republicans.

However, my thinking is changing (and it might change more as we approach the election). There is so much despair in the country. I’m not just talking about angry white males, but young people who cannot get a decent job. Single moms who are just clinging to a job while juggling all the responsibilities of parenthood. People who go in and out of prison—trapped by a mistake they made and unable to escape the gravity of the criminal justice system. Blacks who have a very reasonable fear of the police.

Whenever government does something, it needs to ask if it is adding to or subtracting from this despair. I believe that both Clinton and Sanders understand the despair, but Clinton understands it because it shows up in the focus groups. Saunders understands it because he has always had an empathy and understanding of the problem. I have questioned his ability to get things done, but I don’t question his authenticity.

A word about electability: Donald Trump is probably going to be the Republican nominee. Possibly Ted Cruz, but probably Trump. This is all going to be about turnout (as is true with every election). If the we can’t persuade our voters to get to the polls, the GOP candidate will scare them to the polls. I am genuinely worried about a Republican victory, but both Clinton and Sanders have a clear, though different path to winning the general election.

What matters is that we start addressing the problems on inequality and get to the root causes of the anger and despair. If we don’t, the pitchforks are coming out. And I’m not sure I like the modern version of pitchforks.

Ben Carson. Huh?

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday September 15, 2015 · 7:45 AM PDT

2015/09/15 · 07:45

I understand the appeal of Donald Trump to the Republican Party: Hatred, fear, celebrity, stupidity. What's not to like. Ben Carson puzzles me a bit. I went to his website and here are his issues: Abortion; Balanced Budget Amendment; local control in education; keep Gitmo open; replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts; down with secularism; Russia bad; guns good; Isreal good; taxes bad.

He seems to have an very mild demeanor (I don't mind that at all), and a very shallow agenda. I have clearly missed something. What is he doing with so much support? Why is he attracting people?

I suspect that he is something of a Chauncy Gardener candidate and that many GOP voters will not vote for someone who is a part of that mess of a Congress in Washington and don't have much use for the Governors or the CEO class

At this stage of the primary candidates can catch fire and then burn out, which is what will likely happen to Carson. But I don't really understand how he caught fire in the first place.

Anyone have some insights for us?

We had love, but she doesn’t remember.

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday April 08, 2013 · 3:26 PM PDT

2013/04/08 · 15:26

Years ago I dated a wonderful woman. She was so full of life and love. I just loved being around her. I have a quirky sense of humor and she does too. We made each other laugh and laugh over things that others found puzzling.

She was bright and insightful and I loved her. We broke up for some reason. I can’t remember why. I only remember the times we had together.

I saw her recently. She didn’t remember me.

She eventually married someone else who believed in protecting the house and home with a powerful handgun. One night, she heard a strange sound coming from the kitchen downstairs. She went down to check it out. He got out the handgun.

She came back upstairs. He believed there was actually an intruder and fired two rounds. One of the rounds hit her in the head. There was no intruder.

After heroic medical efforts, her life was saved, but many of her memories were lost. She was able to go back to work, but with some diminished capacity. She forgave her husband and they are still married. They no longer own guns.

The statistics about guns are stunning. There are so many thousands of tragedies in which people suffered great loses. I know that others have lost much more than I have.

We didn’t always scare as easily as we do now. We were not always so filled with fear and hatred about an array of potential dangers. We never needed the kind of firepower that we have stashed away. I suppose I should not be amazed at how much pain we have endured because of guns, but I am.

And I am so glad that my former girlfriend is alive and happy. But I’m sad that she doesn’t remember what we had. There are no statistics for that.

Romney's Strategic Choice on Immigration

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday June 16, 2012 · 10:53 AM PDT

2012/06/16 · 10:53

President Obama has thrown down on immigration by elevating the Dream Act on the national political agenda. This diary is not intended to discuss the virtues of the Dream Act as others have done so well, but to examine the Romney's strategic choices.

Etch-a-Sketch

Romney can certainly go to the Etch-a-Sketch strategy and change his mind on the Dream Act. He can just say that he's now running in a general election (for Pete's sake) and his prior statements about the Dream Act no longer apply. This is not an entirely unreasonable strategy because it has worked so well for him on so many other issues. In fact, it is difficult to think of an issue where this has not worked.

Some have suggested that candidates have a quota for how many times they can change their minds on issues during a political career and still maintain electability. Romney clearly has not reached that quota yet. His intellectual pliability certainly takes my breath away, but he never had to worry about my vote. It was never and would never be his.

He may worry a bit about the Tea Party, but most of them just hate Obama and don't really care about issues or debt or much of anything. Since Romney is running against Obama, they will have his back. (Methinks skin color has something to do with this)

Two Language Strategy

In this strategy, he would have one position on the Dream Act in Spanish and another position in English. Work with me on this. It's not quite as stupid as it sounds. Step one is you take a hard line position against the Dream Act in English to put smiles on the faces of all the Tea Party lunatics. Next, you go to the billionaires and ask for some big money (really big money) to promote an ad campaign in the Spanish language media in support of something that sounds like the Dream Act. Third, and most important, you limit your media exposure to the warm, soft bosom of Fox News.

This strategy is not without risk. There are more than a couple of people in the US who are bilingual. And this approach might appear to some to be unseemly. Or craven. Or deceptive. Or fraudulent. Or Romney-esque.

Mitt Romney's good friend and California Chair, Meg Whitman, tried this strategy in her campaign for California Governor and it did not work too well. It led to one of the most brutal interviews I have ever heard. Whitman went on the right wing radio show on KFI with Jon and Ken. They savaged her and essentially ended her campaign. Romney's campaign would never allow their candidate within a country mile of a show like Jon and Ken. I think Bob Schieffer is the absolute limit of tolerance for the campaign.

(My prediction: Schieffer: So, Governor Romney. What is your position on the Dream Act? Romney: My position has been very consistent. I believe that President Obama has been disastrous on everything and he needs to go because I am a heavy weight and can solve all of our problems by the first week in office. It will be easy. Schieffer: OK. We'll leave it there. Thank you for joining us Governor Romney.)

Hard Line

The third strategic choice available to Romney is to go hard line. Oppose the Dream Act. Oppose what DHS is now doing. Pledge to repeal the new process and fully enforce immigration laws on the young, the old, the anyone.

This strategic choice requires a couple of things. First, Romney must hope for a European disaster or even worse employment numbers in the US. He's had plenty of help from Congress on this already and I imagine he can rely on some help from some billionaires to help, too. Second, he really has to support the voter suppression efforts in key battleground states. If Romney takes this road, he will not have much Latino support and voter suppression is his best option.

Conclusion

We tend to think that Romney is in a box on this, but he has resources and options. He has plenty of money. He has the friendly outlet of Fox News. He has a remarkable intellectual pliability. He has a team that can suppress minority voters with zeal. He can get out of this, but I cannot say that it will be pretty. And I cannot say that in the end we will be a more unified country.

Freak Show vs. Dodd Frank

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday November 09, 2011 · 9:23 PM PST

2011/11/09 · 21:23

Herman Cain has a way of simplifying a concept so that people can easily understand and remember his ideas. Tonight Cain articulated the GOP opposition to Dodd Frank in a way that makes much more sense to me than any other candidate has done. He said that there were three reasons to repeal Dodd Frank: 1) It does nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; 2) Dodd; 3) Frank. The crowd, responding with applause, clearly agreed with his clear though simple analysis.

In fairness, there are thousands and thousands of bills that do nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don’t know that all of those bills ought to be repealed simply because they do nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Perhaps he should propose a separate bill that cures the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problem and leave the rest of it alone.

Regarding his second reason (and for the sake of efficiency, let’s examine his third reason at the same time), Dodd and Frank are perfectly good names, but if he would like to go to something like Todd and Spank, that would be fine with me. I don’t understand his objection, but if it brings offense, I think we should be willing to compromise.

I have listened to many more Republican candidates than I care to think about and truly, this was the best that any of them have done to explain their opposition to Dodd Frank. I think it’s worthwhile to examine what Dodd Frank does. It’s a large bill with many provisions.

1. Promotes Financial Stability with the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of Financial Research. Their goals are to enhance the integrity, efficiency, competitiveness and stability of the financial markets, promote market discipline and maintain investor confidence.
2. Develop rules for the orderly liquidation of banks, non-bank financial companies and insurance companies.
3. Transfers powers to the Comptroller, the FDIC and the Fed. In addition, it increases the amount of FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
4. Introduces regulation of hedge funds and calls for studies by the GAO and SEC regarding the potential of self-regulation and a study of short selling.
5. Establishes a Federal Insurance Office. Prior to this act, all insurance was regulated by state law. It is clear that some State Insurance regulators are not up to the task of appropriately regulating sophisticated insurance companies.
6. Introduces the Volker Rule which limits banking speculation. Banking entities may only use 3% of its funds for speculative purposes.
7. Increases Wall Street Transparency by regulating credit default swaps and other derivatives.
8. Calls on the Federal Reserve to create uniform standards for payment, clearly and settlement to properly manage systemic risk.
9. Provides for greater Investor protection to establish fiduciary responsibility of broker/dealers and increases regulatory enforcement and remedies on investment companies.
10. Improves regulation of credit rating agencies.
11. Improves the asset-backed securitization process
12. Enacts rules for disclosure of executive compensation to shareholders.
13. Establishes the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection which is divided into 5 parts: research, community affairs, complaint tracking and collection, office of fair lending and equal opportunity, office of financial literacy.
14. Federal Reserve System Provisions.
15. Improving access to mainstream financial institutions.
16. Pay it Back Act. The $225 B of unused TARP funds had to pay for deficit reduction.
17. Mortgage reform and anti-predator lending. This establishes standardized underwriting forms and encourages lenders to lend money to people who can repay the money.
18. Many other miscellaneous provisions.

This is a very, very brief and oversimplified explanation of Dodd Frank. Herman Cain believes that it should be repealed because it does nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which is 100% true) and because of Dodd and Frank. Others GOP candidates have called for the repeal of Dodd Frank saying that it is anti-business, but Cain is the only one who said why it should be repealed.

Bottom line: GOP primary is a freak show.

Sharia Law in exchange for raising debt ceiling

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday July 31, 2011 · 1:34 PM PDT

2011/07/31 · 13:34

Suppose that the Republicans had not taken over Congress in 2010, but rather the Taliban. Suppose further that they had demanded we institute Sharia Law in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. How would the Obama Administration worked with them to get a compromise? And before saying “No Way! No compromise with the Taliban”, we are beginning with the premise that the Taliban won a majority of seats in the US House of Representatives.
If you tried to argue with the Taliban that Sharia Law was wrong, against the Constitution and completely inappropriate for modern western society, they would simply reply that it is God’s will and that if you want the debt ceiling raised, you must meet the Taliban demands. What would we do?
I imagine that the President would (at the last moment) announce a deal for raising the debt limit in exchange for a requirement that men wear beards and that women’s face and hands be covered in public. This would be described as imperfect, but necessary to get a deal done.
Republicans are not the Taliban. They are not demanding Sharia Law and, in fact, oppose Sharia Law. The similarity is that Republicans are willing to blow up the American economy to further their ideology because they believe more strongly in the ideology than they do in the American economy.
After the debt ceiling deal goes through, government spending will decline as will economic activity. Government workers will be laid off and unemployment will increase. Tax revenues will decline which will require additional spending cuts. The Republican will blame Obama for all of this.
Those of us who don’t believe in the Republican ideology will have a choice to make: Do we hate the deal so much that we refuse to help Obama get re-elected and refuse to help defeat Republicans everywhere, or do we fight to root out Republicans where ever we can find them?
There is only one answer to the Republicans or, if it should come to it, the Taliban. We must campaign with more enthusiasm than they do. Michelle Bachmann could beat Obama. Rand Paul could lead the Senate. John Boehner could be deposed by Cantor or maybe Steve King. Sure, we can all move to Canada, but it will be much easier to defeat Republicans at every level.
There is only scant difference between Republicans and the Taliban. Their willingness to blow up things to achieve God’s will are frighteningly similar and we need to channel our anger to them and not Obama.

A letter to Anthony Weiner

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday June 06, 2011 · 3:33 PM PDT

2011/06/06 · 15:33

Dear Congressman Weiner:
After some unconvincing denials, you have confirmed that reports that you sent out photos of yourself either unclothed or partially clothed. Andrew Breitbart claimed vindication—I’m sure it was one the biggest achievements of his life.
You have much larger achievements including getting the vote for 9-11 first responders. You speak with uncommon passion and courage as you take on the right wing as they try to make our country less compassionate, less secure and less prosperous. I have supported your efforts to fight the right wing. I still do.
“Corruptio optimi pessima” (Corruption of the best is the worst) applies here because what you did corrupted all of the good that you have done. You lied to the media and to your friends. It hurts.
However, this is not the end of the world. And it should not be the end of your Congressional term or your political career. Others have done far worse and remained in office. After some embarrassment and shame—perhaps some damage to a marriage--they have moved on wiser and more careful about what they do.
This is the time when you will find out who your friends are. I am one of them. I don’t know you but I admire you. Since you are human, you have faults but your achievements FAR outweigh your faults. Please take some time for the appropriate apologies—be sure to include yourself—and then get on with your work in the Congress. You are far too valuable to the nation to let something like this put you on the sidelines permanently.

Rand Paul helps define Tea Party

fmrgop

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday May 20, 2010 · 11:33 AM PDT

2010/05/20 · 11:33

One of the most difficult things about the Tea Party has been defining its core constituency. Pundents say that the Tea Party is the manifestation of anger in America, but anger is not a constituency, it is an emotion. Now that the Tea Party has elected one of it's own, the Tea Party has come into better focus

Newer
Older

RSS