Skip to main content

This is a relatively quick diary looking at the (current) results of the June Primary election in California, and what they tell us about the State Assembly.  Democrats, of course, will keep the Assembly, but, as CalBuzz put it in "How California Became Ungovernable":

California is one of only three states requiring a two-thirds legislative vote to pass a budget, one of 16 requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes — and the only state to require both.
(Actually, VClib pointed out in comments that the budget requirement was done away with by a ballot measure, but the tax requirement remains.)

So, for many observers of California politics, the question isn't "can Democrats win?" but "can Democrats get to two-thirds?".  I don't think those observers knew what to expect in this election, with new and independently-drawn districts, and a new top-two primary.  Now that the primary's happened, I think a two-thirds Assembly majority is possible, but difficult, for Democrats.

Introduction:

According to this nifty graphic from the L.A. Times, Democrats currently have either both of the top two candidates, or an unopposed candidate, in 16 districts, while Republicans are similarly assured of victory in 6 districts.

 That leaves 58 districts technically up in the air, but some of these only had two candidates, and safe partisan numbers.  Others might be misleading--I noticed that many heavily-Latino districts under-performed their partisan leans in the June primary, and, as CalBuzz and others have pointed out, the June Primary electorate was probably Republican-leaning relative to the November electorate.

For this reason, I think that a district where a Democrat had a strong primary performance is probably safely Democratic, while the same might not apply to a district where a Republican had a strong primary performance.

From (quickly) looking at the primary results from the L.A. Times, along with Around the Capitol's district analyses and ratings, I think that Republicans are fairly certain to win 19 of those districts, and Democrats are fairly certain to win 28 of them.  (I found Around the Capitol from CalBuzz's post on the June Electorate, which is worth a look.)

Democrats, then, look fairly certain to win 44 districts, while Republicans look fairly certain to win 28 districts.  Since two-thirds of 80 requires 54 seats, Democrats need to win 10 of the 11 competitive seats.

By the way, I follow the L.A. Times, which says "Candidates marked above as “incumbents” hold an office in the legislative body for which they are running. However, because of redistricting some races have more than one incumbent or an incumbent whose current district is substantially different."

Competitive Democratic Districts:

Now, not all competitive seats are created equal.  I think Democrats are actually quite likely to win AD-21, AD-28, AD-41, AD-49, and AD-61, but I didn't think they were quite safe.  I was trying to err on the side of caution:

AD-21 (Merced): While the Republican, Jack Mobley, got an impressive 44.8%--leading the count--every other candidate was a Democrat.  The district is marginal on paper--Obama got only 54.3% of the vote.  Mobley will face Democrat Adam Gray.  (The L.A. Times calls it "San Mateo", which is wrong, so I went with Around the Capitol's name.)

According to MPI, Barbara Boxer lost this district by 6.6 points in 2010, and the Democratic Treasurer and Controller candidates won easily, albeit with fairly small vote shares.  Like many heavily-Latino areas seem to be, it went for Proposition 8 in a landslide.  Interestingly, the current Assemblymember from this area, Cathleen Galgiani, came out as a lesbian.

AD-28 (San Jose): Democratic incumbent Paul Fong only got 53.7% against independent Chad Walsh.  A race to watch since jncca told me it was the best chance an independent had of winning election to the Assembly, but it won't go Republican.

AD-41 (Pasadena): Democrats got 59% of the vote here.  Around the Capitol calls it "competitive", though, and Obama/McCain was 48.2/47.8.  Although I think that's a mistake--according to MPI, Obama won easily, with 60.2%.  I'm not sure what's right--isn't there something wrong with the MPI's numbers in L.A. County?

AD-49 (El Monte): "This is the only majority Asian district in the state (and in the contiguous United States)".  Still, Republican Matthew Lin got 51.3% here, so Democrat Ed Chau might have trouble despite Obama and Brown's strong performances.

AD-61 (Riverside): This one's tricky.  Republicans combined to 51.2% here, and there was an independent.  But it's a pretty Latino district that Around the Capitol says "tells the story the declining California Republican Party. [...]  Both Obama and Brown far outperformed Democratic registration here. Obama defeated McCain by 24-points and Brown defeated Whitman by 14-points."   I was considering putting it in "Safe Democratic", actually.  The candidates will be Democrat Jose Medina and Republican Bill Batey.

Competitive Districts:

Assuming I'm right, that means Democrats need to win five of these six seats to get to two-thirds.  

AD-08 (Arden-Arcade): The sole Democratic candidate, Ken Cooley got only 42.7% of the vote, and Obama's performance was marginal.  Around The Capitol calls it "competitive", though, and the Republican candidate is apparently undecided as of this time.  

According to MPI, Jerry Brown easily beat Meg Whitman with 50.7% of the vote, but Barbara Boxer lost to Carly Fiorna by 4.65%.  This might be the truest "swing district", along with AD-32.

AD-09 (Elk Grove): Democratic candidates--incumbent Richard Pan and one other--got 50.4% of the vote here.  Still, Obama and Jerry Brown easily won, and according to the MPI, so did Boxer--50.7% to 40.6%.

AD-32 (Hanford): While Democrat Rudy Salas led the count with 39.9% of the vote, every other candidate was a Republican.  Around the Capitol "competitive district", so I'll trust them, but I'm skeptical, despite marginal/decent performances from Obama and Brown.  According to the MPI (which has slightly different Obama numbers than Around the Capitol does), this is another district where Brown easily beat Whitman but Fiorna easily beat Boxer.

AD-40 (San Bernadino): Republican incumbent Mike Morrell got 57.9% over Democratic challenger Russ Warner.  For some stupid reason I screwed up Morrell's party, so I had this as "Safe Democratic".  Thanks, lordpet8!

So why did I put it here?  Around the Capitol said:

The district looks very similar to Morrell's current district, except it drops Upland and picks up San Bernardino, which is more Latino and has more Democrat voters.

On the Democratic side, two-time congressional candidate (against David Dreier) and businessman Russ Warner switched to this district from a CD31 bid following the entry of Redlands mayor Pete Aguilar into that race.

While Morrell is likely to have a significant financial advantage, the district can legitimately be considered a swing district, and may ride whatever national tide is present in November.

MPI has this as a Fiorna/Brown/Obama district--Obama got 52% here, so it probably has an even or narrowly R+ PVI.  Since the CVAP is almost majority-minority (30% Hispanic or Latino, 11.2% African-American, 6.3% Asian), this might be another example of a heavily-minority district under-performing in the June primary.  

Morrell has the advantage, but I don't think this belongs with the "Safe Republican" districts.  Only Norby's performance is comparable, and AD-40 is definitely more Democratic.  While this might mean Morrell is a stronger candidate than Norby, I also think that Morrell's district is more likely to have under-performed its Democratic lean in the primary.

AD-44 (Oxnard): A very interesting district.  Democrats got only 43.1% here against Republican incumbent Jeff Gorrell.   Here's Around the Capitol:

Republicans had a 5-point registration advantage here, but with the addition of Democratic and Latino Oxnard the district now has a 2-point Democratic registration advantage.  Jeff Gorell is a moderate Republican and could hold the district, but it will be a highly competitive district for the next decade. Obama won the district by 13-points and Whitman won the district by 5-points.
According to MPI, Boxer lost by over 5 points as well.

AD-66 (Torrance): He's back!  Republican Craig Huey, who caused a lot of angst in his race against Janice Hahn, wound up in the top two here.  Republicans combined to over 59% here.  Around the Capitol calls it a "toss-up", but I think Huey will likely win, as Obama and Brown had unimpressive performances, and Huey was a strong candidate in the Congressional special election.  This is another case, by the where, where MPI gives different Presidential numbers than Around the Capitol, but I don't know who to trust.  Assuming MPI can be trusted for other races here, even the Democratic Controller and Treasurer candidates had pretty unimpressive numbers.

Conclusion:

I'm skeptical of Democratic chances to get a two-thirds Assembly majority.  I don't think Democrats are likely to win any of the districts I listed below as "Safe Republican Districts" (although a couple are more marginal than others, and I suppose anything's possible in a wave environment).  Even if Democrats sweep the "competitive Democratic districts"--which is entirely possible, and maybe even likely--they still need to all but sweep the "competitive districts", and Republicans seem to have strong candidates in AD-44 and in AD-66.

It's vaguely possible that a two-thirds majority will come down to AD-66--that is, to Craig Huey, who did pretty well in the special election against Janice Hahn, although not as well as many DKE/SSP-types feared.  That'd be entertaining, if nothing else.

As always, I'd appreciate input from people with local knowledge--all I've done for this diary, basically, is go back and forth between the L.A. times and Around the Capitol, and I looked at MPI for a few as well.  I might look at the competitive districts in more detail in some future diaries.

****************************

Below are the reasons why I think the remaining districts are pretty safe.

Safe Republican Districts:

1. AD-03 (Yuba City): Republicans got over 67% of the vote here, and the district was easily for McCain.  Republican Dan Logue is the incumbent, and should cruise.

2. AD-06 (Folsom): Republican candidates got nearly 70% of the vote here, and the district is quite Republican.  Republican incumbent Beth Gaines will win.

3. AD-12 (Mantecia): Only two candidates, and Republican incumbent Kristin Olsen got nearly 64% in a "safe GOP district".

4. AD-26 (Tulare): Republican incumbent Connie Conway got nearly 72% of the vote.

5. AD-33 (Victorville): Republicans got over 70% of the vote here, so incumbent Tim Donnelly will cruise in a landslide-McCain district.

6. AD-34 (Bakersfield): Republican incumbent Shannon Grove topped 73%.

7. AD-35 (San Luis Obispo): Republican incumbent Katcho Achadjian got 64.3% of the vote in this Republican-leaning district.

8. AD-36 (Palmdale): Democrats might not even end up making the runoff here, so Republican Ron Smith should be fine in this really Republican district.

9. AD-38 (Santa Clarita): While Democrat Edward Headington narrowly led the count with 31.6%, every other candidate is a Republican, so Scott Wilk should be fine.  Around the Capitol calls it "solid GOP", and Obama easily lost it.  Again (sigh) MPI has different numbers, but they also have Brown and Boxer losing easily.

10. AD-42 (Palm Desert): This is a Republican district, and Republican incumbent Brian Nestande got nearly 61% of the vote.

11. AD-55 (Yorba Linda): Only two candidates, and Republican incumbent Curt Hagman got 68.4%.  McCain won this district by double-digits.

12. AD-60 (Riverside): Republicans got over 67% of the vote here, even though Democrat Jose Perez led the count, and the district is Republican-leaning.  I think Eric Linder will be fine (Perez might not have even raised any money or have a website!).  By the way, Around the Capitol says Obama won by 3 points, but their numbers have Obama winning 50.6/45.6, as does MPI, which also has Fiorna winning (easily) and Whitman winning (more marginally, although everyone involved with those two races had low vote shares here).

13. AD-65 (Anaheim): Only two candidates, and Republican incumbent Chris Norby got 58.5% in a Republican-leaning district that MPI says was easily Whitman/Fiorna.

14. AD-68 (Anaheim): Around the Capitol calls this "another solid GOP Orange County district", and Republican incumbent Don Wagner got nearly 69% of the vote.

15. AD-71 (El Cajon): Republicans got nearly 70% here.  Incumbent Republican Brian Jones should be fine.  Around the Capitol says it's "a GOP district in conservative east San Diego County".

16. AD-73 (Mission Viejo): Only two candidates, and Republican incumbent Diane Harkey got nearly 70% in a heavily-Republican district.

17. AD-74 (Irvine): This is a Republican-leaning district, and Republicans got nearly 67% here.  Republican incumbent Allan Mansoor should be fine, especially if the MPI is right that Boxer and Brown did really badly here.

18. AD-75 (Escondido): Republican Marie Waldron got 68% against the sole Democratic candidate in another extremely Republican district.

19. AD-77 (San Diego): This is a Republican-leaning district that "includes northern neighborhoods in the city of San Diego and the city of Poway".  Republicans combined to nearly 63%.  Around the Capitol says "a GOP nominee should be safe here", and that's Brian Maienschein.

Safe Democratic Districts:

1. AD-04 (Napa): Democratic incumbent Mariko Yamada got 60.2% of the vote over a Republican opponent, and should beat that, if anything, in November.

2. AD-07 (Sacramento): Democratic incumbent Roger Dickinson will be fine.

3. AD-17 (San Francisco): C'mon.  Democratic incumbent Tom Ammiano will win.

4. AD-11 (Fairfield): While the top two candidates were close, Democratic candidates (and an independent) got nearly 70% of the vote.  Obama topped 60% here.  Democrat Jim Frazier should be fine.

5. AD-14 (Stockton): Democrats, led by Susan Eggman, got over 63% of the vote here. Around the Capitol calls it "arguably the first urban Democratic
district for the San Joaquin Valley".  

6. AD-16 (Livermore): Only two candidates, and Democratic incumbent Joan Buchanan got 56.5% of the vote.

7. AD-22 (San Mateo): Only two candidates, and Democrat Kevin Mullen got nearly 70% of the vote.

8. AD-24 (Sunnyvale): Democrats got over 66% of the vote here, and incumbent Rich Gordon will be fine.

9. AD-25 (Santa Clara): Democratic incumbent Bob Wieckowski only got 41.4%, but the other Democrat got 27.9%.

10. AD-27 (Alum Rock): Democratic incumbent Nora Campos got nearly 70% of the vote.

11. AD-29 (Santa Cruz): Democrat Mark Stone got 54.7% of the vote, and another Democrat got 13.5%.

12. AD-30 (Salinas): Democratic incumbent Luis Alejo got 58.4% of the vote.

13. AD-37 (Santa Barbara): Only two candidates, and Democratic incumbent Das Williams got nearly 56%.

14. AD-43 (Glendale): Only two candidates, and Democratic incumbent Mike Gatto got 56.3%.

15. AD-45 (Los Angeles): Only two candidates, and Democratic incumbent Bob Blumenfield got 59.3%.

16. AD-48 (Baldwin Park): While Republican Joe Gardner actually beat Democratic incumbent Roger Hernandez 45.6% to 43.4%, I'm going to assume that's because of strong independent Mike Meza.  Obama got 61.6% here.

17. AD-52 (Ontario): Democratic incumbent Norma Torres will be fine despite her 41.9% performance--the only Republican got only 37% of the vote in this "heavily Latino" district.

18. AD-53 (Huntington Park): Speaker Perez got a not-that-great 59.6%, mostly because of other Democrats.

19. AD-54 (Culver City): Again, c'mon.  Democratic incumbent Holly Mitchell topped 70%.

20. AD-56 (El Centro): Democratic incumbent Manuel Perez got "only" 56.4% of the vote here, but it's majority-Latino and heavily Democratic.

21. AD-57 (Whittier): Sole Republican Noel Jaimes led the count with 43.4% but I'll follow Around the Capitol's confidence that Democrat Ian Calderon will win--the "Latino CVAP" here is 57.1%.

22. AD-58 (Norwalk): Republican Patricia Kotze-Ramos led the count with 27.9%, but she was the sole Republican, so Democrat Cristina Garcia will be fine.  Obama got almost 67%.

23. AD-63 (Lakewood): The only Republican got 30.4% here, so Democrat Anthony Rendon will be fine.

24. AD-69 (Santa Ana): That's my name for it.  Around the Capitol calls it "the only solid Democratic district in Orange County".  The sole Republican got 22.5% here.  Democrat Tom Daly will be fine.

25. AD-70 (Long Beach): Only two candidates, and Democratic incumbent Bonnie Lowenthal got 58.6%.

26. AD-78 (San Diego): Democratic incumbent Toni Atkins got nearly 60% in this "safe coastal, urban district for a liberal Democrat".

27. AD-79 (La Mesa): Democrats combined to nearly 57% in this "ethnically diverse Democratic district", so Democrat Shirley Weber should win.

28. AD-80 (Chula Vista): Democratic incumbent Ben Hueso got over 60% here.

1:46 PM PT: Make sure you check out Darth Jeff's series in the CA Assembly Elections, here and here, for his perspective.

8:57 PM PT: I originally had AD-40 as "Safe Democratic", due to a stupid mistake.  I wish I could subtract 1 from all the poll options.

Originally posted to Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:28 PM PDT.

Also republished by California politics.

Poll

How many Assembly seats will California Democrats win?

14%7 votes
26%13 votes
44%22 votes
16%8 votes

| 50 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Xeno - the two thirds requirement to pass (4+ / 0-)

    a budget in California ended with the passage of Prop 25 in 2010. The two thirds requirement to raise taxes has been around for more than 100 years, well before Prop 13.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:32:19 PM PDT

    •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Senor Unoball

      Strange that CalBuzz wouldn't have noted that in their article, which was written in 201..

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:34:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, they were republishing themselves (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Senor Unoball, VClib

      Still, I appreciate the correction, and I've updated accordingly.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:35:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes was new (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV

      although there had been a different rule about requiring supermajority consensus to expand the budget in decades prior to prop 13 passing, they had been repealed by the 70s. prop 13 explicitly required 2/3 for all revenue increases at the statewide level, and a 2/3 requirement for local governments raising any kind of special taxes.

      if prop 13 had not been passed, california would be simple majority to raise taxes, at a state and local level. it is misleading to claim that it had been in place for a century, if it had then the text of prop 13 would not have had to spell out making a 2/3 threshold for taxes, because it would have been redundant.

      •  Do you think it's still relevant (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, Zack from the SFV

        whether or not Democrats get to 2/3?

        26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

        by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:48:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  extremely relevant (3+ / 0-)

          it's the whole game in CA politics, IMO. granted, it's just the first step, in that by removing the GOP roadblock we'll come up against as newfound corporate-friendly anti-tax democratic roadblock, but that is a conversation that we cannot have until we break 2/3. ultimately, the endgame has to be repealing the 2/3 tax requirement, and returning the state to some kind of accountable simple majority democracy, where a majority of the voters are actually able to choose their government and hold them accountable, rather than the current nobody's to blame perpetual hostage crisis BS.

          •  Good! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wu ming

            Now I feel less bad for centering my whole diary around it.

            26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

            by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:05:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you shouldn't feel bad at all (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lordpet8, Zack from the SFV

              along with the tax measures on the ballot in november, it's the most important thing in california politics. the house races matter for national politics, but the vast majority of california's problems are caused at the state level, and the only way we get out of this decade of austerity is if we can break the CAGOP's de facto veto.

              •  Couldn't have said it better (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ehstronghold

                If we can get 2/3rds in both houses of the legislature, the GOP will cease to have any relavant power in the state (and then we can truly be under one party control)

                “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”- President Eisenhower

                by lordpet8 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:30:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  wu ming - there is little support for dropping (0+ / 0-)

            the 2/3 majority for tax increases among California voters.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:42:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  True. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              We seem to have the worst of all worlds... an electorate that wants everything, but wants to pay for nothing. Unless somebody else is paying for it. Then it's just fine.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 08:47:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Taxes in California are already quite high (0+ / 0-)

              To be fair. The logjam clearly needs to be broken, but California is hardly in the same boat as the southern backwaters. A serious fix to the foreclosure disaster and a larger federal stimulus would have gone a long way to fixing California's ailments.

              (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

              by TrueBlueDem on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 07:58:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  wu ming - the prior test for a 2/3 supermajority (0+ / 0-)

        was if the state budget increased by more than 5%. In the 100 years before Prop 13 that had happened twice. So while Prop 13 put more teeth into the 2/3 rds rule, particularly for local city and county taxes, it made no fundamental change at the state level at the time it was passed. The Prop 13 advocates just wanted to bake in a supermajority for any revenue increases at the state or local level. The old rules would have only been relevant in more recent times, when the state budget actually declined.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:41:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  57th maybe not so safe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    I want to agree with you on this (although both the D's in this race are horrid), but it's conceivable that Calderon and Bermudez poisoned the well too much. Jaimes far outpolled GOP representation in the district, and he only spent $6k. Jaimes is a nutjob, so I hope you're right!

    •  My guess is there was low turnout (0+ / 0-)

      in Latino-heavy (or, maybe more generally, in minority-heavy) districts.  I don't know how much Jaimes' performance can be attributed to Calderon and Bermudez given that Manuel Perez, Norma Torres, and others had seemingly relatively unimpressive performances as well.  

      Still, it was definitely eye-catching, and I was considering putting the district in the "competitive Democratic districts" section.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:53:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My guess is that (0+ / 0-)

      Matthew Lin's performance has a similar explanation, but that's another district and election worth looking at in detail.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:54:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I live in this district. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Xenocrypt

        I'm not too familiar with the candidates other than to know that Lin is a wealthy doctor, mayor (or former mayor) of the wealthy city of San Marino.  I've seen a lot of Lin yard signs.  He seems quite well-known and popular in the area and probably has ample resources behind him (both his own and Republican funny-money).  Both candidates are Chinese-American in this majority Asian district.
        I know a nominally independent elderly woman who generally votes for Democrats, but said she was voting for Lin because he seemed like a nice man and had given big bucks to charities.
        I think this district could be a problem.

        A camel can carry a lot of gold, but it still eats alfalfa.

        by oldliberal on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:20:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the info (0+ / 0-)

          I still speculate that turnout had something to do with it, but Lin sounds like a good candidate as well.  If he wins a district like this in a Presidential year, or even comes close, he'll probably get a lot of attention from Republican muckety-mucks.

          26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

          by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:24:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  AD-48 (0+ / 0-)

      is probably another example.  Again, I have to think this is a turnout-based thing.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:56:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Presidential Number discrepancies (0+ / 0-)

    I've been having similar issues too, Think I'll have to call up a few friends and figuire out once and for all which site has the correct numbers

    Otherwise this is a good read, It's looking like quite an up hill task of making it to 2/3rd in the assembly, I think we'll come very close to it.

    “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”- President Eisenhower

    by lordpet8 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:12:35 PM PDT

    •  Since there aren't that many (0+ / 0-)

      swingy districts, I might just draw the relevant ones in DRA--I'd like to analyze them more anyway.  (I'd especially like to take a more granular look at the Boxer/Brown/Obama differences.)  We can trust DRA, right?

      And thanks!

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:14:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah DRA should be a sure fire way to find out (0+ / 0-)

        Let me know what you find

        “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”- President Eisenhower

        by lordpet8 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:23:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are no "CORRECT" numbers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Xenocrypt

      California did not participate in Census Bureau's block alignment program with regard to the Voting districts. The Tiger data is still being actively cleaned in California. Which is to say the VTDs / Precincts are not fully mapped. The Statewide Database @ UC Berkeley has Precinct data level data but the database has missing data. And by missing data I mean an amount of missing data that would be considered "a lot" in any other state.

      ex-SSP. What would Machiavelli do?

      by hankmeister on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the shout out! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    I have an update planned for after a few remaining primary races have definitive candidates.  You did a great job on this one!  

    Here are some of my thoughts on a few of these districts:

    AD-41 will be easily Democratic.  The GOPer has a little money but is a Tea-Partier running in a blue area.  

    AD-44 looks like its safe GOP.  Gorrell has a good profile (he served in Afghanistan as an intelligence officer) and the Dem is a Some Dude.

    AD-49 is still Democratic leaning and the Dems have a good candidate.  But Matthew Lin has a lot of money and was a former mayor here; this is one to watch.  

    Agree with you completely on AD-61.  The GOPer has some money but if Rendon is trouble here we're not getting anywhere near 2/3.

    AD-65 may very well be worth watching despite Norby's good performance.  The Dems have a credible candidate is Fullerton Mayor Sharron Quirk-Silva, and she has raised a good chunk of money in a short amount of time.  Norby is also pretty conservative: he recently spoke out against Title IX.  Think it's still leaning GOP but one to watch.

    22, male, new CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)

    by Jeff Singer on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:19:54 PM PDT

    •  Thanks! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff, Tiger in BlueDenver

      AD-41: I was only basing that on Around the Capitol.  I doubt too many Democrats will under-perform how the Democratic party did in the aggregate on Tuesday.

      AD-44: I'd be curious to know more about just how moderate Gorrell actually is.

      AD-49: Yeah, it sounds like this wasn't just turnout.  I can see the articles now talking about Matthew Lin and Carl DeMaio as the new faces of the California Republican party.

      AD-61: I really think that 51.2% is the Republican high water mark here, at this point.

      AD-65: You might be right.  From a quick scan, it looks like Norby's 58.5% is the worst Republican performance (individually or collectively) of any of my safe Republican districts.  If Quirk-Silva got into the race late, she might be able to move the needle.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  another thing to think about (3+ / 0-)

    normally, the national democrats treat CA as an ATM, hauling money and volunteer energy out of state for "more important races" and giving very little back to the state's races.

    the new districts, and the possibility that dems might be able to pick up some house seats in CA this year makes it possible that we'll have some resources flowing in for a change, and that could bump the turnout numbers in districts with both competitive congressional and state leg races.

    not a guarantee, but we could end up with higher than average turnout come november, and that could change the rating of some of those districts, esp. with a large unregistered latino population. a couple healthy voter reg and GOTV drives, and a lot could change.

    •  That's possible... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, Tiger in BlueDenver

      It might depend, a la CF of Aus' Arizona diaries, on which swingy California districts are contained in, or at least significantly overlap with, swingy Congressional districts.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:39:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yup (0+ / 0-)

        i'm too lazy to crunch that particular data, but hopefully some of the folks in OfA/DCCC/DLCC/DFA and the CA dem party are paying attention. i'm pretty sure the obama campaign's going to be doing something similar by campaigning in swing states that also have important senate races, for similar reasons.

  •  couple quick things (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    Gordon's seat: Sunnyvale, not Sunnydale

    Use the MPI numbers; they're the accurate ones.

    I think 21 and 41 are probably Likely D, Fong-Walsh is Lean D, as is 49, and the majority Asian one is Tilt D (I've heard the Republican there is really strong, and this seems to back it up).

    2/3 in the Assembly seems very unlikely this cycle.

    19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at politicohen.com

    by jncca on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:29:10 PM PDT

    •  That all seems plausible to me... (0+ / 0-)

      Isn't 49 the majority Asian one, though?  Did you mean to put another one as "Lean D"?

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:31:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On the other hand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8

      I think 2/3 in the Senate is not unlikely.  Dems have 19 seats, and will win, or look good in, SD-7 (DeSaulnier), SD-11 (Leno), SD-17 (Monning), SD-19 (Beth-Jackson), SD-25 (Liu), SD-35 (Wright), SD-39 (Block).  That's 26, so they just need one more, with two toss-up races: SD-27 (Zink/Pavley) or SD-31 (Miller/Roth).

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:20:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  SD 19 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Xenocrypt, Zack from the SFV

        it's Jackson; Hannah Beth is the first name.

        But yes I agree, I'd put it at 75% odds or so of winning 2/3 in the Senate; there's also the Galgiani race.

        19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at politicohen.com

        by jncca on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:38:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xenocrypt

          huge factor in the Galgiani race is probably going to be high speed rail. She's been one of the projects most vigorous defenders while it's very unpopular in the Central Valley.

          Obama/Biden 2012: Keep America moving forward not backwards.

          by ehstronghold on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 04:06:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not uniformly so, in the valley (0+ / 0-)

            there have been parts of the rural valley, notably kings county but also at times in bakersfield, where there has been opposition to HSR, but there are also significant centers of support for the project, unsurprisingly in the urban centers which will be best served by the project.

            for galgiani, i think it's probably a net plus.

      •  SD-27: I think Pavley will win (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8

           It won't be real easy, but considering that they ran neck-and-neck in the low turnout primary Fran should win in November. By the time all the votes are counted she may pull ahead in the count in the primary.

            Fran knows that she has a real race on her hands. SD-27 will be a high priority for DP/SFV and other local L.A. Democrats. People like Fran Pavley because she is a great legislator and a nice person. I was very happy to have her as my State Senator for the last four years but now I was moved to  another district under the new lines. We want to keep her in the Senate for four more years and I think we can do it.

        Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 53, new CA-30

        by Zack from the SFV on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 06:00:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  also (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    I'm calling Huey's race Lean R; even with turnout disparity, the GOP getting nearly 60% warrants a rating change.

    19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at politicohen.com

    by jncca on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:30:09 PM PDT

    •  for comparison (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Xenocrypt, gigantomachyusa

      the Dems did better in Mary Bono Mack's district, and nobody is calling that a Tossup.

      19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at politicohen.com

      by jncca on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:30:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV

      It's a Whitman/Fiorna district, and I doubt it had as much of a turnout disparity as some of the districts we discussed above.  Plus Huey is apparently an energetic campaigner.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:34:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's no worse than tossup (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CaliSista, lordpet8

      In the best GOP year in a long time Whitman/ Fiorina barely won here.  Unless 2012 is horrific Obama should do fine.  Plus our candidate is very well funded and had the luxury of not needing to use too much money as his GOP foes clobbered each other.  

      22, male, new CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)

      by Jeff Singer on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:17:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is a general problem with CA 2010 comparisons (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming

        but there were pretty strong minor party performances in both Boxer and Brown's races, so it's hard to know how to use them.  

        Brown did about 8 points worse in AD-66 than he did statewide, but Whitman did about 6 points better.  Boxer did about 7.3 points worse in AD-66 than he did statewide, but Fiorna only did about 4.7 points better.  Obama did about 6 points worse here than he did statewide, and McCain did about 5 points better.  So, without knowing how the minor party candidates did in this particular district, it's a bit hard to say anything for sure.

        26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

        by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:29:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  well as I said (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8

        Mary Bono Mack got 58% on Tuesday.
        The GOP candidates in their district got 59%.

        I don't think you can credibly rate the districts as anything but the same, and I also don't think you can credibly say Mary Bono Mack is in a Tossup race.

        19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at politicohen.com

        by jncca on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:34:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know about their districts, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8

          AD-66 is an open seat, while Bono Mack is (some degree of) incumbent--so even if the districts were the same, there might be a reason to rate them differently.

          26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

          by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:41:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if anything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Xenocrypt

            that makes the GOP's total more impressive!

            19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at politicohen.com

            by jncca on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:53:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  True, in one sense (0+ / 0-)

              In another sense--even if they have similar "baseline partisanship", Bono Mack's would probably flip after AD-66.  But I hadn't thought of it that way, admittedly.

              26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

              by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 04:06:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I so hope you are correct but I believe the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zack from the SFV

        district has been republified by the addition of the PV peninsula since the 2010 election. I hope some of California's Democratic money is spent on this race instead of heading off across the country.

        "Someone just turned the lights on in the bar and the sexiest state doesn't look so pretty anymore" CA Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Texas budget mess

        by CaliSista on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:36:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's why Betsy Butler didn't want to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CaliSista

              run in this district. She moved north to find a more Democratic leaning seat in AD-50. It looks like she made it into the runoff, but it is a close race with four candidates (3D, 1R) all clustered between 24% and 26%.

          Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 53, new CA-30

          by Zack from the SFV on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 06:10:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Low turnout skews the numbers a lot (4+ / 0-)

      Gardena and the more Democratic leaning parts of Torrance likely did not show up here Tuesday. Muratsuchi was also the only Democrat on the ballot, while Republicans were choosing between two candidates. 60% is far too high to hold for the GOP, Muratsuchi will gain 5-7% just through turnout leveling. Toss-up is the right rating, because it really can go either way.

      26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

      by DrPhillips on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:42:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Correction AD 40 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    Mike Morrell is a Republican

    You might want to change the rating too considering he's at 58% of the vote

    “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”- President Eisenhower

    by lordpet8 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 08:19:25 PM PDT

    •  Yeesh, you're right. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8

      I'll change it.  I think it's a competitive district, though.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 08:36:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It might be Republican overperformance (0+ / 0-)

      in the primary, but I can't help but notice that all the "surprisingly good" candidates seem to be Republicans--Morrell, Gorrell, Lin, maybe Huey.  Aside from, maybe, Norby's opponent, Sharron Quirk-Silva, were there any "surprisingly good" Democratic Assembly candidates?

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:04:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah It's still competitive (0+ / 0-)

        and yeah it's tricky to rate many of these races due to the low turnout

        and how are you defining "surprisingly good"?
        I take you're looking at how well they performed in the election?

        Well in some areas like the inland empire, which we have only recently become competitive in. the GOP still has the advantage of having a good bench in the area along with a strongly built party apparatus.
        (Something similar to that gave us an upset victory with Travis Childers in MS-01 back in 2008)

        Still we really can't can't count out team blue in many of these races as the General election will have a vastly friendlier electorate.

        “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”- President Eisenhower

        by lordpet8 on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 01:53:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  re. Presidential numbers discrepancy... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geoneb

    this has been an ongoing issue for a year or so now (since around the time the Redist. Commission was creating the new districts)...

    all the Meridian numbers are correct... the second (incorrect) set of numbers originally came from Redistricting Partners -- those numbers were also all correct EXCEPT for the 2008 Pres. result for any Congress/State Senate/Assembly district that includes all/part of LA County -- where RP greatly "undercounted" the Dem. percentages...

    many media outlets, sources, etc. have since adopted the incorrect RP numbers (again this only makes a difference when looking at LA Co. all/part districts) to the point where even some candidates adopted their numbers (Kuykendall who was running for congress from CA-47 continually had on his website  the "fact" that he was running in a McCain district! where as in reality Obama won there by close to 20 pts.)

  •  Lol. (0+ / 0-)

    I have a friend who recently got a job working on Matthew Lin's campaign. He might be campaign manager (not quite sure what his job is).

    Very charismatic guy. Actually, one of the most charismatic guys I've seen in my life.

    Maybe he had something to do with Lin's overperformance. :P

    http://mypolitikal.com/

    by Inoljt on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:49:16 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site