Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest banner
Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.
Leading Off:

CA-31: With just a week to go before California's top-two primary, the clusterfuck in the state's 31st District has only grown more clustery. Last week, we learned that EMILY's List, which is supporting Eloise Reyes, launched some mailers attacking Pete Aguilar, another Democrat. Now the DCCC itself is getting involved, and they're dropping $12,000 worth of mail against Leslie Gooch, who's actually the second-string Republican in the race, according to the D-Trip's own internal polling. This would lend credence to the committee's claim when it released that poll that it feared Gooch could sneak into the general election along with fellow Republican Paul Chabot.

To make matters even crazier, the League of Conservation Voters is also getting into the act, and they're doing exactly what the DCCC hoped: attacking Democratic ex-Rep. Joe Baca. The LCV hasn't said how much they'll spend, but you can see their mailers, accusing Baca of voting to gut the Clean Water Act, at the link. And EMILY, too, is following suit, with another round of mailers worth $44,000 that keeps up the drumbeat against Aguilar but also ropes in Baca, too. It'll be very interesting to see how this one turns out.

Senate:

AK-Sen: Republican candidate Dan Sullivan narrates a positive ad where he talks about turning a basin into a source of jobs and energy. (Jeff Singer)

AR-Sen: The Club for Growth has an extremely unsubtle ad featuring a parrot watching one of Obama's "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it" speeches, and repeating key phrases. It then flashes to Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor saying something similar, then back to Obama. Just in case you didn't get the "Obamacare sux" message, the parrot takes a dump on a copy of the New York Times where the headline reads "Healthcare Overhaul Becomes the Law of the Land." Does the Club for Growth dislike Obamacare or something? (Jeff Singer)

HI-Sen: Rep. Colleen Hanabusa unveils her first TV ad in the Democratic primary. It's a positive spot where she emphasizes her local roots and Hawaii's values. Spoiler alert: they are also her values.

And though Hanabusa has now joined Sen. Brian Schatz on the TV airwaves, Schatz's two-month head start has now given him an edge in polling. A new Merriman River survey for Honolulu Civil Beat finds Schatz taking a small 44-39 lead, up from a 40-all tie February. That's nowhere near as gaudy as the 49-34 advantage a recent PPP poll for DFA gave Schatz, but Merriman's trendlines are moving in the right direction for him. (Jeff Singer & David Nir)

IA-Sen: Iowa's June 3 primary is almost upon us, and that means two things: campaign finance reports and ads! In the latter category, Citizens United has a $50,000 buy for Sam Clovis. The ad features Rick Santorum praising Clovis for being a conservative and stuff.

Two groups are also taking to the air to support Joni Ernst, who appears to be the frontrunner for her party's nomination. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Reclaim America PAC has a $121,000 buy talking up Ernst's biography. The Senate Conservatives Fund also has a commercial out, where they really want you to know Ernst is a conservative. Ernst herself also has a new spot up touting her local ties. Ernst does not shoot or castrate anything in this ad, which is a little unusual for her commercials.

Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley is unopposed in his primary but he has a positive spot titled "Equal Justice". Braley also does not shoot or castrate anything in this ad. (Jeff Singer)

MI-Sen: The National Association of Realtors, one of the few large outside spending groups that regularly supports members of both parties, has endorsed Democratic Rep. Gary Peters in his bid for Senate. The Realtors' PAC is actually capable of putting serious money into a race, so if they decide to help Peters in deed and not just word, that could really mean something.

MS-Sen: Republican Sen. Thad Cochran hits primary opponent state Sen. Chris McDaniel in a new ad over a McDaniel supporter illegally recording Cochran's wife at her nursing home. It quickly transitions into a positive "Thad Cochran is awesome" segment, with a different narrator and everything. McDaniel has an ad of his own where he complains about Cochran's ads, before he transitions into the "I'm awesome" part of the commercial. (Jeff Singer)

OR-Sen: Rasmussen: Jeff Merkley (D-inc): 47, Monica Wehby (R): 37.

SC-Sen-A: A sketchily-reported poll from TargetPoint for the Republican group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions finds Sen. Lindsey Graham at 56 percent in the June 10 GOP primary, above the runoff threshold. His closest challenger, businessman Richard Cash, takes just 7. However, it's not clear when this survey was in the field, or how large a sample there was, as the full results appear to be locked behind the paywall at Politico Pro.

WV-Sen: A new survey from local pollster R.L. Repass puts GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito up 49-38 over Democratic Secretary of State Natalie Tennant in West Virginia's Senate race. That's very close to the HuffPo Pollster average, and it represents an improvement for Capito, who led 45-40 last August.

Gubernatorial:

CT-Gov: Former Democratic state Rep. Jonathan Pelto, who says he's unhappy with what he claims is Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy's embrace of "the corporatization of school reform," says he's going to try to petition his way on to the ballot and raise enough money to qualify for matching funds. That's no easy task, but if Pelto succeeds, he could definitely complicate matters for Malloy, who only narrowly beat Republican Tom Foley in 2010 and is likely to face him again.

However, Pelto insists that "he will only run a third-party challenge if he has a chance to win, and not as a spoiler who allows Foley to become governor." There's an easy answer to that question, though, and Pelto ought to know it without launching a campaign of his own.

FL-Gov: SurveyUSA is now the first non-ridiculous and/or non-Republican pollster to show GOP Gov. Rick Scott with a lead. SUSA puts Scott up 42-40 on Democrat Charlie Crist, who just a few weeks ago led 44-41 and a month before that was up 46-41. It's certainly possible that SUSA is accurate, given that Scott has already spent an amazing $10 million on TV ads, many hammering Crist. The good news, such as it is, for Democrats is that Scott has only succeeded in yanking down Crist's standing, rather than boosting his own. What's more, Crist hasn't aired a single television spot yet, so the story of this race has yet to be written.

GA-Gov: Rasmussen: Jason Carter (D): 48, Nathan Deal (R-inc): 41. No, there's no reason to believe these numbers, which are an extreme outlier. They also cast doubt on those rosy results for Democrat Michelle Nunn in the Senate race. But then again, this is Rasmussen, so you shouldn't be relying on them anyway.

NM-Gov: New Mexico's Democratic primary for governor is just a week away, but the race has been very slow to take shape, and a new survey from Research & Polling for the Albuquerque Journal confirms just how wide-open things still are. State Attorney General Gary King holds the lead, but he takes just 22 percent. Businessmen Lawrence Rael and Alan Webber are both at 16, while state Sen. Howie Morales is at 12 and state Sen. Linda Lopez brings up the rear with 5. A hefty 29 percent are still undecided.

The only other poll of the race came from PPP a couple of months ago, finding King with a 34-15 lead on Morales. But since then, both Rael and Webber have gone on the air, and King only joined them a few days ago. His new ad features several different people stiffly singing his praises and, like many candidates who run out of time before Election Day, King tries to cram in too many issues that he's worked on: online predators, school safety, clean water, con artists scamming seniors, and predatory lenders. In a 30-second spot, less is often more.

RI-Gov: Republican Allan Fung has a new ad out where the narrator touts his tenure as mayor of Cranston in nice non-partisan terms. Fung faces businessman Ken Block in the September 9 primary. (Jeff Singer)

WI-Gov: Americans for Prosperity goes big with a $886,000 statewide buy on behalf of Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The spot features three people praising Walker's "real budget reform," without mentioning him by name and talking in a way I've never head any normal person talk. (Jeff Singer)

House:

AZ-07: State Rep. Ruben Gallego has released an internal poll from Lake Research of the Democratic primary to succeed Rep. Ed Pastor, which is now a two-way race between himself and Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. Gallego has a 38-32 lead, but 29 percent are undecided, so it's still anyone's race. Wilcox is better-known but has higher negatives: She sports a 48-27 favorability rating while Gallego stands at 43-6.

CA-15: This is a filthy mailer from state Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, who accuses Rep. Eric Swalwell, a fellow Democrat, of outright supporting Paul Ryan's budget. That's an absolute lie, seeing as every Democrat in Congress voted against it. Corbett's claim is based on the fact that Swalwell voted against a Congressional Progressive Caucus budget that was offered as a replacement for Ryan's plan, which doesn't even rise to the level of "specious." Nancy Pelosi voted against the CPC budget, too! This reminds me of Jason Altmire's dirty attack on Mark Critz for voting "present" on the lunatic Republican Study Committee budget—an attack that did not go over well.

IA-01, -02: In addition to the 3rd District poll they released last week, Loras College also put out some polling data on two other Iowa House races. In the 1st District, they find state Rep. Pat Murphy leading the Democratic pack with 35 percent of the vote, while Cedar Rapids Councilwoman Monica Vernon and state Sen. Swati Dandekar are both at 11 and state Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic takes 9. That's little changed from last month, when Murphy was on top with 30 and Kajtazovic stood at 11. Meanwhile, businessman Rod Blum leads businessman Steve Rathje 31-16, up from 17-12 in April.

And over in the 2nd District, physician Marianette Miller-Meeks has ridden her name recognition from two prior attempts at this seat out to a 36-12 lead on state Rep. Mark Lofgren; a month ago, she was up just 17-11. The winner will take on Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack in November.

LA-06: Louisiana politics often seems to run in super slo-mo—I guess it's just too darn hot down on the bayou to operate at any other speed—and here's a great example. It's already May of an election year, but Republican state Rep. Lenar! Whitney only recently emerged as a potential candidate for Rep. Bill Cassidy's open House seat. Whitney apparently still hasn't said anything, though her name came up again in a new report this week. The GOP field so far has been pretty unimpressive, with businessman Paul Dietzel and former Bobby Jindal official Garret Graves leading the way with around $300,000 raised apiece. The most interesting candidate, though, is former Democratic Gov. Edwin Edwards, though despite his larger-than-life profile, he remains a long shot in this red district.

MI-04: Businessman Paul Mitchell is on the air in the GOP primary to succeed Dave Camp. Mitchell heavily emphasizes his business career but demonstrates that's not all there is to him: He can shoot a cross bow and play the accordion. But before people think they're voting for Superman, he tells us he can't do both at the same time. He ends the ad by saying, "I approve this message because we need more job-creating, crossbow-shooting, accordion-playing outsiders in Congress." I smell a new caucus coming. (Jeff Singer)

MI-11: Most of the details are behind a paywall, but a new poll for MIRS for the GOP primary in Michigan's 11 District finds accidental Rep. Kerry Bentivolio up 33-21 on foreclosure attorney Dave Trott, which of course means there's a metric buttload of undecideds—46 percent.

NJ-03: The pro-Democratic super PAC Patriot Majority USA is up to something in New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District, and it certainly smells like a ratfuck. They're spending $110,000 on a combination of mail and TV attacking both candidates in Tuesday's GOP primary, Steve Lonegan and Tom MacArthur. However, Democrat Aimee Belgard would much rather face the former rather than the latter in the general election for this swingy open seat, given Lonegan's reputation as a mega-crazy nutter. (If you're unlucky, you might remember him from his race against Cory Booker last year.) So what's going on?

The key is the different messaging aimed at each Republican. In a mailer obtained by the Newark Star-Ledger, PMUSA slams MacArthur as a politician who "raised taxes and increased spending EVERY SINGLE YEAR" he served on the Randolph Township Council—the sort of hit Republicans frequently use against one another in primaries.

The argument against Lonegan, on the other hand, is very reminiscent of the tactics Claire McCaskill used to boost Todd Akin. Indeed, the very same flyer also complains that "conservative Steve Lonegan is just too extreme for New Jersey" and accuses him of wanting to eliminate the Department of Education and defund Planned Parenthood. These, of course, are the kinds of things that GOP primary voters actually like!

Unfortunately, we don't have copies of the TV ads, but the folks at PolitickerNJ have seen them, and they're structured along similar lines, with MacArthur again getting attack as a tax-hiker. The Lonegan spot, though, goes even further, criticizing him for opposing federal disaster aid and saying that New Jerseyans should "suck it up" after Hurricane Sandy. While ultra-conservatives often loathe disaster relief when it goes to folks other than themselves, is Lonegan really a hero to the base for dumping on his own state after a major tragedy?

In any event, PMUSA definitely isn't copping to a ratfuck—no one ever does, publicly. That's always both the smart and necessary move, since you never want to give folks on the other side even more ammunition to accuse you of meddling. Of course, MacArthur's campaign is already doing just that, claiming "Republican primary voters are going to see through it," but we'll know next week whether or not this worked.

NY-11: Indicted GOP Rep. Mike Grimm's campaign manager, Bill Cortese, has quit after just two months on the job, and according to a nameless source who spoke with the Daily News, the departure came because Grimm could no longer afford to pay him. This same source claims that Grimm is confronting a campaign that will have to be run "with the D.C. money shut off, the Wall Street money shut off" and with "no PAC money."

NY-21: Here's the thing with Mitt Romney endorsements: They're almost always just press releases. Yes, Romney cut an ad for Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson, and he's occasionally sent fundraising appeals to his email list, but he's not exactly out there busting his hump. So while it might be a nice little check-box for Republican Elise Stefanik, earning Mittens' endorsement probably isn't going to mean much for her in practical terms.

Other Races:

San Jose Mayor: San Jose is the largest city that will hold a mayoral election in 2014, and with the June 3 non-partisan primary rapidly approaching, we have our first poll of this open seat race in a long while. SurveyUSA tells us that Santa Clara County Supervisor and 2006 candidate Dave Cortese is favored to advance to the November general election, taking first with 26 percent. It isn't much of a surprise that Cortese stands out from the rest of the pack in this crowded race: He has extensive labor support and is the only serious contender who isn't an ally of outgoing Mayor Chuck Reed.

There's a lot more uncertainty about who will likely join Cortese in the general. SurveyUSA has City Councilor Sam Liccardo far ahead of Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen, leading her 20-11. However, SUSA only conducted the poll in English, which introduces a big potential complication. A large part of Nguyen's base is Vietnamese and many of her supporters may not speak English. We'll know soon enough if this is enough to make a difference. (Jeff Singer)

Grab Bag:

Ads: Here's an interesting New York Times profile of Mark Putnam, the Democratic strategist behind Alaska Sen. Mark Begich's excellent ads this year and North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's in 2012.

Deaths: Former Democratic Rep. Bill Roy, who very nearly defeated Kansas Sen. Bob Dole in 1974 thanks to the shadow of Watergate, has died at the age of 88. Had Dole not escaped in a 51-49 squeaker, he'd have been the only Sunflower State Republican to lose a Senate race since the New Deal era, and he likely would never have been named as Gerald Ford's running mate two years later.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  MI Gov - Sen: Snyder, Peters Lead (6+ / 0-)

    Another day, another poll.  The Detroit Free Press published their poll by EPIC-MRA, yesterday, and now The Detroit News is out with a Glengariff Poll.  Glengariff is a bit more partisan (they do more work with Republicans), and their sample seems to show that.  However, their results are very close to what EPIC-MRA found:

    Gubernatorial:

    Snyder: 45%
    Schauer: 35%

    Senate:

    Peters: 40%
    Land: 35%

    The MOE is +/- 4%.  The sample was 38% D - 34% R - 27% I.  All of these recent polls are finding higher percentages of self-identified Republicans than is typical for a gubernatorial election in Michigan.  There is either real move in that direction with more independents indentify as Republicans than in elections past, which I guess is possible (the Dem number seems to be consistent with years past).  Or, this is just your typical crappy Michigan pollster effect.

    Observations:

    - Like in EPIC's poll, yesterday, this poll shows Schauer struggling with name recognition with only 58% of those polled recognizing his name, almost identical to the percentage in the EPIC poll, I believe.  Those who recognize his name in Detroit - still the base of the Democratic Party - is just about identical (59%)

    - One thing that struck me as completely unbelievable is that this poll has Snyder taking a full quarter of the Democratic vote.  Even without them not knowing who Schauer is, that seems beyond belief.

    - In the Senate race, like EPIC, this poll shows Peters lead attributed to his advantage with women (40/32), though, the margin is smaller than in the EPIC poll.  

    - Not any polling, but the article also mentions that $7 million has been spent in the Senate race supporting Land with $5 million of that alone coming from Americans for Prosperity.  Only $4.2 million has been spent in support of Peters.  I think this speaks to Peters strength as a candidate, and also how poor a candidate Land is and how even more poor her backers are.

    - Right track/Wrong track numbers for the state are 45 right track / 41% wrong track.

    So, another poll showing a little movement in the governor's race (Schauer significantly trailing, but Snyder remaining under 50% the year-and-a-half of polling) and Peters staying out ahead despite being outspent.  

    Despite polling - or maybe because of shitty MI pollsters - I'd still rate this as less likely a pick-up than PA or FL, but still a better chance than Ohio or Wisconsin.  Schauer HAS to get up on air, this summer, if even that means not having as much money at the end of the race as he'd like.  He's going to be outspent, anyway, but given starting so far in the hole in name recognition, he might has to  jump in earlier than anyone would like him to.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/...

    Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kodos.

    by MetroGnome on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:24:07 AM PDT

  •  GA-Gov -- whatever Ras's game is... (0+ / 0-)

    The Atlanta Journal/Constitution (why they keep "Constitution" in their name when there is no vestige of the old, liberal paper that pioneered the multiracial New South is a mystery to me) is running the results. That means that, if this was a ploy to get money flowing to Deal and Preferred Senate Candidate, it's working.

    The junior Molloy in the paper's "Political Insider" blog has run the Ras results, and that has spurred others.

    I don't know what Ras is doing, but one never does, I suppose.

    "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

    by The Geogre on Wed May 28, 2014 at 06:07:15 AM PDT

  •  We Californians were duped again (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tle, LordMike, Pale Jenova

    The Koch brothers won again -- whether or not they had a hand in California's top-two system or not.  It'll be fewer progressive Dems from CA from now on -- more "moderates", more Democrats in name only.  They didn't have a chance in Hell to Gerrymander a Republican majority, this will turn out to be their best option:  Fewer and worse Democrats.

    Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

    by Helpless on Wed May 28, 2014 at 06:21:29 AM PDT

    •  It is a wacky system (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike

      One of the effects is certainly a lot more rancor and heavy campaign spending in the primaries, because in districts that heavily skew Democratic or Republican, more than one party candidate can make it through to the general.

    •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath

      Clusterfuck indeed.  Think anyone in California will push for ranked-choice voting?  Because that would eliminate this craziness.  Although I would also like to see multi-member districts (with ranked-choice voting), to kill once and for all the profoundly wrong practice of gerrymandering.

      I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

      by tle on Wed May 28, 2014 at 06:37:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ranked choice? Multi-member districts? (0+ / 0-)

        What are they? (He asked displaying his ignorance.)

        Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

        by Helpless on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:55:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A couple of links (0+ / 0-)

          Fairvote.org has An explanation of IRV, and of course there's wiki.

          There's a lot here about multi-member districts, and fairvote.org has multiple articles about it as well.

          I favor multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting.

          I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

          by tle on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:22:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Note that IRV is not Ranked Choice (0+ / 0-)

            Ranked Choice voting is a Condorcet voting method. IRV is, well, Instant Runoff Voting.

            In IRV, a voter ranks candidates in order of preference. Vote tallying is a series of rounds in which the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated, and those whose votes were tallied for that candidate get their vote transferred to their next highest ranked candidate during the next round. When a candidate reaches a majority vote total, they are elected.

            Ranked Choice voting also allows the voter to rank candidates, including (unlike IRV) bottom-ranking. During vote tallying, all possible two-candidate match-ups are run, and the results are mathematically processed to rank candidates from weakest wins to strongest.

            IRV is easy to explain, and so it is the most commonly implemented ranked voting method. It is, however, more prone to electing "the wrong" candidate, and would not be foolproof in a situation like CA-31 with multiple similar candidates.

            Ranked Choice is hard to explain, but it is designed to be a good single open primary type system where multiple similar candidates do not hurt each others' chances. It's hard enough to understand that I couldn't tell you if it automatically promoted moderates over popular but more activist candidates, though I suspect it does.

            Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

            by Phoenix Rising on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:31:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  One note... (0+ / 0-)

              Ranked Choice is not something to be used in a top-two open primary system. It is meant to be a one vote determines the winner system.

              In a lopsided district with multiple candidates from the majority party, Ranked Choice would almost never allow candidates from the minority parties a position on a run-off ballot, preferring instead two candidates from the majority party.

              IRV should be functional in California's screwed up open primary system, and could provide at least a bit of stability to it.

              Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

              by Phoenix Rising on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:47:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ranked choice sounds fair... (0+ / 0-)

                but given the Republican Gerrymandering that has stolen the House, I'd like to go back to the two party primary/general election method that often produces progressive firebrands like Boxer, Pelosi & Miller.

                Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

                by Helpless on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:48:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  In California, multi-member + RC = 100% Democrats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Helpless

        Ranked Choice tends to rank candidates of similar political alignment near to each other, so in a multi-member district the majority party will tend to win all races, provided they field enough good candidates to fill all of the positions.

        If you want to fix gerrymandering, get a real non-partisan redistricting/reapportionment commission with strong rules defining how districts must be drawn and enforcement mechanisms to make sure the commission doesn't go off the rails.

        Ranked Choice is for running elections without primaries, and for helping to expand candidate choices beyond the major parties without fear of Naderizing the vote.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

        by Phoenix Rising on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:56:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I apparently am misunderstanding it. (0+ / 0-)

          In a multi-member district with ranked-choice voting, i would expect the following.

          - voters don't get a total of first-choice votes equal to the number of positions.  They get one. In the count, the first choice is initially the only one counted.
          - each candidate is required to receive a percentage of the vote, plus 1. In a 4-member district,  25%, in a 5-member district, 20%.
          - votes in excess of the minimum for winning, go to the next choice.  The allocation is partial; all second choices for that candidate are counted, but the votes are the fraction that the excess votes are of all votes for that first candidate.
          - the process is iterative, until there are winners for all seats.

          The point of this approach is to ensure that people are not throwing their vote away with a landslide for one candidate, while disliked candidates with minimal votes get in.  It also ensures that a sizable minority isn't consistently left out.

          I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

          by tle on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:29:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ranked Choice is not like that (0+ / 0-)

            It's a terminology thing that you're missing. Ranked Choice is a specific voting method. You're thinking Instant Runoff Voting.

            Ranked Choice is a Condorcet voting algorithm which compares all potential two-way races at once, using the voters' entire ballot ranking.

            Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

            by Phoenix Rising on Fri May 30, 2014 at 10:25:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I know gerrymandering sucks (0+ / 0-)

      But the top-two open primary system was always a disaster waiting to happen. And don't say that there weren't warnings posted before the election, because there were plenty of articles about how badly wrong top-two could go.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:41:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reforms Gone Awry And Are Not Really Reform (0+ / 0-)

      Fitting that reforms that brought us the dominance of Propositions in this state helped give us this turkey. Didn't strike me a great improvement in Democracy when it went on the ballot.

      If the Democrats screw this one up again it will be amazing. Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat". If we screw this up again and have two Republicans face off in the General, this will be exhibit A proving the truth in that joke.

    •  this is also going on in the 4th assembly district (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Helpless

      where bill dodd, a republican county supervisor for years in napa, suddenly decided he wasn't a republican in 2012, and is running as a "moderate democrat," backed by big time right wing and corporate money.

      it screws the CA GOP, but enables the interests that pulled their puppet strings to keep control over the margin of victory in key votes by buying faux democrats instead of republicans.

      (if you're in the 4th AD, dan wolk is the progressive candidate who won the endorsement of the CA democratic party, and is a great guy to boot. i've known him since he was 5, and think the world of him).

  •  Nader. Good God, have we learned nothing from W? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Le Champignon, Aquarius40, floryhawk

    Progressives electing the worst President almost (Andrew Johnson takes that cake) in the history of our nation because we split our vote in Florida?  

    Ego is our downfall.  We'd rather be "right" and "pure" and throw the election to the another Republican than be practical and deal for a shorter term consolation prize and benefit the national good.  The Iraq War (that President Gore would never have waged) thanks you.

    California Democrats are the Republican Party Tea Party v McConnellites in-fighting everywhere else.  Do you want the overall Democratic Party direction to win or do you want to make a personal statement and go down in martyrdom?

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Wed May 28, 2014 at 06:36:54 AM PDT

    •  Apparently not. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Urban Space Cowboy, wu ming

      We still have party primaries,  plurality victories, or the even more clusterfuckish top-two primaries.  I have yet to hear from opponents of ranked-choice voting/IRV how that could possibly be worse than the current ugly mess.  And it would remove the convenient trope that progressives are to blame for Republican victories.

      As for Florida, I'll remind everyone once again that 20,000 votes were thrown out in Duval County, largely in Democratic areas.  That's just one county. The criminal gang running the state worked very hard at stealing that election, and they had the support of the Supreme Court.  So I'm not convinced that Nader voters were really to blame for the installation of Dubyuh.

      I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

      by tle on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:08:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida (0+ / 0-)

        A retrospective analysis of his voters suggests that were it not for Nader, about 40% of his voters would have skipped the Florida contest entirely.  That leaves approximately 58,493 voters who would be likely Gore voters.  

        To have won the election in Florida for Gore,

        only 539 of those theoretical 58,493 (less than 1% of that theoretical 60%) of the overall Florida Nader voters, or  

        only 539 of the actual 48,715 (about 1.11%) of the Nader voters in the Florida counties Gore won,

        would have had to have voted for Gore to the national election to have shifted and Gore become 43rd President of the US.  No war in Iraq.  No collapse of the US economy.  Farther ahead in addressing climate change.  

        Nader was a spoiler in the monumental and historic 2000 Florida election.  There would have been no controversy, no SCOTUS challenge, no hanging-chad, were it not for Nader votes.  But it's said and done. It's only helpful as one lesson in what can happen when the progressive votes are split.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:44:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And only 539 of those Duval votes (0+ / 0-)

          would have had to be counted.  How many of the votes were thrown out for double-voting, where Gore was selected, and written in (because the voters were urged to vote on every page, and the presidential vote was multiple pages)?  We'll never know, because of Duval Supervisor of Elections John may-he-rot-in-hell Stafford.

          I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

          by tle on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:37:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think James Buchanan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uncle Moji

      typically ranks last. Not only was he a do-nothing president, but (although a Pennsylvanian) supported the southern states and slavery in the run-up to the Civil War; refused to resupply Ft. Sumter; and let the Confederates seize a great deal of war materiel that could have been moved or made useless.

      •  "A Fight to the Bottom" (0+ / 0-)

        Alas, poor W, he has to know the discussion about his Presidential legacy center not how near he ranks to our best Presidents -Washington, Lincoln, FDR , TR - but how close to the bottom he is, and hope that the excretable Buchanan and traitorous and racist Johnson keep him from scraping bottom.

        No wonder he paints pictures in solitude.  Btw, so does his Iraq Raj Viceroy, the similarly discredited L. Paul Bremer.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:01:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  AR-Sen; NC-Sen; LA-Sen - "if you like your plan, (0+ / 0-)

    you can keep it".

    If the GOP and its outside groups are continuing to run millions of dollars of ads hitting vulnerable Senate Dem candidates in red states with that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" Obama (inaccurate / false / whatever - you be the judge) reassurance to get the ACA passed into law, they must have polling showing that that moves voters.

    NC and LA ads have been running against Hagan and Landrieu for months on that theme.  I have heard them in travels to both states and they are brutal.

    Harry Reid needs to bring the Landrieu bill up for a vote in the Senate so the vulnerable Senate Dems can go on the record supporting the fix to the "if you like your plan, you can keep it" screwup and putting some actual political distance between themselves and that Obama statement.

    The ACTUAL number of people hurt by this inaccuracy may be small but the PERCEIVED number may be much larger - helping the GOP messaging.

  •  I was reading about CA-31 on Redstate today (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV, abgin

    They are predicting that it will be Aquilar/Baca after the primary.

    Ugh.

    Who should I vote for? (NOT Baca, obviously)

    Would my vote be more valuable to Aguilar, to ensure that two Dems beat out ANY Rep, or to Reyes to try and shut out Baca?

    Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

    by pucklady on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:48:43 AM PDT

    •  Vote to make sure one Democrat is on the ballot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pucklady

      With California's open primary system, the most important thing is to not split the party-line vote IMHO. Make sure there's a good Democrat on the ballot in November, and don't spend too much time trying to finagle getting two Dems and no Republicans on the ballot.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:39:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, that is what I want to do (0+ / 0-)

        I have one vote. There are two quality candidates: Aguilar and Reyes. Reyes is the better candidate, but is running third.

        I do not want Baca to advance. He is the worst type of Blue Dog and is only slightly better than a Republican. He will vote with them part of the time and will hold the caucus hostage all of the time. Baca is only about Baca. He completely blew up the Latino Caucus when he was last in Congress. Baca is a bad guy, but, if he advances past the primary, he will probably win due to name recognition, plus he is swimming in money.

        So - the goal is

        1 (best case): Reyes and Aguilar

        2 (2nd choice): Either Reyes or Aguilar and one Republican, who is almost certain to lose.

        3 (worst case): Anybody plus Baca.

        My question remains - how should I vote? I'm tending towards Aguilar because he is in the lead, but I'm afraid of Baca making it past the post.

        Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

        by pucklady on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:02:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your vote won't affect Baca's standing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pucklady

          So...

          There are two "winners" in this primary. One is likely to be a Democrat, since we don't have a complete cluster like some of the 2012 races. The other could be a Democrat, or could be a Republican. If Republicans ratfuck the primary and vote for Baca as the most likely electable evil, there's not much you can do to keep him off the ballot. If they don't, then hopefully they can find their own party unity and put Chabot on the ballot, where he'll probably lose to the Democratic candidate.

          I don't know what polling in the district looks like, but unless Reyes is close on Baca's heels, she's probably not the safest vote in this stupid system.

          Vote for the strongest candidate (which sounds like Aguilar) so long as they're palatable. Otherwise you might wind up with a Republican and Baca on the ticket - ew.

          Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

          by Phoenix Rising on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:04:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site