The Reports of the Death of Chiang’s Campaign are greatly exaggerated

Antonio Villaraigosa, Delaine Eastin, Gavin Newsom, John Chiang

Newsom will advance to the general election, but it’s too early to predict who will join him in November.

If you are a California Democratic Party( (CDP)  insider, you have probably heard rumors that California Treasurer John Chiang’s campaign for California Governor is on its last legs.  Despite raising over $7 million and spending over $2 million in 2017 alone, Chiang is languishing at the number four spot in the polls, with just about 8% of the vote.  More troubling for his campaign, a recent poll put former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa‘s chances at 21%, within the margin of error of front runner Gavin Newsom‘s 23%,.  This has made the media pronounce this a two-person race between the former mayors of California’s best known cities.

For John Chiang, who had started with a healthy measure of support from Democratic Party members, rumors of his campaign’s demise threaten to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.   As delegates to the California Democratic Party convention lose faith in his ability to win, they have been switching their endorsement votes to progressive darling Delaine Eastin or JFK-wannabe Gavin Newsom (Villaraigosa seems to be universally loaded within the party), leaving Chiang with a deadly aroma of failure.  Similarly,  Chiang’s low poll numbers have led to his fundraising becoming flat in the last half of 2017, when he spent almost as much as he raised.

I started this article planning to write  about the demise of Chiang’s campaign.   I had just written a post on the death foretold of Kevin De Leon’s  US Senate campaign – which is not nearly as widely rumored by Party insiders -, and it seemed  logical to at least mention Chiang’s  as well.   But as I looked into the reasons for the rumors, it became clear that insiders were wrong.  While it’s true that Chiang’s polling numbers show no movement despite having campaigned heavily for the last year, the same is true of all other candidates.  The race today stands pretty much exactly as it did last spring, when the roster of major Democratic candidates was finalized.  There has been no movement for anyone because voters, simply, are not paying attention and they are responding most of all to name familiarity.  Absent a major scandal, Newsom will earn a spot in the general simply because his name recognition and ballot designation of Lieutenant Governor guarantee that an important fraction of the electorate mindlessly vote for him.   What will define who else makes it to the general election will be the next two months of active campaigning, not the last fifteen.

A look at the polls over the last two years, show that Newsom has been consistently polling at ~24% since October 2016, despite spending $2.3 million in 2017 alone.  The consistency of his numbers is interesting, because his numbers are similar regardless of the pollster and they seem independent on who else is in the race – the early polls included potential candidates that ended up not running.  Newsom got 23% of the vote in an October 2016 Berkeley IGS poll, 25% in a January 2017 Public Policy Polling poll, 28 % in a March 2017 Berkeley IGS poll, 26 % in a September 2017 Berkeley IGS poll,  23% in a November 2017 PPIC poll,  26% in a December 2017 Berkeley IGS poll, 25% in a January 2018 USC poll and 23% in a January 2018 PPIC poll.  He spent almost $3 million in 2017 to see no movement.

Chiang‘s numbers vary a little according to the pollster,  he has somewhere between 5 and 9% of the vote, but have not shown much movement either.  He was at 5% in the May 2017 Berkeley IGS poll, went up to 7% in September and was back down to 5% in the December 2017 poll.  Both the November and January PPIC polls had him at 9%.  He spent just over $2 million in 2017.

It’s a similar story with Delaine Eastin, who went from 3% to 5% from May to December 2017 in IGS polls and form 3% in the November PPIC poll to 4% in the January one.  She spent under $500K in 2017.

As far as the Republican candidates go, John Cox has been in the race for longest. His numbers peaked at 18% in a March 2017 poll, when he was the only Republican in the race, but have been consistent at 7-9% since other Republicans joined.  Assemblymember Travis Allen, a Trump supporter with serious accusations of sexual harassment against him,  has been polling at around 7% while former Congressmember Doug Ose, a moderate who just entered the race,  is at around 3%.

Undecided votes, meanwhile have gone from about 36% in May of 2017 to 26% now.

As shown, there are small differences in the percentages of votes candidates have been getting from poll to poll and between pollsters, but as they don’t seem to reflect either an upwards or downwards trend, even as undecideds show preferences  This suggests that these small differences are just noise and that undecideds are not breaking for any of these candidates.  Again, a sign that voters are not really paying attention, and that their responses are an indication of name familiarity, aided by candidate description, than of actual preference.

This is particularly well illustrated in the case of Antonio Villaraigosa, whose poll numbers  seem to indicate people are focusing on his ballot designation rather than his name.    In the Berkelegy IGC polls, where Villaraigosa is referred to as “former Los Angeles Mayor”, he went from getting 6% and 11% of the vote in the October 2016 and March 2017 polls, which also listed Eric Garcetti, the current Mayor of LA, as a candidate – to getting 17% in the September and December 2017 which did not list Garcetti.  Villaraigosa got 19% and 21% of the vote in the November and January PPIC polls, where he was also described as the former LA Mayor.  However, in the January 2018 poll conducted for USC where he is described as a businessman he only gets 10% of the vote, which is in tune with the 11% he gets in the internal polls separately conducted for the Chiang and Newsom campaign.

This dramatic difference in poll numbers is significant because while Villaraigosa will be able to describe himself as having been Mayor of LA on the candidate statement that appears in the voter guide, he will not be able to use that as his ballot designation.  It remain to be seen how many people will vote for him if they don’t immediately recognize him for his former position when they see his name in the ballot.

Static numbers like this show that voters are making their selections based on name recognition and candidate description rather than on preferences based on the distinguishing characteristics of the candidates.  As these being the active part of their campaign, and media coverage and the proximity of the election awakes voters’ interest, the polls are likely to change significantly.

 

 

California Democrats Likely to Endorse Sexual Predators

Senator Tony Mendoza has been accused of sexual harassment by staffers. He is running for re-election and seeking the Democratic Party endorsement.

Party Activists Must Object to the Automatic-Endorsement of Incumbents to Prevent This.

California Democrats have a big problem.  Two sitting Assemblymembers, Raúl Bocanegra and Matt Dababneh, resigned after they were accused of sexually harassing and committing other improprieties against women.   But these two are the tip of the iceberg.  According to rumors circulating within party activists and legislators, the Los Angeles Times has a list of twelve legislators with credible complaints of sexual harassment against them.  Two of those legislators are said to be Republicans, which leaves ten Democrats.  One of the Democratic legislators included in the list I was given, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, recently resigned citing health reasons.  Another, Senator Tony Mendoza, has been publicly accused of luring a 19 year old intern to his hotel room and giving her alcohol, and inviting a potential employee to his apartment to “review her and other resumes” and then firing the staffers that reported this.  Mendoza has taken a forced leave of absence, but he is still running for re-election and seeking the Democratic endorsement. He has been calling party delegates to demand they support him.

Chances are both Mendoza, and the other six still publicly unnamed Democrats supposedly in the list of accused sexual harassers – some of whom may even be rapists -, will receive the California Democratic Party’s endorsement.  That’s because of recently passed rules that make it almost automatic for incumbent Democrats to get the Party’s endorsement and impossible to challenge them once they are placed in the consent calendar.  In trying to protect its incumbents, the California Democratic Party is taking the risk of being known as the Party that  endorses sexual harassment.

As the rules stand, an incumbent Congressmember, Assemblymember or State Senator will be automatically placed in the Party’s endorsement consent calendar, unless 20% of the voters at a pre-endorsement conference file an objection by January 17th.  These voters are mostly composed of party delegates , county central committee members living in the district and representatives from democratic clubs based in the district.   Incumbents themselves are delegates and they get to appoint another 5 or 6 delegates, depending on the office.  Incumbents also often endorse and fund slates of candidates for elected delegate and central committee spots, thus controlling a considerable percentage of the votes at pre-endorsement conferences.   Even when incumbents do not control voters, it’s very difficult for Democratic Party activists to sign a formal objection like it’s required.  The incumbents are still in office and will be for at least another year, and they could easily retaliate by voting against bills activists support or sabotaging the activists’ incipient political careers.  Fears of retaliation run rampant within the Democratic Party and with good reason.

Still, if the California Democratic Party is going to retain any dignity and credibility for the 2018 elections,  Party members must put those fears aside and file objections against incumbents.  They must do it in the case of Tony Mendoza, but they must also do it at the very least against all the incumbents rumored to be in the list  – and perhaps against all incumbents altogether as an insurance against any abhorrent information about them that may appear between now and the Convention in late February.  Challenging an incumbent does not mean that the incumbents will not get the party’s endorsement – rather, it means that there will be opportunities to remove them from the endorsement consent calendar in the future, if negative information comes to light.  But if they are not challenged now, they cannot be removed later if that occurs.

There are, of course, other reasons to challenge incumbents.  It is healthy in any democracy to have representatives periodically have to make their case for re-election and endorsement before the voters.    Just as we don’t automatically elect incumbents to their next terms, we shouldn’t automatically endorse them either.

I therefore urge my fellow delegates, central committee members and club reps throughout the state, to file objections to the automatic endorsement of incumbent legislators in their districts.

If this is not done, and any sexual harasser makes it to the consent calendar without the possibility of being removed – then CDP delegates will only have one choice to prevent sexual harassers from receiving the Party’s endorsement and making the CDP the party that endorses sexual harassment: to vote down the whole consent calendar.   There will be no possibility to vote on the individual endorsements of Democratic candidates in the consent calendar – they must all be approved together.  The consent calendar will includes all the Democratic Assemblymembers, State Senators and Congressmembers that have been recommended for the endorsement – up to over 180 candidates.  It seems, on its face, unfair to punish so many good Democrats by denying them the party’s endorsement simply because it’d be the only way to deny it to sexual harassers.  But if it’s a choice between that and endorsing sexual harassers, I believe we should vote to not endorse anyone.  Let’s hope we don’t have to make that choice.

The Torturous California Democratic Party Endorsement Process Explained

A Guide for CDP Delegates

As the 2018 primary season approaches, candidates for all sorts of offices will be seeking the endorsement of the California Democratic Party.   To receive it, they will need to convince enough CDP central commission members/delegates to vote for them.  Who and where gets to vote depends on the type of office.  The following is an explanation for CDP members – and anyone else who is interested – on how the endorsement procedure works.

The California Democratic Party has a state central committee that consists of about 3,300 members/delegates.  These members are mostly either directly elected by voters at assembly district caucuses which take place in January of odd years, selected by county central committees or appointed by the Democratic elected officials.  They get to vote on the endorsement of candidates for statewide office, as well as for candidates for Congress, State Senate and State Assembly for the district where they live.  In every county in California, there is also a Democratic Central Committee – the members of which vote on the endorsement of candidates for local offices.

State-wide endorsements

All 3300 members/delegates of the California Democratic Party vote on the endorsement of state-wide candidates.  The vote happens at the CDP’s annual convention, which this year will take place on February 23-25 in San Diego.   In order to vote, delegates must register for the convention and credential.  If they are unable to attend, they can have another eligible registered Democrat carry their proxy.  They must also register for the convention and get their credentials.

The vote itself usually takes place on Saturday afternoon.  Delegates stand in line to get their ballots, which they then cast.  Delegates can chose to vote “no endorsement”.

A candidate needs 60% of the votes cast to win.  Votes of “no endorsement” count for the total, blank ballots do not.   If no candidate reaches 60% of the vote, then no candidate is endorsed.  If a candidate reaches it, s/he becomes the officially endorsed candidate of the California Democratic Party.

Only candidates considered by the Chair of the CDP to be “viable” are able to stand for the endorsement.  To be considered “viable” in this election, a candidate must

– Have been previously elected to public office in a jurisdiction with a population of over 50,000  (Democratic central committee does not count)  OR

– Have fundraised at least $250K OR

– Be polling at least at 6% on the polls OR

– Get the physical signatures of at least 300 delegates.

In addition, candidates must pay an application fee of $1,000.   While this is not a hindrance for large campaigns, it is a significant investment for protest candidates who are unlikely to receive the endorsement in any case.

I believe these will be the endorsement candidates for statewide races. In parenthesis, I’ve written how I intend to vote.

State Senate: Dianne Feinstein, Kevin De Leon, Alison Hartson, Pat Harris (no endorsement)

Governor: Delaine Eastin, Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, John Chiang (Eastin)

Lt Governor: Ed Hernandez, Jeff Bleich, Eleni Kounalakis (no endorsement)

Attorney General: Xavier Becerra, Dave Jones (Jones)

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla (no endorsement)

Controller: Betty Yee (Yee)

Treasurer: Fiona Ma (no endorsement)

Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara (undecided)

Superintendent Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond, Marshall Tuck (TBA)

Board of Equalization
District 1: N/A
District 2: Cathleen Galgiani, Malia Cohen (no endorsement)
District 3: Tony Vazquez, Scott Svonkin (NOT Svonkin)

It is very difficult for a non-incumbent candidate in a contested race to get the party’s endorsement – and this is particularly true when there are multiple candidates with a following.  In 2016, Kamala Harris was able to obtain the endorsement over rival Loretta Sanchez, but in 2014 no candidate for Secretary of State or State Treasurer was able to get it.  In my estimation, no candidate for Governor or Lieutenant Governor will receive the endorsement.  It is also likely that there will be no endorsement in the US Senate or the State Attorney race, though in the latter I wouldn’t be surprised if Dave Jones won it.

In the past, incumbents without serious competition did not seek the party’s endorsement in the primary, knowing that as the only Democrat in the general, they would automatically receive it.  Alex Padilla and Betty Yee may still take this approach.

Endorsement of Candidates Running for Congress, State Assembly and State Senate

Endorsements for candidates for Congress and the Legislature can be relatively simple in non-contentious races, and very complicated in contentious ones.  In summary, it is up to the delegates that live in the district of each candidate to place them in the Party’s endorsement consent calendar, but the whole body gets to vote on their endorsement according to the rules below.  Key issues to remember is that outside the Convention floor, delegates can only vote for candidates running in their districts.  At the Convention floor, they can only vote to 1) remove specifically challenged candidates from the endorsement consent calendar and 2) adopt the endorsement consent calendar.  Given that a vote to not adopt the endorsement consent calendar would mean that no candidate would be endorsed, this pretty much will never happen.  If you are on the consent calendar by the Sunday of the convention, you are endorsed.

Any registered Democrat is eligible to run for the Democratic endorsement – there are no viability tests in these races – but they must pay an application fee of $250 to $500, depending of the office they seek.

The CDP has produced a helpful table that summarizes the information below as well as a narrative overview of the entire process.

Automatic Endorsement of Incumbents (Unless)

Incumbent Democratic Assembly members, State Senators and Congressmembers are automatically put on the endorsement consent calendar, unless 20% of eligible voters at the pre-endorsement Conference file an objection at least 10 days before this conference.  In 2018 the deadline to file this objection is January 17th at 5 PM.

This process is made more difficult as there are reports that regional directors are not sharing the list of eligible voters with delegates that want to challenge incumbents, making it harder to surmise how many signatures you need to reach 20%.

If 20% of eligible voters file this objection, the incumbent and any other Democratic candidate that has applied for the endorsement will appear before the pre-endorsement conference.

Pre-endorsement Conference

On January 27th or 28th, each region (an administrative subdivision of the CDP which includes 4 assembly districts)  will have a pre-endorsement conference where eligible voters will vote on the endorsement of Assemblymembers, State Senators (if running) an Congressmembers.

At the pre-endorsement conference, eligible candidates come and give a 2 minute speech.  After all candidates for all races in all districts that fall in the relevant region have spoken, voters vote and then ballots are counted.  Voters can choose to vote for “no endorsement” in every race.   A candidate needs to get 70% of votes cast to be put in the consent calendar for the Party’s endorsement. If no candidate receives 70%, but at least one candidate receives 50% of the vote, the endorsement goes into an endorsement caucus at the convention.  All candidates that are registered Democrat are eligible to participate in the endorsement caucus for their district, if one is held.    If no candidate receives 50% of the vote, there will be no endorsement for this race in the primary.

To be eligible to vote in a given race you must be 1) a CDP member/delegate from the relevant district or 2) a regular central committee member living in the relevant district or 3) a representative of a Democratic club with its main membership in the relevant district.

Eligible voters can either vote in person, or can mail their votes to the regional director (or even e-mail them), but they must arrive by the time of the pre-endorsement conference.

Challenge Opportunity of Pre-Endorsed Candidates

Any incumbent that was not challenged before the pre-endorsement conference or candidate that received 70% of the votes at the pre-endorsement conference, is put in a consent calendar for endorsement at the Convention.  Their name can be removed, however, if an objection to this endorsement is filed by 20% of the CDP delegates in the district in question OR 666 CDP delegates from any districts (20% of the total number) 10 days or more before the convention (Febuary 13 in 2018).  Note that at this level only actual CDP delegates are eligible to object and only delegates are counted to determine the 20% needed to do so.

If an objection is appropriately filed, the endorsement vote goes before an endorsement caucus at the Convention.

(Note: the bylaws are not explicit about whether incumbents who are automatically placed in the consent calendar can be removed from it.  In my opinion, however, the language on the bylaws suggest that they should be.  However, the leadership of the Party disagree with that reading. Therefore be advised that if no one objects to the endorsement of an incumbent 10 days before the pre-endorsement conference, that incumbent will not be able to be able to be removed from the consent calendar and the will almost assuredly be endorsed).

Endorsement Caucus

At the Convention in San Diego, there will be endorsement caucuses for races in which 1) a pre-endorsed  candidate (i.e. the candidate who was put in the endorsement consent calendar) was challenged or 2) no candidate got 70% of the vote at a pre-endorsement caucus, but at least one candidate got 50% of the vote. All candidates who participated in the pre-endorsement caucus in the latter case will be eligible to compete for the endorsement.

To be put in the endorsement consent calendar at the endorsement caucus, a candidate must receive 60% of the vote. Once again, “no endorsement” votes are counted, but blank votes are not. Delegates cannot vote by mail, but can send a proxy. Only credentialed delegates/proxys can vote. A quorum is 50%+1 of delegates.

If no candidate receives 60% of the vote, there is no endorsement in that race. There is no second ballot.

Challenges after the Endorsement Caucus

If a candidate receives at least 60% of the vote but no more than 2/3 of the vote at the endorsement caucus, his endorsement (or rather, his placement on the endorsement consent calendar) can be challenged by obtaining the signature of at least 300 CDP delegates on a particular form.  All delegates, regardless of where they live, are eligible to sign.

If he receives 2/3 or more of the vote, there is a more complex method to challenge it which includes 10 delegates from the relevant district filing a petition and a group of Bauman appointees deciding whether to accept the challenge or not.

If this happens, the endorsement goes to the floor of the convention where all delegates present will vote to either approve the challenge and remove the name of the pre-endorsed candidate from the consent calendar or not.  In the case his name is removed, he will not be endorsed.

Endorsement of Local Candidates

Candidates for local office, which in California are all non-partisan, can still apply for the Democratic endorsement.  This endorsement, however, is granted by the Democratic Central Committee for the specific county the office is sought.  In the cases of candidates running for district boards that cover more than one county (e.g. the Bay Area Rapid Transit District), candidates may have to seek the endorsement of multiple Democratic Central Committees.

While there is some intersection between members of county central committees and members of the state central committee, these are not necessarily the same.  Endorsement rules vary from county to county, as the county central committees are independent bodies.

Establishment Democrats Are Closer to Republicans than to Progressives

Corporate Democrats speak about “unity” in the party, but in truth, establishment Democrats have far more in common with Republicans than the do with progressives.

Progressives were against the TPP, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose wars for aggression, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose giving Israel a blank check, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose fracking, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose pipelines, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose forcing developing countries to pay their workers slave wages, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressive oppose supporting coups d’etat in other countries, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose mass surveillance, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose police militarization, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives oppose mass incarceration, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressive oppose impunity for human rights violations, Republicans and establishment Democrats are for it.

Progressives support transparency in government, Republicans and establishment Democrats oppose it.

Progressives support a livable wage, Republicans and establishment Democrats oppose it.

Progressives support rent control, Republicans and establishment Democrats oppose it.

Progressives support free college education, Republicans and establishment Democrats oppose it.

Progressives support allowing immigrants to stay in the country, Republicans and establishment Democrats oppose it.

Progressives support comprehensive healthcare, including gender realignment surgery, for prisoners, Republicans and establishment Democrats oppose it.

Progressive support single payer, Republicans and establishment Democrats are against it.

Progressives and establishment Democrats agree on abortion, gay marriage and whether transgender people can use the bathroom of their choice. I guess that’s something.

Sadly, I could go on.