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 is having statewide elections, Who Can Progressives Support?

We are less than a year away before the June election for California statewide officers, and I think that as a movement, we probably should get behind specific candidates.

As usual, our choices will fall between less-than-perfect but hopefully acceptable candidates with an actual chance to win and protest candidates, who have the right values but lack the experience for the job and/or the ability to mount a serious campaign.  This post is about the first kind. I totally respect the right of people to vote for the latter, in particular when there are no acceptable choices (and what’s acceptable will vary from person to person).  Not all of these candidates are necessarily those we might want to support as a movement, however, and listing here does not imply my personal support for them.

Delaine Eastin, candidate for Governor

Governor: There are four candidates that have a serious chance at winning, and among these I’m supporting Delaine Eastin, and I’d hope other Berniecrats would do as well.  Eastin is a former Assemblywoman and State Superintendent of Education, fully committed to funding and improving the education of our children. She’s calling for a moratorium on charter schools, for a free public college education and she supports SB 562, universal healthcare. After meeting her and speaking with her at length, I fully believe she is an old fashioned FDR Democrat who believes government can and should do large social projects to improve people’s lives.

The other three contenders seem to be in it for themselves. Villaraigosa calls single payer “snake oil“, Gavin Newsom will tell anyone what the want to hear and then do what business interests want and Chiang won’t take any poistion on practically anything.

Gayle McLaughlin, candidate for Lt Governor

Lt Governor: Gayle McLaughlin has been called the Bernie Sanders of Richmond and, if elected, she will be the Bernie Sanders of California. This former Mayor of Richmond is an anti-corporate activist, who has taken on Chevron head on and won, and who is committed to all the same principles than Bernie Sanders is.  She is the candidates progressives will back.

Other candidates for Lt General include State Senator Ed Hernandez, a well funded corporate Democrat who heads the Senate’s Health Committee and was endorsed by the nurse’s union after allowing SB 562, the single payer bill, to get through, and a trio of millionaires on vanity races.  Real estate developer Eleni Kounalakis, was a bundler for Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, her contributions to the latter bought her an ambassadorship to Hungary.  Physician Asif Mahmood was also a bundler for Clinton and international corporate attorney Jeff Bleich was ambassador to Australia under Obama. All four of them are Democrats.

Ruben Major, Berniecrat candidate for Secretary of State

Secretary of State:  Incumbent Alex Padilla spent the 2016 primaries campaigning for Hillary Clinton and then oversaw primary elections filled with a multitude or problems, including voters finding their registration had been changed and they could no longer vote in the Democratic primary, voters being given the wrong ballots or not getting proper instructions on how to vote.  After the primary, Padilla did not investigate these issues or make a plan for fixing them.

He is being challenged by Berniecrat paramedic/business owner/blogger Ruben Major, who might be a protest candidate worth voting for.  He only announced a couple of weeks ago and I will endeavor to interview him and report back.

Dave Jones, candidate for Attorney General

Attorney General:  The choice here is between appointed incumbent AG Xavier Becerra and California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.  Becerra supports the death penalty, which goes against the Democratic Party platform.  That makes him a nonstarter, as far as progressives go.  Dave Jones opposes the death penalty, has a record of prosecuting moneyed interests as insurance commissioner, is committed to criminal justice reform and has no interest in pursuing higher office, thus he will dedicate himself fully to this office.  He has not, as yet, committed to not accepting money form law enforcement interest, however.  He has been gaining momentum with Berniecrats/progressives.

Treasurer: This race appears to be between Assemblymember Mike Gatto and Board of Equalization member Fiona Ma.  I know almost nothing about either candidate’s record, but I will endeavor to learn about them.  If you have experience with either candidate, comment about them.

Controller:  Incumbent Betty Yee is running unopposed, so far. Yee is probably the most progressive statewide elected official, which isn’t saying much.

Insurance commissioner:  So far, State Senator Ricardo Lara seems to be the only candidate for this seat.  Lara can be praised for introducing SB 562, the single-payer bill, but activists are disappointed he hasn’t done more to fight for it since Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon shelved it.

Superintendent of Schools: The race here, so far, is between Assemblymember Tony Thurmond and charter school executive Marshall Tuck.   Thurmond is a progressive and I endorsed him when he first ran for Assembly, but he’s been steering towards corporate interests lately (he was a delegate for Hilary Clinton).

(Note: This article has and will be updated as more information becomes available).

Gavin Newsom Lied About Supporting Single Payer

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom (who merits his own Yelp reviews) is many things, but a man of his word is not one of them.  Newsom, who is running for Governor of California in 2018, has long suggested that he supported a single payer healthcare system.  He won the endorsement of the California Nurses Association with that promise.  He had been a little unclear as to what exactly he supported, but at the California Democrats Convention in May, he was asked specifically by single-payer supporters if he supported SB 562, the single-payer healthcare bill authored by CNA and introduced by Senators Richard Lara and Tony Atkins, he unequivocally said that he did.

His support did not last long. In a recent public appearance, Newsom has backed away from single payer and now supports a a mix of public and private coverage similar Healthy San Francisco – basically, a public option.  But Healthy San Francisco is not health insurance and has considerable limitations.  For one, it only covers San Francisco residents that utilize designated San Francisco doctors, clinics and hospitals.  Someone covered by Healthy San Francisco that falls ill or gets into an accident elsewhere, is on the hook for all of their medical bills – which can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Indeed, Healthy San Francisco does not qualify as “insurance” for Obamacare purposes, and most of the people that were covered by it moved to private insurance once that became an option.  Just as significantly, Healthy San Francisco does nothing to control private insurance premiums as it does not provide bonafide competition to insurance companies.  This means that many San Franciscans are still painfully under-insured and subject to high premiums and deductibles.

Newsom may feel comfortable disavowing single payer, because his main opponent for the governorship, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, also opposes it.   State Treasurer John Chiang, who is also running for governor but polling in the single-digits, is cagey about most of his policy views, including single-payer.  Indeed, the only strong advocate of single payer among the declared candidates for Governor is former Superintendent of Schools Delaine Eastin, who, non-coincidentally, has garnered the support of the progressives in the party.

The anti-universal healthcare stance of the three male Democrats in this race might appear to create the space for other well funded candidates to jump in and campaign on a pro-single payer basis.  Among those who are rumored to be entertaining a run is Kevin de León, the President pro tempore of the California Senate who voted for SB 562 and whipped the votes to get the bill past the Senate.    De León, however, has sided with the corporate establishment against progressives on a variety of issues and has little credibility with the Berniecrat wing of the party.  Billionaire pseudo-environmentalist Tom Steyer is also said to be considering a run and has recently made positive noises about single payer and Bernie Sanders.  However, he is unlikely to garner the support of progressive activists who are troubled by the increase in wealth inequality and the rise of the American oligarchy.   In a similar vein, there are rumors that Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg is planning to run for California governor instead of President.  Given his lack of a firm ideology or principles, and his ability to self-fund his campaign, he would likely run on whatever issues poll best and single-payer is very popular among California voters.

In all, now that Gavin Newsom has shown his true colors, the conditions are set for Delaine Eastin to capture the energy of Berniecrats and the progressive vote in the race for Governor.