John Garamendi represented Davis once previously, as State Senator. In fact, every time he comes back to Davis to speak, he remembers the community fondly.
In a press release this week in which he announced his intention to run, he said, “I am excited about the opportunity to represent the people of the proposed 3rd Congressional District, which now includes my home in Walnut Grove and many of the people that I currently represent in Solano and Sacramento counties.”
He added, “This is a district composed of industrious farmers, entrepreneurs, businesses, two of the finest Air Force bases in America, one of the greatest universities in the world at UC Davis and two outstanding community colleges. I look forward to taking all the needs and opportunities of this region to the halls of Congress to do what I can to help this community thrive and prosper.”
In the meantime, GOP strategists, who backed the citizen redistricting process, are fit to be tied.
“We are concerned that this appears to be a tilt towards Democrats,” said Tom DelDeccaro, chairman of the California Republican Party.
Ron Nehring, who previously served as chair, added, “The commission created 40 districts where the Democrats are the largest party, and 13 where Republicans hold the plurality.”
Meanwhile the Conservative Human Events lamented that “California redistricting is bad for the GOP,” writing “What was billed as a ‘bipartisan’ plan for redrawing California’s 53 U.S. House districts is turning out to be a blueprint that will in all likelihood cost Republicans a handful of the 19 congressional seats they now hold in the Golden State.”
What did he expect? A few years ago I literally watched Republicans in denial about the demographics of California, believing that the current district boundaries give Democrats the illusion of a majority in California that is disproportionate to their actual numbers.
The problem with that is that the rough breakdown in the legislature mirrors the statewide votes fairly closely. The numbers they were looking at that particular year were a little closer than that, because Governor Schwarzenegger had handily won reelection. But he was basically alone in that regard.
As of February, there were 7,569,581 registered Democrats in California and just 5,307,411 Republicans – a Democratic advantage of more than 2.25 million.
In addition to that, the Citizens Commission process requires majority support from each of the three groups – Democrats, Republicans and Independents. If anything, Democrats are underrepresentated on that group compared to their proportion in the population.
The problem that the Citizens Commission had to deal with, however, is the reality of partisan demographics in this state.
Human Events writes, “Under a plan backed by liberal Republican former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and enacted by voters in a statewide initiative two years ago, congressional districts would no longer be drawn by the state legislature but by a bipartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission.”
Human Events was quick to blame it on the former Governor, but as as Harold Meyerson reports in the LA Times it was a team effort.
“More ironic still, the Citizens Commission initiative was put on the ballot and funded largely by Republicans. The California Republican Assembly supported the initiative. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s PAC [political action committee] was its No. 1 funder, and Meg Whitman chipped in $200,000,” he writes
Whereas, Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barbara Boxer and the California Democratic Party were opposed to the formation of the Citizens Commission.
Writes Mr. Meyerson, “The GOP chairmen are right that there are more new Democratic-leaning districts than there are new Republican-leaning ones, but that’s due not to partisan bias but to their failure to appeal to their fellow Californians. Since the last redistricting in 2001, the number of California Democrats increased by 470,339, while the number of California Republicans declined by 107,522, even as the total number of eligible voters in the state rose by more than 2 million.”
This is reality and the Republicans, for whatever reason, seem out of touch with their own electoral reality. Even in Republican strongholds, registration of Republicans dropped. In Orange County, Republicans fell from 49.4% in 2001 to 43 percent this year as Democrats held steady and Independents substantially increased.
Writes Mr. Meyerson, “The Republicans’ problem in California isn’t the districts. It’s that their message and candidates appeal to fewer and fewer Californians.”
The Orange County Register earlier this week wrote in disagreement with the process, “California just can’t seem to get political reform right. The Center for Governmental Studies recently released a report on the failure of term limits reform where it found that legislators, instead of serving a short time and then exited [sic] politics, have just run for other offices. And, the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis brought in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who took his campaign vows of smaller government, lower taxes and balanced budgets about as seriously as he did his marriage vows.”
They add, “Now, redistricting is faltering. Voter-approved Proposition 11 in 2008 and Prop. 20 in 2010 established the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to redraw the districts for members of the state Legislature, Congress and the state Board of Equalization and put an end to gerrymandered districts where ‘politicians picked their voters.’ The lines were based on numbers from the 2010 U.S. Census. But something has gone wrong.”
As reported by the Sacramento Bee, the new lines “potentially give Democrats a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature.”
However, the reality is that you don’t really have to try hard to produce a bunch of safe seats for one party or the other, because California is already pretty much naturally sequestered by party ID.
Last week, we ran an analysis on the failure of term limits to produce real reform. Well, this is another failure of the do-gooders to fix government. The Republicans were not the only ones to back redistricting reform. The other group was reform-minded do-gooders.
The idea was really in reaction to the 2000 incumbent protection act redistricting, that made almost all districts safe.
Democrats rule the cities and the coast, Republicans rural areas and the Valley.
Writes Mr. Meyerson, “There will actually be some – not many – districts that either party could win. Not many, because Californians tend to cluster themselves by ideology, leaving few parts of the state in which equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans abide side by side.”
Politico.com agrees with the assessment that the redistricting will harm the Republicans. ‘The newest blueprint appears likely to result in pain for Republicans, who could see a two- to three-seat loss in the state,” they report. A lot, though, will depend on turnout.
According to Mr. Meyerson’s analysis, turnout will be key to what actually happens. He illustrates his point in the newly-created Ventura County congressional district. In 2008, in a high turnout election, President Obama carried that district by a 16% percent margin. In the lower turnout election of 2010, even though Jerry Brown won the state handily, Republican Meg Whitman beat Jerry Brown in those precincts by a slim 1%.
Writes Mr. Meyerson, “Indeed, while California Republicans appear almost certain to lose seats in Congress and the Legislature next year, they may prevail in some of the new swing districts if many of the Obama surge voters of 2008 – disproportionately young and minority – respond to the dysfunctional economy by staying home. California looks to be no country for Republicans, but the recession may help them win a close one here and there.”
Unfortunately, some just have not gotten this memo. You can try to rig the process however you want, but you are not going to turn California into a competitive electoral state right now with process alone. Republicans have their work cut out for them if they wish to compete.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Woohoo Democrats uber alles!
Yup, democrat majority rules. They get to be the ones to dismantle the governmental monstrosity they created, undo the fraudulent union giveaways of the past decade, gut pensions, remove funding for schools and oversee the largest prisoner population in the nation. I bet that they wake up every morning saying “thank god the democrats are running the show”.
Gunrock
And of course none of these problems had anything to do with primarily ( not exclusively, Elaine) Republican driven measures such as Prop 13, or Three Strikes, or reinstatement of the death penalty, or the whole ” tougher than though on crime” philosophy that has led California to the the incarceration capital of the country. And let’s completely ignore the overall economy as a source of some of these problems. I am sure that there is plenty of blame to be distributed to both parties. However, the finger pointing game has one really big advantage for the pointer. It allows that individual to completely exempt himself from attempting to find solutions. After all, if it is all the other guys fault, then one can just sit back and gloat.
“After all, if it is all the other guys fault, then one can just sit back and gloat.”
Sounds like you’re talking about Obama.
Trust me, the Democrats will still blame Republicans for anything that goes wrong in this state, even with the new redistricting. Neither party is willing to take responsibility for what it does/doesn’t do. I was never a proponent of term limits nor the new redistricting process. We need less gov’t meddling, not more. It seems as if the gov’t won’t meddle in things it should, e.g. oversight of nursing homes, regulation of banking practices (can you believe there are still robo-signers?!), but interferes where it has no business going. Sigh… What we need are JOBS, JOBS, JOBS…
To medwoman: Dems supported 3 Strikes…
With one very important exception, I would agree with you. Obama has demonstrated far more willingness to compromise than many of us who are truly left leaning would like. He was as good as his word at being willing to compromise with the more conservative members of our government. And, for that word “gloat, I would substitute “plead”.What I find very ironic about this is that the stated number one goal of many on the right was not jobs, not the economy, not finding any solution to any of our myriad problems, but rather defeating Obama. What a worthy four year goal! Might even work if the economy is bad enough, but at what cost?
This is reminiscent to me of Jeff Boone’s frequent statement with regard to the educational system. Let’s just take a wrecking ball to it and hope that whatever substitute we put in place works better. Sounds like the Tea Party and their like are of the same opinion, but with the entire country at stake.
Yeah, that darn Tea Party that wants a balanced budget. Terrorists I tell you, hang them all from overpasses. How dare they have the gall to want fiscal responsibility.
“Yeah, that darn Tea Party that wants a balanced budget. Terrorists I tell you, hang them all from overpasses. How dare they have the gall to want fiscal responsibility. “
The TEA party wants to stop government dead in the water . They offer no realistic alternatives to the programs that they oppose beyond abolition . That is no more fiscally responsible than letting your children go hungry to protest the price of milk . What this shows clearly, is that a vast majority of Californians want to take care of our obligations and solve our fiscal problems in a reasoned, timely manner, which the GOP minority has just as clearly shown that they are incapable of .
“The Tea Party that wants a balanced budget” wants to see it balanced without touching “Defense” read aggressive overseas military operations, corporate welfare, or any of a whole host of their favorite expenditures and of course no increased taxes regardless of the merit of such a tax or the ability of the individual to pay.
Those who compare government to personal family finances as in the frequently heard, ” I have to balance my budget, why shouldn’t the government ? ” the following questions.
Would you arrange your budget so that your children did not have enough to eat or could not see a doctor so that you could golf ? After all, you are the one earning the income, surely you have the right to spend it as you see fit !
Believing that as an extremely wealthy nation, we have an obligation to ensure the well being of all of our community members does not preclude the idea that we need to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. However
there is no political group in our nation that does not have its own “special interest” that it wants protected whether it is the military on the right, or social services on the left. Yelling “special interest” and ‘irresponsible” at the other side while ignoring the implications of our own preferences does nothing to problem solve.
The Sacramento Bee has a nice feature on which you can type in any address and it will show you a map of its old and new assembly, senate and US House district ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/29/3804492/see-your-senate-assembly-or-congress.html[/url]).
It also shows the partisan registration figures. Our new US House district will be 42.1% Democratic, 32.9% Republican, 20.2% declined to state and 3.8% other parties.
Obviously, the Democratic nominee is likely to win, starting out with a 9.2% plurality. However, if 2012 is a big Republican year in California, a strong GOP candidate could take this seat.
I think the new, non-partisan primaries will have an effect. A very well-known and well financed Democrat like John Garamendi can win by name recognition and advertising alone. But the second place finisher in the primary–presumably a Republican–has [i]a chance[/i] to build up his base by appealing to the majority of voters who are not Democrats. Normally Republicans win primaries appealing only to the far right voters. But that won’t do too much good if moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans and centrist non-partisans show up at the polls next June.
Rifkin
I hope that you are correct about the non-partisan primaries having a positive effect. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if an election was determined by moderates of all political persuasions deciding an election based on the willingness of the candidate to work with others to solve problems rather than insisting on their own ideology as the only way to go.
I read an article in the Sac Bee recently that showed Democrat represented areas contributed most of the taxes collected by the State than Republican areas, and Republican represented areas used more in taxes for social services. Republican efforts to slash health care for the poor, Head Start programs, and other social services would hurt citizens represented by Republicans in greater numbers. I wondered then, why these areas would vote for Republican candidates and why Republicans would support initiatives that would hurt their own constituents. It is obvious that people have figured this out and are changing their allegiances.
Rifkin: If even McNerney won during the 2010 Republican wave– and he was in a R+1 district– there is frankly no chance of Garamendi losing. Not during a presidential year. Especially when you consider he is a good campaigner and fundraiser. Sure, Garamendi only won the special election by 10 points, where David Harmer threw millions of his own funds, but he won the general by 20 points.
However, beyond all this, I believe the real story is the strong likelihood of a D-D Primary and General in AD-04 between Assemblymembers Yamada and Allen.
“Yeah, that darn Tea Party that wants a balanced budget. “
I’m not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but everyone wants a balanced budget, the problem is that you cannot do massive cuts during a recession without making the economy even worse, that may be where we are headed.
ERM
“Dems supported Three Strikes” Yes, many did to their shame in my opinion. However, I will say that I feel it was the conservatives pushing a “tough on crime” agenda that were primarily behind that particular fiasco. That was why I put in the “primarily, not exclusively” disclaimer with your name on it.
[i][quote]“As reported by the Sacramento Bee, the new lines “potentially give Democrats a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature..”[/quote][/i]Well, isn’t that just peachy. One benefit: They won’t get their pay docked for failing to get a budget out on time.
[i][quote]“Dems supported Three Strikes”
“Yes, many did to their shame in my opinion. However, I will say that I feel it was the conservatives pushing a “tough on crime” agenda that were primarily behind that particular fiasco.”[/quote][/i]It starts with our elected leaders, I think. When almost every politician claims to support “tough on crime” approaches (including the death penalty for even more crimes), us doofuses start thinking they must be right regardless of the costs.
[i][quote]“Yeah, that darn Tea Party that wants a balanced budget. Terrorists I tell you, hang them all from overpasses. How dare they have the gall to want fiscal responsibility.”
“The TEA party wants to stop government dead in the water.”[/quote][/i]Well, now it looks as though they’ve succeeded. But, there goes my 401k again–both times S&P’s “fault.” I knew we’d be sorry for giving S&P a hard time about their “laxity” (read, participation) in the fraudulent derivative ratings.[i][quote]WASHINGTON–Standard & Poor’s announced Friday night that it has downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time, dealing a symbolic blow to the world’s economic superpower in what was a sharply worded critique of the American political system….
The firm also said that the downgrade reflected the rancorous debate over the debt ceiling and spending cuts that brought the nation to the brink of default before it was resolved last weekend. S&P said “the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened….”
The firm’s conclusion “was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling,” John Chambers, chairman of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee, said in an interview. “It involved a level of brinksmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year.”[/quote][/i]
[b]David[/b], thank you for providing links to the documents about which you’re writing. And, my Google thanks you too.
[quote]This is reminiscent to me of Jeff Boone’s frequent statement with regard to the educational system. Let’s just take a wrecking ball to it and hope that whatever substitute we put in place works better. [/quote]
You mean like the wrecking ball taken to our health care system and regulatory system? I’d say Obama has taken his whack at various systems too, and w very little real success. Obamacare is so expensive and has so many loopholes for favored businesses, it has become a liability to the economy; and some business regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act has been declared unconstitutional while the banks continue to use robo-signers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get off scott free for the mess they primarily caused in the mortgage meltdown…
If we’re going to have a politician forced on us, we’re ending up with a pretty good one.
Elaine,
We clearly have a different view of the health care plan. I think the major difference probably hinges on my perception of the long range benefit of preventative care. I agree, this will likely be expensive to start, what I am hoping for is future savings from health care problems that can be either prevented, or caught in an earlier stage when treatment is less costly. I also think that much of the resistance to attempting to establish an actual health care system instead of the insurance driven free for all we have now is the idea that medicine and medical care should be a commodity like milk, or jackets, that the patient should just get to purchase. The problem is that unlike milk or jackets, the patient has no frame of reference from which to make sound decisions. This is where the doctor is supposed to come in and help with the decision making. Unfortunately, we have allowed for profit insurance companies to step in and fill this role. For those who feel threatened that the government will step in and dictate care, all I can say is that that was not the outcome either time I was employed as a doctor by the government. There was never a time when I had to ask for permission (or pre approval) for any treatment or procedure so I simply do not share that fear. And for those concerned about rationing of health care, we already do that. We just ration by ability to pay..
To medwoman:
From lifenews.com:
[quote]Our health-care system has problems that must be addressed. But ObamaCare will make those problems much worse. Instead of increasing consumer choice, it narrows it. Instead of encouraging innovation, it stifles creativity. Instead of expanding access to care, it will ration it. And instead of allowing competition to help bring down costs, it increases spending and puts our health-care system on a path to ruin.
From professorbainbridge.com:
[quote]Health-policy experts predicted that new insurance pools for high-risk patients would attract so many expensive enrollees that funding would be quickly exhausted. In fact, enrollment is running at just 6% of expectations, partly because of high premiums.
A provision preventing insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing health conditions prompted insurers in dozens of states to stop selling child-only policies altogether.
And a piece of the law designed to centralize patient care by encouraging health-care providers to collaborate is running into antitrust concerns from regulators.
It’s clear that Obamacare was seriously botched. [/quote]
The defects with the president’s health law are so serious and widespread that the administration has already granted over 1,000 waivers to protect businesses, labor unions and other organizations from its most onerous provisions. We need to recognize that the finest health-care system in the world is at risk—and repeal ObamaCare before it’s too late.[/quote]
Let me try that again – my fingers are typing faster than my brain is working this morning. Please forgive…
[quote]From lifenews.com:
Our health-care system has problems that must be addressed. But ObamaCare will make those problems much worse. Instead of increasing consumer choice, it narrows it. Instead of encouraging innovation, it stifles creativity. Instead of expanding access to care, it will ration it. And instead of allowing competition to help bring down costs, it increases spending and puts our health-care system on a path to ruin.
The defects with the president’s health law are so serious and widespread that the administration has already granted over 1,000 waivers to protect businesses, labor unions and other organizations from its most onerous provisions. We need to recognize that the finest health-care system in the world is at risk—and repeal ObamaCare before it’s too late.
[/quote]
[quote]From professorbainbridge.com:
Health-policy experts predicted that new insurance pools for high-risk patients would attract so many expensive enrollees that funding would be quickly exhausted. In fact, enrollment is running at just 6% of expectations, partly because of high premiums.
A provision preventing insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing health conditions prompted insurers in dozens of states to stop selling child-only policies altogether.
And a piece of the law designed to centralize patient care by encouraging health-care providers to collaborate is running into antitrust concerns from regulators.
It’s clear that Obamacare was seriously botched.[/quote]
From plf.typepad.com:
[quote]Americans are thus beset by the conviction that they are going to end up paying more for worse, and less, care. This conviction has been exacerbated, if not indeed proven, by announcements from a number of large U.S. companies, such as Boeing, Lockheed, and AT&T, that tax changes within the bill will cause them to take significant charges against their earnings (thus impacting shareholder returns), that they will start requiring their employees to cover a greater share of the cost of insurance, that insurers are planning premium increases, and that some employers are considering dropping medical insurance altogether to save money, and let their employees purchase coverage through state-run exchanges (a result which also seems to be at the heart of Obamacare: pushing everyone into a version of the “single-payer” or “public option.”)
Even more, the continued granting of numerous waivers by the Administration to companies like McDonalds and Jack-In-The-Box from Obamacare’s minimum coverage requirements underlines pretty clearly that the cost-shifting and minimum-coverage mandates create a situation in which the overhead costs of running a business under Obamacare simply cannot be compensated for by other operational savings even within large entities, and in particular within those entities where wages are low, profit margins tight, and competition fierce. In other words: in today’s economy, virtually every single American business.[/quote]
As I have always said, “the devil is in the details”…