.
.
.
CA-39
A tally in the CA-39 race shows that Jay Chen took almost 50% of the State Party delegates’ votes, followed by Phil Janowicz with almost 30%. This result would not make Chen eligible for endorsement — let alone putting him onto the consent calendar at the convention — and may not be enough to winnow down the race given that the three candidates with the worst performance (by a long shot) are also the wealthiest and may presume that they will do better if they appeal directly to voters. If so, then this becomes a very good result not only for Chen, and to some extent Janowicz, but also for Republicans. (Sorry, folks, but this is not the site you come to for happy-talk PR.)
Here are the raw vote totals, according to a post by Jay Chen and confirmed with a DPOC official:
Chen, 27; Janowicz, 16; Jammal, 8; Thorburn, 2; No Endorsement, 2; Cisneros, 1; Tran, 1; Person no one has heard of 0.
I can understand the basis for every vote case except for this “No Endorsement” vote. Normally, I’m fine with “No Endorsement,” but in this race it’s the equivalent of “Let’s split the vote and let the Republicans win.” Who does that? [Note: Now knowing who did do that, I understand why — but it was still a bad move. Not wanting to take a position is OK, but in that case you simply do not vote rather than voting “No Endorsement.” The former counts towards the denominator and prevents anyone from reaching 50%; the latter doesn’t. Had both of the people who voted “No Endorsement” just not voted at all, Jay Chen gets 50% and then ALL OF THE CANDIDATES — not just Chen! — could be competing for the endorsement at the convention itself.
Note to Gil Cisneros: I like you and would like to talk to you seriously about other offices to consider. The obvious one is AD-55, where I am confident that Gregg Fritchle would step aside for you. Other possibilities include CA-22 and county offices. My understanding is that you hired some top consultants just for this endorsement caucus vote — but that the only vote you got came from Yahaira Ortiz, who works for — what’s the worst name I could say here? — yes, scandal plagued State Senator Tony Mendoza! Your “friends” are not your friends and your “enemies” are not your enemies. Let us help you.
Note to Mai-Khanh Tran: Just run against Michelle Steel, for the love of all that is holy, and SAVE CAL-OPTIMA!
Information from the three other races is still on its way.
CD-45
Update from DPOC’s Farrah Khan: Forde 7%, Kia 5%, Min 67%, Porter 15%. Dave moves on to the caucus at convention
Dave Min apparently took 67% of the vote — enough to make him eligible to be endorsed at the convention for CA-45, but not to put him onto the consent calendar. He was not my choice, but that’s a pretty convincing margin unless someone argues convincingly that he lied and cheated his way to victory. If Porter took the lion’s share of the rest of the votes, the others should left the professors fight it out.
(After the Update:) Had Porter done better, I’d expect her to stay in and the others to leave. Given reports I’m hearing that Min used some shady tactics, including some questionable assertions about his opponents (I’m being delicate here), I wonder whether this field will be whittled down. All three other candidates may join forces and fire on Min with convention delegates; the only question is whether his behavior has earned it enough for them to have an effect.
(BIG UPDATE:) If I knew this rule, I had forgotten about it, but: under the screwy rules of the CDP, Min’s receiving between 50% and 67% of the vote means that not only he can seek the endorsement at the CDP convention, but so can Porter (as well as Kia and Forde.) Contrast that with CA-39, above.
CD-48
Update from DPOC’s Farrah Khan: Keirstead 65%, Oatman 10%, Rouda 23%, Omar 1%, Payne 0%. Hans moves on to the endorsement caucus.
Early word is that Harley Rouda Hans Keirstead won — see, I told you that people can’t tell the H-Boys apart! — but we’re not sure by how much. We’ll have more info later. More info: Keirstead reportedly received 65% of the vote — enough so that he is eligible to be endorsed at the convention, but not enough for him to get onto the consent calendar. Nurses of all stripes, please keep your money out of this primary fight. You have SO MANY better priorities!
(After the update: Omar Siddiqui, Rachel Payne — get out. You have too many people to pass. If Rouda and Oatman want to make this a race, they’re entitled, though if I were them I probably wouldn’t do it.)
Reiterating the update: Rouda and Oatman can also try to get the nomination at the CDP convention thanks to Keirstead’s falling between 50% and 70%.
CD-49
Tentative update from Farrah: “(I left before these numbers were reviewed so minor changes may occur): Applegate 35 votes, Levin 60 votes, Kerr 0 votes, Jacobs 5 votes, Prejean 0 votes, 3 no endorsement votes.
In CA-49, Mike Levin seems to have scored a solid victory — although at this point it’s only enough to make him eligible to be endorsed at the convention and not nearly enough for him to make it onto the consent calendar. Doug Applegate (whose strength is activists from outside the party structure) will push for a “no endorsement” stance — and I expect that he will get it. Unsurprisingly, there are also reports of voting irregularities and of at least one Applegate vote being held back and not counted. This will be a major brouhaha at the convention.
Because Levin will not be able to attract many actual local activists if nominated, expect for large contributions to be laundered — legally (well, probably legally) — through the DPOC and other party-insider-dominated central committees for the rental of activists from outside the district. (OC Young Democrats may support him, but their track record at providing quality level of field work has not been good.) Levin might compete with Harkey, but will lose to Col. Rocky Chavez if he’s the Republican in the runoff — as Republican activists jump into the race and Democrats go further south to fight against Duncan Hunter.
(After the update: this will go to the convention. Levin did well, with the party’s thumb pressing with full force onto his side of the scale, but not well enough. Expect a no endorsement vote coming out of the convention, which is safe, fair, and fine with me.)
Again with the update: not only can Levin seek the Democratic party endorsement next month, but so can Applegate, Jacobs, and others.
Summary:
Four seats, four male winners. Happy “Year of the Woman,” everyone!
This post will be updated, and updates will likely be made in the above text itself rather than appearing separately and being marked as such.
(I’m off to a night out with visiting family, so you may just be seeing updates from Vern for a while….)
Sounds like levin pulled a hillary on bernie on applegate
Levin had more young local volunteers at the meeting today than any other campaign. Reality on the ground in South OC and North County SD is different than it looks from behind the screens of this blog and certain Facebook groups
I can certainly believe that — it was a party event, and the young aspiring party people supporting Levin would have been especially likely to attend. The Applegate volunteers, who don’t much care about seeing and being seen at events that promote their stature within party circles, would be less likely to attend.
The reality in actually getting people out to work at grimy and dreary jobs in an election campaign, at which Applegate obviously excelled in 2016, is different than it looks from a the midst of meetings and social events where young strivers are starstruck with party leaders who they think can help their careers.
It’s surprising to me that the only person screaming foul on Dave is a Katie volunteer. I’ve seen screenshots of lies NOT from Dave. Funny how the ones lying are screaming foul. I need you to dig deeper on this one Greg.
You do? I have no idea who you even are. But since you ask:
I’ve been hearing for months that Min was being extremely harsh on Porter, even by normal political standards, in private conversations, and to some extent vice versa. (This is why I finally decided, in making my recommendations, that “to hell with both of them” was the best stance to take at this stage.) Vern mentions in another post here that he’s been shopped various stories about Min as well in recent days, which I don’t think all come from (though perhaps they trace back to) a single source. This doesn’t seem like one isolated event.
In “digging deeper,” all I think I can do (without the resources of a Voice or a Weekly is to invite people in and around CA-45 to tell me, Vern, or some trustworthy intermediary what they’ve heard. Those allegations can come sourced in one of three ways, listed in decreasing degree of credibility afforded: (1) named sources, (2) sources speaking “on background,” where the words can be used and the nature of the source typified in ways that does not narrow it down too much, or (3) anonymous sources, about whom Vern and I would make our own assessments about credibility and probably wait for an accretion of them to make any statement.
You want to see digging? Grab a shovel and break some ground.
One thing that I can say, based on a deep background conversation, is that Katie Porter did herself no favors in the reactions she upon learning of people’s votes on Saturday. Keeping one’s cool is important in electoral politics — and the failure to keep one’s cool gets around pretty quickly.
Personally, I’d still prefer to see Kia or Forde be the ones to make this runoff.
I’m confident that I would have a much better view of either professor if it didn’t sound like were trying to bash in one another’s skulls. NOTHING in CA-39 even approaches this, and that has also been a hard-fought — but fairly fought — race.
Yeah four sources counting the Down With Tyranny website. I didn’t identify my three sources, so neither I nor this commenter know if they were “Katie volunteers.” I’m sure at least one of them isn’t.
Oh, I see that my comment we’re referring to is not on this thread. It’s here:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2018/01/if-i-lived-in-ca-45-ca-48-or-ca-49-id-vote-to-endorse/comment-page-1/#comment-876604
*The old Democrat Firing Squad concept AGAIN? (Everyone stands in a circle and shoots at the inside!) Can’t these folks act like grownups and pretend they understand WHO has the best chance to collect money and just win? Sibling Rivalry…..is so boring.