.
.
.
As you can tell, my main focus in pre-endorsement meetings has been CA-39. But I have been paying attention to the other races too, although my views on them are more fluid. Here is how I think I’d vote to endorse in the other Congressional races:
CA-45: CHOICES (based on CDP listings):
Brian Forde
Dave Min
Katie Porter
Kia Hamadanchy
I’d go with Kia Hamadanchy. This is a race where I think that it’s more likely than not, at this point, that the people in the runoff will be Republicans Mimi Walters and Greg Raths. I find the very personal-seeming pissing match between the dueling UCI professors Min and Porter to be extremely distasteful; one effect of it is that I think that it one of them is the leader the other one will stay in the race out of spite. That works against the process of necessary winnowing to prefer that R-on-R runoff (even though I think that Raths is a nice and decent guy, so if it happens at least there would be someone to root for.) A “No Endorsement” vote also works against the purpose of winnowing. So the question is which of the other two should get support. Kia has been working in this district for years, seems very bright, decent, and well-qualified. He’d have my vote. Min and Porter, please settle your differences before 2020.
CA-48: CHOICES (based on CDP listings):
Michael Kotick
Hans Keirstead
Laura Oatman
Rachel Payne
Boyd Roberts
Harley Rouda
Omar Siddiqui
Tony Zardakes
I’d go with Laura Oatman. (But I could move to Rachel Payne.)
This well-educated “coastal elite” district race is one where I think that the “Year of the Woman” approach really ought to apply — especially against a piggish boor like Dana Rohrabacher. Based on my personal observations of them, Kotick, Roberts, and Zardakes are out. Not to slam them, but they’d have no chance against Dana. Any of the other five would.
Unfortunately, this also currently has the makings of an R-on-R runoff, given the presence of Republican Stelian Onofrei in the race, so choosing No Endorsement is not an option. (We’ll see if the other Republicans making noise about running do so. I’m skeptical.)
Keirstead and Rouda seem to be locked in a “Min & Porter”-style death match that has served neither of them well. Their race seems also to have become a proxy war between the National/California Nurses Association and the National Union of Health Workers. Support for these two seems to come mostly from party centrists (Frank Barbaro, Bill Lockyer, Sukhee Kang for Rouda; Florice Hoffman, Melissa Fox, Wylie Aiken for Keirstead. Slight advantage for Hans, but not much.) That’s not necessarily damning, but it will likely end up uninspiring — even to the Indivisible crew. To have any chance of weeding them out and freeing up those nurses organizations’ money to go where it can be put to better use, both Hans and Harley need to be repudiated tomorrow. That’s not how I’d bet — but that’s why I’d take the long odds on goofy Stelian making the runoff against Dana.
But repudiate the H-Boys in favor of whom? I hear good things about Siddiqui (although his self-description as “CIA Partner & FBI Advisor” is not among them) and believe his explanation that the “Reagan was a great President” flap was not an endorsement of Reagan’s policies but a recognition of his prowess and significance. And he has the most money of the remaining trio. But I believe that the money will come to any Democrat in the runoff — if any survive — and I just don’t see Siddiqi electrifying the electorate the way one of the female candidates would this year.
I’ve liked Oatman from the beginning, but I question whether she’d have the resources to compete. As of Sept. 30, she had already raised about eight times as much as 2016’s sacrificial lamb Suzanne Savary did, so there seems to be reason for optimism. (That’s less than the H-Boys, but she also doesn’t have the dagger of a bitter nurses campaign aimed at her throat. I doubt that they’ll go after her.) If Oatman emerges as the main third option — even the fourth if Siddiqi makes the cut — I think that she starts attracting a lot of money to take on the H-Boys (and the O-Guy.)
Payne got into the race late — I hope not as part of someone’s plan to split the women’s vote — and has not yet filed a report (fourth-quarter reports are due next Wednesday.) I think that not having her finances be clear before these caucuses was a tactical error on her part. She promotes herself as a “technology executive” — which could be anything from significant to meaningless in terms of her ability to raise funds. She also really needs to change the splash photo on her website, to which I shall not link in order to protect the innocent. (Seriously? Who greenlighted that?)
This is a situation where I would listen to (the mostly women of) Indivisible along the coast about what candidate they prefer. Lacking that information, or endorsement information from either candidate, I’d right now be leaning towards Oatman. Look, we can safely afford three Democrats in the race, and if the endorsement-rich H-boys can’t be stopped then we’re really choosing which third candidate will have the momentum to stay with them while they batter out each other’s brains until June. I hope that that’s a woman, and I hope that that woman beats them both.
CA-49: CHOICES (based on CDP listings):
Doug Applegate
Sara Jacobs
Mike Levin
Paul Kerr
Christina Prejean
Gee, what to do here?
I’d definitely vote for Doug Applegate
Oh yeah — Doug Applegate had to courage to take on a race that nobody thought could be won — and he came within a short putt of winning it. Those other people — I’m looking at you, Mike Levin! — didn’t help, I suspect because once Applegate showed the the seat was winnable they or their handlers decided that they wanted it for themselves.
My friends across the country know Applegate’s name and are absolutely thunderstruck that he doesn’t have unified party support for a rematch. If I didn’t live in Orange County, I probably would be too. Here’s the deal: if we don’t pick Applegate, we very likely lose, because there’s a good chance that the moderate and honest Rocky Chavez — that’s Marine Colonel Rocky Chavez! — will be the Republican nominee. Putting Mike Levin or Paul Kerr or the relatively late-arriving women up against Rocky in this Camp Pendleton-centric district would be asking for a disaster. Of the group, only Applegate can take him on and win. And if Chavez wins, we probably don’t get another chance to win this seat for the next couple of decades. Don’t be stupid — vote for our courageous colonel to carry our flag.
Hey Jew boy. Who would Julio”can I stuff it in your tight ass” Perez vote for.
You stupid fucking hypocrite.
Well, look at this fine fellow.
I wonder just what hole he crawled out of.
Or whose ?
Oh good, we are back to showing the character of our critics? I was always generally for that.
I’m for leaving it up.
It’s just, where do you draw the line? We get so many comments like this, and after a while the stench builds up.
I like to save them up for a while, like maybe two months, and then post them all at once, so that their repetitive and disgusting nature is most clearly evident.
God has favored me in the low quality of my enemies, Nazi boy.
“OC Intellect”……we were lucky enough to run into him years ago. This Carpetbeater guy probably leases his cars and abuses the hell outta them….
OK…”Don’t overturn the Applegate” may be a good campaign slogan..eh? Do us a favor Dr. D…..tell Applegate to return our e-mails…..or we might find ourselves ending up with a little voter remorse. Whatever happens, Mimi has to go down….unless of course The Trumpster invites her on Airforce One. What? We don’t doubt much about this Administration.
We are finally getting the message after 20 years, that we never had a chance running
for the Water Board or School Board. Now, they won’t even put our names in the hat for new County Homeless Board. Ah shucks…….disappointing!
Meanwhile, we have enough local heroes to fill those jobs with great elan and stature, so things can’t be all that bad….can they? We just aren’t going to vote for anyone that lives in Newport Coast…..not even Kobie, and Leigh Steinberg, and we love them both.
Bob Costas……we might have to make an exception for……he does seem to have his own mind…….probably the reason we haven’t seen him on TV lately. Wonder if he will be doing any Olympics coverage……perhaps a one on one interview with Lindsay Vonn in the hot tub or steam room after a great down hill run. One question however: How is The Trumpster going to be able to deal with the constant Olympic Coverage and the out takes with Kim Jon Un? Just wondering.
If you’re going to vote in Region 18, I hope you have a chance to watch this video about how local and national party leaders are using an admittedly made-up attack by Darrell Issa on Doug Applegate to smear will — after turning it into something even worse.
https://www.facebook.com/MargeauxTenenbaum/videos/1827014310651184/
Don’t be part of this; don’t reward lying for political gain. Vote for Applegate.
I added the video to the body of the story, since Facebook videos won’t show in our comments.
Great, thanks. It’s going to be its own story soon too, as well, with additional commentary from the speaker.
In CA-45, a district (Irvine/Mimi) that I hadn’t been paying much attention to, Dave Min came in at 66%, way higher than the winners in 2 other districts – Levin (57%, boo!) and Chen (47%, yay!)
https://www.facebook.com/democraticpartyoforangecounty/videos/10156677397700961/?notif_id=1517095049664742¬if_t=live_video
I remember people telling me a lot of bad things about Min less than a week ago, maybe I should have paid more attention. Let me see…
One person at Los Amigos last week: “… Yesterday Dave Min spoke at Los Amigos and someone asked him whom he supported in the presidential primary in 2016 and he said Martin O’Malley, which I thought was odd. I checked, and O’Malley suspended his campaign in February and was not on the ballot in California in June. I’m not supporting any candidate in his race at this point, and I’m not against Min. In fact, I liked a lot of what he said. Just thought it was a stange answer. ”
Another: “…why would Min lie about something so little.? I then had a conversation with *** and she told me he has lied to her on a couple of occasions. He stood up there so uninformed. When asked where he stood on the Veteran’s Cemetery his answer was no answer. ‘I am aware of the situation, and the Federal Government will send the money and it will be built.’ He doesn’t even know it is a state Veteran’s Cemetery. Min is republican light. He is bad mouthing other candidates that are Dems and running a really ugly campaign. The 45th does not need another liar in Congress. I’m thinking he did not vote in the primary so he didn’t know that the candidate was not on the ballot. Or maybe he was living in DC and voted early.”
And then I was sent this:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.fr/2017/07/the-dccc-is-giving-folks-in-orange.html?m=1
Oh well, looks like he might be our guy against Mimi, too late to do anything about it.
No it’s not too late so long as he’s under 70%, but I don’t know if any of the other candidates will want to plow more money and effort into the race. See the new post with updates that went up recently, the one with the graphic showing the tally in CS-39.
Just read Howie’s piece. I don’t really have much of a problem with having a centrist in CA-45 — that probably is the best one is likely to get (and be able to keep) from there.
I do have problems with electing a lying vicious asshole, so it’s the possible truth of the rest of the piece that troubles me more. Howie also doesn’t seem to know that they are both on the UCI Law faculty, which is one reason that they each tend to focus on the other. Sigh — I wish it had been Kia. (Also, I had presumed that Ron had dropped out, given that he didn’t pop for the endorsement, which does not seem like something Ron would do if he were running — especially given that Ron is sort of the Phil Janowicz of CD-45 who would presumably do well in a pre-endorsement caucus.)
Another LITTLE mistake from Howie: Mimi DOES live in her Congressional district (and doesn’t have to.) She just didn’t live in her State Senatorial District (and was supposed to, and lied about it.)
*Mimi’s District will draw in various Rabbit Candidates…..which are not there to win, but just to mess up some clarity against the incumbent. The Dems need another Women to run against Mimi. A Business Woman. A woman with a broad social activism background. A woman willing to find decent answers on Immigration, healthcare and the opioid crisis. This is not Space Science…but as we said: We are very tired of watching Small Boys with Short Pants running for Congress. Devin Nunes is a perfect example of someone who was easily sold out….to the first guy with a fat wallet he meets on Capital Hill. Mimi is very slimey, and just sits back and waits for the Checks to arrive in the mail. Time for a new Sheriff in Town, and even Sheriff Hutchins knows that. We want a Sheriff who will give us our Press Passes back – without Congressional interference!
Greg.. have you met all the candidates in the 45th, 48th, and 49th? I’m not challenging any of your endorsements. Just wondering what you are going on aside from information that’s out there or things you’ve heard, etc.
Thanks for the interesting and useful posts.
In CA-49, I’ve seen all I have to see. (Most of the candidates were not going to make a splash.) For that race and the others: They have appeared and spoken at DPOC meetings. I get emails from many of them; phone calls from some, though I don’t especially like the latter. I check out their websites and videos before completing these pieces. And yes, I do get information from other members of DPOC and the broader community as well. But I don’t present this post as anything more than it is: based on what I’ve seen, who I’d support. It’s not intended as the final word, but to open up a dialogue as well.
Thanks… how about in the 48th (where I live)?
“For that race and the others” in the above comment included CA-48. I’ve seen most (in fact, I think all) debate. I’ve read their websites and I’ve spoken to people in their district. About which candidate(s) do you think I don’t seem to know enough? I’m being kind to some of them by not analyzing them in too much depth. Others in the party have been much less kind.
I appreciate your responses and your perceptive question. I wouldn’t want to post my answer on a blog.
Mail to my name at Yahoo gets to me.