.
.
.
You can read MY stream of consciousness while making a decision too!
“NO ON THE JOSH NEWMAN RECALL” COVERAGE IS ALSO STILL WAITING. SUMMARY: “NO.” WE’LL DISCUSS THAT LATER.
In most of these races, the California Democratic Party has already picked, so I can’t do much more than grumble. While you should have your ballots in hand today, YOU SHOULD NOT BE VOTING YET because you should want to wait for at least one more big poll to come in to help you decide about the Governor’s race and probably U.S. Senate as well. You can wait to vote until this weekend. But if you’re an Eager Balloter, we’ll give you the rundown here — with the understanding that some of them may change.
Today is all about the 39th Congressional district race — my own, as it happens to be. The California Democratic Party (“CDP”) has not endorsed in is race, so I can speak freely. My endorsement for this race comes last because, frankly, I’ve found it to be the toughest decision — and it deserves its own post.
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 39 (ROYCE’S SEAT)
It’s 7:30 on Thursday morning, some ballots have already likely been received and mailed, and my time to make a decision in this race is up. As I start to write, I literally don’t know where I am going to come down at the end. So I’m going to work through it in real time, over the next 90 minutes or so, and hope that my thought process may be of use to you — whether it appeals to you or repels you. These are the questions and considerations that come to mind
(1) Should Democrats concede the race in June?
I’m going to say “no,” of course, as I expect will most other Dems, but the issue at hand is: if we’re not going to concede the race, then we had better act like it. This race is interesting in that, like few other races (CA-49 is the only one that comes to mind), one can literally make a compelling case that EITHER party might be shut out of the general election. The Republicans have three top-rank farm-team candidates in Bob Huff, Young Kim, and Shawn Nelson, plus others such as Steve Vargas and Andrew Sarega who have more formal qualification (meaning mostly having held elected office, not being rich and put on some advisory committee) for Congress. It’s only the presence of the latter names on the ballot that keeps me from predicting an R-on-R runoff right now.
So, if you’re a Dem or leaning blue, that rules out anyone but the four front-runners: Gil Cisneros, Sam Jammal, Andy Thorburn, and Mai Khanh Tran. (If Karen Schatzle had made any sort of a mark, one could make a case for considering her — but she hasn’t. Ironically, I think that she could have won in her home district of CA-45, storming past the deeply divided Democrats there and picking up Democratic support against Mimi Walters in the runoff.) So all of the other candidates — Leggett and Lee and whomever else — should just drop out before they elect Bob Huff.
Contrary to what some Dems are saying, this is a good group of candidates. Of the candidates left in four targeted races, only Doug Applegate in CA-49, Omar Siddiqi in CA-48, and Brian Forde and Kia Hamadanchy in CA-45 are comparably appealing (and I don’t think that Kia can win at this point.) Thorburn is that rare bird — an insurance executive who actually understands, appreciates, and can eloquently critique the problems with our current health insurance system. Cisneros is not a self-made man financially, but he served honorably and capably as a military officer and has used his fortune from lottery winnings responsibly and well. Tran may not be able to say much to distinguish her beyond that she’s a woman and a pediatrician, but those are good things in this race and she has admirably served her community. Jammal can’t compete financially and can’t stop talking like Al Gore in 2000, but he’s a decent and capable guy with great intelligence and good values. There’s not a one among them worth hating or even disliking. That’s what makes the decision so tough.
(2) Should Democrats concede the race in November?
This is a harder question — because it’s essentially asking “how much should electability matter?” My answer here again is “no” — which is why I narrow the field down to two candidates.
A Republican victory would have a 2/3 chance of being horrible and a 1/3 chance of merely being highly unpleasant. Huff is corrupt — go ahead and sue me, Bob; I did plenty of research on you when I ran against you in 2012 and I’d love to discover what’s in your files about the City of Industry and elsewhere — and an apologist for other Republicans’ corruption. (Remember when he wouldn’t allow Mimi Walters, who was standing next to him at a press conference, answer a question about her residence when she was running against Steve Young for State Senate from outside of the district? I do.) Kim would simply be a rejuvenated female Asian version of Royce — although ditzier. Nelson would be less of an embarrassment — which is a shame, because if elected I wish that he WOULD be willing to embarrass himself like a Rand Paul, Justin Amash, or other real libertarians, but he doesn’t have it in him.
So, yeah — I want a Democrat who can win in November.
Jammal will not be able to raise the money to win. (If he could, he’d already be swimming in it. Sorry, but there are other priorities for the party; they want a self-funder for a good reason. And unlike a longshot like Phil Janowicz, he doesn’t have a fanatical activist base to make up for it. I think his victory concedes the seat. So he’s out.
Tran has far less money than the other two rich people — but also less capability as a campaigner. If Kim wins the nomination, she’d be stomped as her comparative advantage is taken away. She’s done next to nothing to build up her activist base in the district — and not much more to build her non-activist base — and if Huff wins she’d face his strong ties to the Chinese community through his wife and if Nelson wins … well, she might have a chance, but she’d better duck any debates. There’s an advantage of arrogance in politics, but her arrogantly believing that she’s better enough than the other candidates to take them down in the primary and lead to a Democratic shutout is truly grating. So she’s out.
The other two can win in a one-on-one against any Republican. So let’s focus on them. I’ll note that the RNCC (the Republican committee focusing on the House races) seems FAR more scared of Cisneros right now — but that seems to be because they think that Thorburn has already been destroyed by the report Cisneros put out on him. So let’s talk about that first.
(3) Does campaign ethics play any role in the decision?
My take on the election was going to be that I wanted to go through a particularly vicious hit piece — a “report” that Cisneros says that he had commissioned about Thorburn — and support Cisneros if it was substantially true and Thorburn if it wasn’t. I started a piece on it here — but then I got busy with work (taking baby steps back into the business post-stroke) and didn’t get to finish it. I may still do so, but as the first few claims I encountered seemed to have decent answers, I’m hesitant to promote it. We’ll see.
Cisneros himself has been the target of an attack by AD-55 candidate Melissa Fazli — but the more I think about it and the more she hasn’t responded to fair questions posed here about it, the more unfair I consider it to be. If I thought that Thorburn had anything to do with it, this would count against him — but I don’t.
So the “campaign ethics” issue is mostly about the report. I think I can fairly say that the report has two effects: it enhances Cisneros’s electability compared to Thorburn, but it is also a big ethical problem for Cisneros compared to Thorburn. And that problem is not simply what you may think — that the attacks are unfair and unseemly. It’s also that I think that he is probably lying about how it came into being — which is worth its own entry.
(4) Did the DCCC compose the “Cisneros Report” against Thorburn and give it to Cisneros to release because Thorburn is a Berniecrat?
If I didn’t care at all about winning the race, I’d make the answer to this question decisive in my endorsement. I don’t think that it’s likely that Cisneros had someone compile this report about Thorburn on his own and on his own initiative. This report — other than literally — has “DCCC” written all over it.
That has two implications: first, it is then part of the astoundingly wrongheaded attempts by the DCCC to fend off Berniecrats whenever and however it can. The DCCC’s actions are terrible for the party — they ward off activists and people who care about fair processes and having the party be an honest broker, simply to favor candidates who will be responsive to big donors and (even more importantly) to the corrupt party officials who steer the nominations to them on the grounds that “they have more inside knowledge of the candidates” when the truth is that they have more conflicts of interest including a vertiginous lean towards the interests of big donors — and it would be tempting to hold this against Cisneros if I believed that he bought into the DCCC line.
But it’s not clear that Cisneros has done so. The DCCC is certainly trying to smother him in its embrace — having recently added him to its “Red to Blue” list — but, again, that has little to do with Cisneros and everything to do with Thorburn being a Berniecrat who is endorsed by Bernie-associated groups. But, honestly, Cisneros strikes me as a decent guy who is perfectly capable of telling donors to go to hell — his degree of wealth is called “screw you” money for a good reason, if you’ll pardon the euphemism — and he strikes me as morally centered. I don’t expect that I’d be very disappointed with him in office.
The big problem is the smaller one: unless Cisneros really did commission this report without help from the DCCC, then he is essentially just working as their hatchet man and lying about it. THAT is where, after long contemplation, I draw the line. If he really wants to claim that the production of something that looks a lot like the DCCC’s other attacks against Berniecrats across the country is just some sort of coincidence, then he can — but if he’s lying about it, then he’s a scumbag and I will drop almost anything to oppose him.
The struggle to make the DCCC own up to its biases, and then end them, is a critical one for the party — not because it’s anti-Bernie but because it’s anti-Bernie’s policies , many of which I’d like to think that Cisneros (as a fair-minded and decent guy) would conclude are appropriate. If he favors big donors on the merits, that’s unfortunate, but it happens. If he’s covering up for their agents who control the party — then he’s not worth supporting, especially in June.
Because I don’t know Cisneros to be lying about his having produced the report on his own — and, especially, whether he’ll continue covering up for the DCCC if that’s what he’s been doing — this question does not enter into my decision process right now. (Of itself, I don’t hold the DCCC’s embrace of him any more than I’d hold John Hinckley’s crush against Jodie Foster.) But any decision I make for now is provisional, so it could chance. I’ll continue to investigate.
(5) Other than that, who’s more electable?
I think that Cisneros is a little more electable than Thorburn, for good reasons and bad. Mostly, I think that Cisneros’s affable, low-key personality — he talks like he’s a comfortable old friend — is really good. (If Sam Jammal could learn that trick, he’d be much better off — except authenticity shouldn’t be a “trick.”) Thorburn is pretty good on this front too, but is perceived a more abrasive. That leads us to the bad reason: Among Jews, I’m one of the least inclined to hurl accusations of anti-Semitism, but I’m convinced that in this district the strong reactions I hear to him are essentially that he’s too “New York brusque” — which is essentially a way of saying “too Jewish.” I LIKE Thorburn’s demeanor — even though I’m an LA Jew rather than a NY Jew, despite my decade of living (and not fitting in) there — but I have to recognize that in this Iowa of a district it works against him. People are being open about race/ethnicity as a problem for Siddiqi in CA-48 — and, sure, it is — so I feel bound to be no less honest about Thorburn here.
Thorburn also desperately needs better photos. He’s a good-looking guy with a good presence in person. His photos are awful. I’ll take some of him myself if I need to. Cisneros generally presents himself well in photos. And yes, that matters.
(6) But who would be better in office?
I think that Cisneros would be good in office, a step or two ahead of Correa. I think that Thorburn would be very good in office, comparable to Lowenthal but without the benefit of years of experience. Cisneros has the “common man” and “military background” going for him, plus the nice background in pro-Latino philanthropy. But he doesn’t seem that likely to be a … well, “thorn” — in anyone’s side if elected. He’d be a decent back-bencher and maybe at some point a decent actor in education. I don’t think he’d be a firebrand leader in the Hispanic Caucus.
As for Thorburn — well, that possibility is really interesting.
Some objections to the candidates (expressed on these pages by Carole Levers) is that they’re both worthless because they’re billionaires. With all due respect, I disagree. The biblical quote that “money is the root of all evil” actually means that the love of money is the root of all evil. I don’t think that Cisneros can be charged with suffering from the love of money; it landed in his lap, after all. He has not had to make compromises to earn money since that day. The question is whether he’s going to be too obsequious towards others who have money. Hopefully not.
Thorburn, though, has worked for his multi-millions. And he’s done so in an industry where good business practices have been hard to find. And he’s had to make compromises — because as the head of a public company one serves one’s stockholders, leading for example, to taking steps to seek out advantageous tax treatment so far as allowed by law — that will strike many as unsavory.
This has formed the crux of many of the daggers cast in the Cisneros Report. Moved his business to a tax haven (one later declared off-limits.) Some clients of his insurance company — hardly any, it seems — complained about not getting the coverage they had coming.
If the Cisneros Report is the worst that can be said about Thorburn after so many years of running a niche insurance company (for Americans traveling abroad, one where one’s reputation is probably incredibly important, especially given the risk of being driven out of business by one of the big insurers), my provisions conclusion is that Thorburn is a pretty damned honest businessman — almost extraordinarily so, given his industry.
How does this affect his qualifications for office? Easy: having been in the insurance business for a long time — and having presented Berniecrat-style criticisms of it during his campaign, to his great credit — he has the standing to become a leading Democratic spokesperson for insurance reform. Ideally, even, for “Medicare for All.”
He has more standing to speak out as a critic of the insurance industry than all but a few — and few of those with comparable standing would be willing to do it. I’ll bet that only one such person with the ability to do it is running for Congress this year. (Or, indeed, has done so all decade.) IF I’m right about Thorburn, then he’s not going to be a mere back-benches — indeed, he may be a significant person in national politics, on this issue — over the next decade.
(NO WONDER the DCCC hates him!)
I would be quite comfortable with either of them in office. These are NOT typical hundred-millionaires. These are decent guys with good hearts. But it’s this last point — that I think that Thorburn can really contribute to the national debate over one of our most critical issues — that convinces me to choose between them.
My provisional endorsement — which could change! — for those voting now is to support Andy Thorburn for Congress. And if you vote for Gil Cisneros, your choice is perfectly defensible.
Now play it clean, gents — one of you will be endorsing the other in a month!
Since what they say is meaningless and what they do is the final process –
Gil has a nicer picture
Andy has a ton more money
And so we must decide…
If that’s what you take from this, that’s what you get from this.
The three other contenders did try to exploit Fazli’s unfair allegations for political gain. Poor judgment for all three. As I said to Fazli: skepticism is the great tool that made #MeToo happen: women have long complained about abuses quietly, but only when filtered through a professional skepticism required of journalists did this movement start to effectively harm the interests of powerful abusers. If we abandon that skepticism, we abandon the movement and the victims.
re Thorburn’s money: I’d apply that same skepticism here. Granted, I do not know who compiled the ‘AndyThorburnTaxEvader’ data: skepticism does require some concern about that. But it also requires READING the contents and considering that in turn before dismissing them.
Insurance executives new to the field may achieve incredible success and wealth quickly – by skill, luck, or cheating. Which applies to Thorburn? As I see it, Trump’s refusal to provide his tax returns illustrates a man who has things he wishes hidden: I take that as evidence against Trump. For Thorburn, not only do we not have the relevant tax returns that could shed light on his business dealings, we have nonpayment, nonfilings at certain periods, and subsequent payments of fines – which do not actually shed light on the underlying nature of his business, but only raise more questions. The problem of ‘tax evasion’ is not failure to do a civic duty, but it suggests something else may have been hidden.
If you’ve seen evidence that his business conduct reflects Berniecrat sensibilities – then by all means, I’d like to see it. Rather, I hear rhetoric of a Berniecrat, possibly adopted authentically, and possibly adopted in view of the fact that any established donor in the traditional pool of donors would see the red flags and never touch Thorburn, so he had to adopt some other rhetoric to have a chance. As I cannot see which applies, I’d steer clear.
Long post on this endorsement…as it’s an overdue debate.
re Cisneros: OK, so I’ve met his mother, a long-term cafeteria worker in a number of schools, and a sweet lady. I do not think she is clouding my judgment, but when I look at her endorsement of her son, I see not only the fact that she’s a proud mother, but who she was, what she did, how much she had, how she gave to her job and her family. His father fought in Vietnam, his grandfather in WWII. These facts are simple history, and I find history interesting, albeit, never dispositive.
What would I have expected a large Latino family in SoCal (OC and LA regions) to have experienced over all these generations? A lot. They’ve never spoken about experiences from that era with me, so I have to ask a few questions: family assets were limited, family made do the best they could, Cisneros himself enlists in part because it’s the best way to go to college and gets promoted in part because he’s good at doing his jobs in the Navy. When he got out, was he sitting back soaking up lucrative contracts, or was he working his butt off, much like the rest of us? (The latter; his wife told me a story about him working graveyard shifts at a factory after getting out of the Navy…they were not boastful tales about her husband, so much as observations of the toll that sort of life takes – not a heroic sacrifice, but the tough lot most people in California bear, a common burden.)
Just as one might credit Jewish ancestry as a possible asset, Latino ancestry ought similarly be credited as an asset: measure the relative worth of each asset in the 39th – and what do you see? Relatively few Jewish voters in the district refrained from participating in politics; Latinos, by and large, have been a very overlooked community there, and the fastest growing community by a significant margin. (That would also be a mark in favor of Jammal…) Californians can and will elect a large number of Jewish representatives – who by and large represent Latino interests admirably. But a Latino might reasonably believe that the best choice to fix certain egregious legislative problems is a candidate who shares some common heritage – and whatever it takes, I’d like to see more of them turn out.
Yet the white voters in OC and IE cannot point to Cisneros and claim ‘this guy hates white people!’ He worked with them, for them, backed them, lived with them, and his family fought in the three greatest wars of the last generation, and bore all the pains that brought: he’s NORMAL. Just like them. He was even registered as a Republican until 10 years or so ago. Much like the white people in the OC who need to wake up and smell what the Reps in DC have done.
“[Cisneros would] be a decent back-bencher and maybe at some point a decent actor in education. I don’t think he’d be a firebrand leader in the Hispanic Caucus.”
I don’t either: I see ‘moderate’ in everything I’ve seen from him. That does not make activists clamoring for revolution excited. But it should make them comfortable: where they can make a strong case, they should expect an advocate who will hear them out – not someone who is dependent upon others pulling his strings.
And finally, for your specific reasons in preferring Thorburn…
“Thorburn, though, has worked for his multi-millions.”
We don’t actually know that. Lotteries apply in the private sector too. Someone may claim to have ‘worked’ for their money, but their skill may in fact prove to be luck (and sometimes cheating). How he got his money is a black box: crediting it to skill in the face of uncertainty makes no more sense than crediting Trump’s fortune to his own skill.
If you yourself are skeptical of some of the practices in the insurance industry that can result in rapidly amassing a fortune, then you’d want to see evidence that Thorburn did at least the minimum to prove his bona fides – tax payments showing steady income, etc. You’d want that in this context in particular, because the possibility he made money through cheating is one that industry insiders are highly likely to be able to prove, and use, as leverage – to convert Thorburn from a ‘major player in the path of reform’ into a useful puppet to prevent anything from occurring.
My take? The opp research explains why DCCC and Dem insider/donors wouldn’t touch Thorburn. Thorburn, recognizing he’ll never get that support, becomes a Berniecrat to woo the unwitting. If you’d seen evidence of activism on his part before 2016, THAT would be immensely important…but the only such claims I’ve seen are quite indirect,, unproven, or self-serving.
Good comment, Donovan — with which I still materially disagree.
What Cisneros’s opponents did falls short of exploitation. They said that it was a serious accusation (which it was) and demanded that he explain it (which was fair and proper.). Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, so far as I know, HE HASN’T! You and I have presented what seems like a plausible and benign alternative for his statement, one that Fazli seems to have missed, but he hasn’t said that we’re right. (Get on your guy about that, D!) So I don’t see any way that this makes them look bad.
What evidence I see of good conduct in business here is mostly the meager evidence of BAD conduct in an industry rife with it. The “tax haven” attack — when Guernsey had not yet been flagged by the EU and wouldn’t be for years — is a stupid cheap shot. The tax filings are fair to ask about, and the Dems should do so — but can any Republican in the runoff do so with a straight face? In any event, simlle noncompliance is not necessarily “evasion” — another cheap shot.
I’ve met the guy several times and I don’t think it’s mere rhetoric — but honestly in this district it’s not my critical concern. The likelihood that it motivates the DCCC to target him — and don’t you agree that Gil *should* come clean if it was really a DCCC knife job handed to him on a platter? — is what bothers me, but again not enough to determine my choice.
I just think that the idea of a guy positioned and willing to criticize the abuses of his own benighted industry from within Congress, at the very moment that the effect of Trump’s savaging of Obamacare becomes apparent in higher premiums — is a VERY VERY GOOD THING. Don’t you?
Greg: Ah, too much meat for one post. But let’s stick with Thorburn for now, as there’s a lot to consider there.
“What evidence I see of good conduct in business here is mostly the meager evidence of BAD conduct in an industry rife with it.”
If his products were for Americans in America, then you might be right to reach that conclusion – but these are products for expats. If there is ANY evidence at all of bad conduct in America such that any US court took jurisdiction, something went drastically wrong. Ordinarily, no American expat should have ever been able to bring any claim against any Thorburn company in America.
For the first several years I was in the Gulf, insurance brokers, investment bankers, and many others flew ‘under the radar’ – setting up meetings in hotels to sell products ‘outside the local market’ (aka, illegally). Many of those operators worked for entities based in Guernsey/Jersey/ BVI/Bahamas/Cyprus etc. They appeared to work for a major global or regional player (Gulf Insurance is a major Kuwaiti insurance firm; I’ve never heard Thorburn say his Gulf Insurance had any link to that entity).
Issues popped up when someone got sick or injured, expected the major insurer to cover the medical costs, filed a claim, then learned they were not actually covered by who they thought they were. Their remedy? Go to Guernsey. Not exactly a remedy available to your average expat suffering major sickness or injury.
Now I am not saying Thorburn did any of this. I am saying it was done, it was common. Frauds were rampant in the Gulf – frauds which will never show up in any American court (because of BVI, Guernsey, Jersey, not to mention local insurers…).
Investigating that would take major resources – beyond even what the DCCC with all its millions could bring to bear. If the expats covered by Gulf Insurance resided in the Gulf I know, there are only 3-4 law firms with the means to credibly investigate: each of which would be barred by conflicts from conducting such an investigation for the DCCC…but might do so for someone else (e.g., the giant insurers…).
That’s the risk Thorburn represents. Some time between his bankruptcies and his fortune – he made money somehow. We don’t know how. We do know that there is an industry capable of finding out – but you don’t trust that industry (and for some good reasons). Thorburn might be the valiant crusader to take a war against those folks – or he might be their puppet. We simply do not know what happened, and his answers so far are quite evasive.
Fair arguments, but I continue to disagree. You’re right that there may not be American court records — although if the solicitation for the business happened in the U.S., I don’t see why people wouldn’t try to evade the contract terms — but I’d expect plenty of other records, from BBB to social media, trashing the company’s reputation. And I’d expect that in a niche market with closely knit targeted potential clients in many cases, all looking for answers to the question of how one would get insurance while abroad, it would (1) be hard to stay in business if one engaged in rotten practices and (2) it would be hard to fend off an invasion of the market by subsidiaries of far larger players if there was loot to be made and one had a lousy reputation. The most straightforward presumption is that, to keep this high-end niche business going, they did a very good job for clients.
I think that Thorburn deserves this as a presumption (though not an assumption) in part because it is atrocious and bizarre to give Cisneros preference on this issue because Thorburn worked for his fortune and Cisneros literally acquired his fortune by a foolish gamble that paid off. One can’t criticize Cisneros’s business practices — because there weren’t any! One CAN judge him by how he then comported himself as a nouveau riche centi-millionaire — and of course he does very well by that standard. But to presume the worst of Thorburn in business is akin to presuming the worst of Cisneros as a military officer who rose through the ranks — invoking stereotypes of violence and more — that he hadn’t obviously done anything to warrant and from which Thorburn is immune for lack of military service. That would be unfair and disgusting if Thorburn did it to Cisneros — and for Cisneros to to the same to Thorburn is unfair and, at a minimum, unsavory.
That’s why I really want to know how the Report came together. “Unfair and unsavory” is standard procedure for the DCCC — but is it standard for Cisneros? He’s ultimately responsible for the choice of what made it into the Report and what didn’t — UNLESS it was handed to him in final form on a platter proffered by DCCC, which is exactly what I suspect happened.
So will he admit it? THAT is how I’d judge his character.)
“it is atrocious and bizarre to give Cisneros preference on this issue because Thorburn worked for his fortune and Cisneros literally acquired his fortune by a foolish gamble that paid off.”
That would be atrocious and bizarre indeed, but it’s not my basis for a preference.
Your preference for Thorburn is based on expectations about the ability of a successful insurance executive to challenge the insurance industry: you are being reasonable, practical, and hopeful. You are assuming relationships of trust must exist and account for the business, much like any legitimate business, until proven otherwise. You’re reasoning in good faith, and that’s why I’m arguing with you.
In business, one can get rich quick by skill, luck, and/or cheating. Which one accounts for Thorburn’s success? I cannot say. I would presume innocence ordinarily, but in the insurance industry, I’m particularly skeptical (personal biases: precious little is as it seems, even if most actors are themselves actually quite ethical). And then there’s this opp research…which keeps raising questions that just aren’t answered…
Interestingly, the report omits certain pieces of evidence you expect. Social media? Can you find any reference to GBGI there? Yelp? FB? I can’t. Hmmm…maybe I’m just searching wrong.
Reuters? Ah yes – a company named GBGI listed on London’s alternative market – in May 2017, 2-3 months before Thorburn announced. There’s even a statement about how they’re doing –
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/alliance-news/detail/1524483545829437000.html
Hmmm…more questions…
The opp research suggests a great deal about how GBGI took off from 2003 or so onward – but that’s includes an untrustworthy source (Khadivi – Thorburn’s former associate, who hired Jones Day to bring a cause of action against GBGI and Thorburn in 2009 for breach of contract…). Still, the cause of action appears to have been filed: it is either a forgery, or a very expensive piece of work product, produced for our inspection by someone else who also paid enough to access one of the private databases (assuming it wasn’t Jones Day themselves who made this piece…they do seem more Republican than Dem aligned…).
So I read the other claims, and look at the docs, and go back to my original question: “skill, luck and/or cheat?” I would have presumed that he was acting respectably and garnering trust – now, if these documents say what they say, I see a credible alternative.
“But to presume the worst of Thorburn in business is akin to presuming the worst of Cisneros as a military officer who rose through the ranks — invoking stereotypes of violence and more”
I have in no way presumed the worst – I am concluding that for the question, “skill, luck, or cheat” – there are reasons to conclude that ‘skill’ did not account, and something else may have. Good reasons? Well, read through the underlying docs…all I find are red flags that make me skeptical that I can find the record of ‘trust’ that one would expect. I do not say that Thorburn’s companies cheated: only that I cannot tell exactly what they did, and you can’t either. If that means you trust him, then by all means: you have your reasons.
Oh, and as for the rest –
– The “tax haven” attack — when Guernsey had not yet been flagged by the EU and wouldn’t be for years — is a stupid cheap shot.
Not exactly: there is nothing wrong with setting up in Guernsey, it just means that the record you’d expect to find from even a private corp in another country will be missing. Details about that entity will be unavailable. You cannot obtain certainty whether this is a legit business or a fraud the same way you could in other jurisdictions.
It’s the sort of claim one makes when evaluating an investment (and any candidacy represents an investment): hmmmm…we cannot say one way or the other, red flag, move on.
“The tax filings are fair to ask about, and the Dems should do so”
There are quite a few reasons to do so – they can show a great deal about a business, though certainly not everything. But again, think like a donor/investor evaluating a prospect: “tax evasion?” WTF? Walk away – no way to be sure whether this guy is for real or a fraud, no basis to reach a conclusion.
The ‘cheap shot’ there is suggesting Thorburn did something unusual for wealthy businessmen or corporations: he didn’t. Nearly all will take some measure of aggressive tax positions to build their fortunes.
The claims by Thorburn’s previous partner? Not a cheap shot – the implication is there may be a source worth pursuing to find out more about Thorburn (but if that was pursued, it’s not part of this record).
The bankruptcies from his efforts in the food industry? There’s nothing wrong with going bankrupt, but that does imply that either someone started from scratch and amassed a fortune rapidly – or they hid assets in bankruptcy effectively. I don’t know which applies here. Any donor/investor would speculate, and again, say “red flag.”
That’s probably the biggest problem with the “tax evader” website – and why the contents in the report are problematic: they are the sorts of red flags any donor/investor (or counsel representing donor/investors) would interpret. They do not say Thorburn is a fraud, a cheat, a liar, or anything of the sort: they say that it’s impossible to know how he made his money, and to proceed with caution as he cannot be vetted in this manner.
A fraud? How is this EVEN POSSIBLY not a “legit business,” Guernsey or no Guernsey? We’re talking about the prospect of bad business PRACTICES, in isolated situations — and the Report contains what, ONE such alleged complaint? In the insurance industry, only one complaint over that many years would be unheard of.
Can we determine what Gil Cisneros did in his employment (managerial, I vaguely recall) prior to winning the lottery? No? Personnel records are sealed or missing? Is that a RED FLAG? Come on. A candidacy is not the same as an investment: the menu of choices, for one thing, is orders of magnitude narrower. To ding Thorburn because of a lack of access to Guensian records is preposterous. The salient fact about his business is that (1) customers kept coming and (2) there doesn’t seem to have been a whole lot of complaints — even “through the grapevine,” even if not in court.
As for sniping from a former partner — OF COURSE that’s a cheap shot. We know little about their relationship OR their breakup, much as if this were a bitter or angry ex-spouse from an acrimonious divorce. Now THAT is a source that needs vetting — and certainly can’t be credited lightly. (At least with Bob Huff’s Trumpian treatment of his former wife, I have first order hearsay!)
I am not going to look it up now, but I’ve presumed that the restaurant bankruptcy pertained to the business entity rather than being a personal one. The entire treatment of BK in the report struck me as sickening, given that the same facts would be explained away if the authors were talking about someone they liked, and downright obscene coming from someone who hasn’t gmhad to struggle financially since winning a lottery.
The Report is a hatchet job. Cisneros should not WANT to “own it.” But if he does —as I suppose a matter of honor towards the honorless — then he has to be held responsible for it. That requires far fewer presumptions than anything you’ve mentioned.
(Donovan: I think that this is a very good discussion, by the way, although your support of Cisneros has pushed me further into advocacy for Thorburn than I’d likely have otherwise gone — and I thank you for it. I feel like this approximates the debate between the campaigns over this issue that won’t likely happen in public.)
LOL, indeed, an interesting discussion. Long overdue. If I am pushing you to support Thorburn, well, that’s a risk one bears in this sort of discussion. Bear in mind though, I’m not accusing him of anything, other than making money in the insurance business. I know a lot of ways to make money in the insurance business – many legit ones, and quite a few illegit.
“A fraud? How is this EVEN POSSIBLY not a “legit business,” Guernsey or no Guernsey?”
OK…guess I need to clarify how the scheme works. It’s one I encountered frequently.
Let’s say ‘Awesome Insurance Group’, an offshore entity with no connection whatsoever to a more prominent insurer also known as AIG, sends a broker/agent to the Gulf. That broker/agent meets with policyholders in a hotel room, offering them a once in a lifetime chance to buy a policy at a 75% discount from (the real) AIG’s normal rates. No takers…the prospects do a bit more market research, find out yep, the prices for cover that actually provides medivac to the US are insanely high – and eventually, a customer buys in, thinking he’s getting a special deal on a ‘true’ AIG policy.
After signing up, the broker tells him, “Hey, if you refer a customer to me, I’ll reimburse 50% off your fees, and if you refer many customers, you can get 10% finder’s fees for as long as they pay their fees…think how much money you can make…”
This was the state of the insurance industry in the Gulf I knew (not necessarily the Gulf where Thorburn’s Gulf Insurance did business – I do not know where they operated). It was a wild west of ponzi schemes, scams, frauds, and unpaid policies. Things got even worse when someone with a management function arranged for employees to buy policies from the scam artist…and this is just one scam I’m aware of. There are many others.
In America, we have extreme legal mechanisms in place to prevent insurers from operating precisely like ponzi schemes. Even they sometimes fail to fulfill their purpose, but it’s not for lack of effort and no small quantum of skill by regulators. But they’d never even have jurisdiction over products sold by an offshore entity that were intended to operate under foreign laws exclusively.
I am not claiming Thorburn’s ‘Gulf Insurance’ did this. I am claiming that I cannot tell what they did – and you can’t either. You read the ‘paucity of claims’ to suggest a bona fide, legit business: the fact that these were products for overseas customers sold by an offshore entity should have made you question that expectation and demand further clarification.
I did talk to him about his business model at one point. If I recall correctly, and I Mat not, it was aimed at Americans who would be spending a year abroad, mostly in Europe (but I could be wrong there) to take a job for a fixed time. A prototypical example might be a teacher spending a year overseas, or a business executive — at any rate, relatively sophisticated consumers who were likely to be well advised, including most likely by their home institutions.
In such a niche market, reputation is *everything* — and if one screws over a customer there’s no telling how long and far such s complaint will echo. That plays heavily into my estimate that Thorburn did especially honest business compared to his industry peers: he would have had to. And the fact that he is sufficiently attuned to abuses in the industry to support a Single Payer plan, with sufficient credibility to have won over the CA Nurses, suggests that he is probably affronted by abuses in the industry to be driven to reform them.
It’s certainly possible that I’m misremembering our discussion, or that he simply deftly sold me (and the Nurses) a bill of goods. We should try to find out. A third of the absentee voters will have voted by this weekend, but 2/3 won’t have, so it’s worth staying on the case for both leading candidates.
Let me ask you, though: do you think that I’m being unfair to Tran and Jammal? I don’t see how either wins in November, even with a Blue Wave. The DCCC has wanted a major league self-funder here for an understandable reason….
“In such a niche market, reputation is *everything* — and if one screws over a customer there’s no telling how long and far such s complaint will echo. ”
Ah…well let’s review this assumption and how it works. Ordinarily, an adviser attached to a global carrier would have a database of ‘approved vendors’ they could refer people to for niche products: since it’s rare that these policies get invoked at all (universal insurance is the norm for most of Europe, and believe it or not, even in the ‘Gulf’ I worked in). These major players would dump 3rd parties that failed to maintain ‘performance standards’ – and occasionally pursue arbitration with them (in London, typically) if they saw a pattern.
But since their reputations would be on the line, they also require any 3rd party vendor to prove its financial position before they recommend buying its products. Guess how? They request a large group of docs, including…TAX RETURNS.
Starting to see the problem?
Ah, missed this: “do you think that I’m being unfair to Tran and Jammal?”
Maybe a little. This statement: “Tran may not be able to say much to distinguish her beyond that she’s a woman and a pediatrician” is a bit dismissive – she’s not just a woman doctor, but also, refugee, a janitor at Harvard… And Jammal’s quips are a riot.
But we both know: it costs a few million dollars to run for Congress: if you can’t raise it, you’re blocking someone who can. Chen (’12) and Murdock (’16) probably fought as hard as they could with what they had – and couldn’t beat Royce, even in presidential election years…Royce’s retirement cracks things open a bit – but it’s still gonna be a major slog, and unless some group that’s previously declined to participate shows up en masse in June/Nov, the 39th will stay red.
Hence my efforts, in a battle I haven’t fought in a looooong time.
“I feel like this approximates the debate between the campaigns over this issue that won’t likely happen in public.”
Where would you find two lawyers debating a subject of public interest, with no personal benefit other than sustaining that public interest?
Rare indeed.
When I say there’s no evidence Thorburn actually committed this sort of fraud (at least none I’ve seen), yet we both know fraud is fairly rampant in the insurance industry (even amid the tighest imaginable regulatory framework, a framework that does not cover Thorburn’s own entities) – we’re discussing something in a certain way – which would be heard and used by different audiences.
(1) Democratic donor/organizer/institutional players: “Hmmm, red flags here…questions, but no answers. Let’s look elsewhere for a ‘known commodity’ and support that person instead.”
(2) Democratic activists: “You’ve brought no evidence against Thorburn, so shut up! I want the strongest champion I can find to fight Trump, I feel that’s him!”
(3) Non-activist Dems: “Gosh, I just don’t know…hmmm…tax evasion is bad…did that really happen…ugh, all this negativity…”
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the donors there are salivating (“How much would it cost to hire Thorburn’s former partner and pay him ‘consulting’ fees if he gets us some real dirt…something we could bring out in October, or better yet, if that day ever comes and he actually gets to a place to put forward a new insurance rule that we don’t like…”) – and the Rep ranks shrug (“Yep, Dem rookies play the mudslinging game, but look at our Rep candidates…”)
Honestly…I sort of like Thorburn, and want to agree with you that all four Dem frontrunners are viable, decent folks. It’s just that in his case, my experience raises questions about him that it doesn’t about the others. If your experience leads you in the opposite direction, then we can disagree, and still respect one another.
If they don’t have real dirt on Gil, they’ll make it up. And it will probably stick. Read those stories from NRCC about the Fazli allegations. They’ve already gone after his wife — but then that went quiet. (Not, I suspect, forever.)
Thorburn is going through his crucible now. I hope that Cisneros gets similarly tempered before the primary — because it will surely happen afterwards!
“Read those stories from NRCC about the Fazli allegations. ”
I did. Jack Pandol’s command of innuendo is neither impressive nor particularly credible, but I’m sure he’s getting paid more for his pandering than I am. If he actually believed “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” then he’d be smothering our president with flame retardant chemicals.
“I hope that Cisneros gets similarly tempered before the primary — because it will surely happen afterwards!”
Ah, so you’re assuming he’ll make it through? I surely hope so, but am still worried about turnout. Voters in the 39th are split, and even if I disagree as to Thorburn v. Cisneros, I agree with most of the rest of your analysis of the field and see a credible risk of two Reps making it through.
You really should look into Andrew Sarega more. He is violating the law regularly piecing two and two together in so many aspects of his life. Just google him and La Mirada.
Andrew Sarega is the son of SD-32 candidate Ion Sarega..
Both Sarega’s are La Mirada residents and reside in the same home. The Springs address is a business address for an auto dealership that he and son operate. The business RRK Motors was suspended from operating in the state several years ago by the state Franchise Tax Board, and their DMV license just expired.
Ion Sarega is known locally by an alias John Sarega, and is viewed by many as a polarizing gadfly. Ion Sarega pled guilty to several DMV fraud felonies about a decade ago, which were expunged after he completed probation early successfully. A Facebook page has all the details here :https://www.facebook.com/concernedlamiradaresidents/
Andrew Sarega as principal of RRk has operated the business despite the suspension for several years, and is also under FPPC investigation for allegedly illegal campaign coordination with a committee after a smear campaign flyer caused a flap last year.
I would like to ask that this commentary by former Applegate campaign chairman Cory Petersen be given its own WOT posting:
https://medium.com/@theguessworker/square-deal-4688c0a368e
Paul, that’s a long enough piece, full of so many arguments, observations, and analyses, that it certainly makes one stop and take notice. In a nutshell, it is everything that the Cisneros opp research on Thorburn is not: the word product of a passionate man with a great deal of insight and experience.
That said…hmmm…some pieces just make me cringe. Levin represented Countrywide in 3 actions intended to foreclose on Latinos? Well…lawyers sometimes represent criminals too, but we ought not hold that against them: it’s the job, after all. The better question isn’t ‘who did he represent?’ but where did he go with his career as soon as he could get out of that set of clientele and choose one for himself?
So, I’m critical (as always). There’s so much there to parse, and my eyes and thoughts have been focused a little closer to home in the 39th. Perhaps, as Greg suggests, this is your battle to fight and write upon.
I’ve checked with him and he’s prefer a summary of it that links back to the Medium piece. I’ll do so — but in that case it will be published on Monday or so. I’m about to do our WOT now, though, and I will include your link to it at the top.
I checked with him too, and he just wants to make sure that the links are all intact. I’ll make that happen.
We need a good OJ-style illustration though. Greg, can YOU photoshop Levin as an old-tyme courtier? I loved that passage near the end of Cody’s piece.
I think that you should write a piece for us, Paul M., although to be honest I hope that Sarega sucks up as many votes as possibly from the three leading Republican candidates. Same with Steve Vasquez of Brea. They’re key to my hope for an all-Dem runoff!
I know I’m a voice in the wilderness here, but I still think it is too early to write off Jammal. I have not seen a single Cisneros or Thorburn sign on a lawn in Fullerton. I agree they are the obvious candidates, but I haven’t met anyone who’s actually passionate about their candidacy rather than just resigned to one of them winning. (I am sure some enthusiastic supporters exist; I just haven’t talked to them.) I think Thorburn is much too “lefty” for the district at large and would not have as good a chance in the general. He talks like a 60’s throwback and I don’t think that will win here in 2018. Although Thorburn’s got the Berniecrat endorsement, Bernie supporters generally tend to be disproportionately young, and the OCYD’s endorsement of Jammal suggests to me that Thorburn is not appealing to that group in CA-39.
As far as Jammal goes, I think it’s risible to suggest that he wouldn’t be able to raise money for the general — (a), big money is going to be pouring in to whoever is the nominee if it is one Republican and one Democrat in the general; (b), from what I’ve read, he’s actually done pretty well so far with small donors (although I admit that may be because no one feels the need to send their $50 to a millionaire). (There have also been several cases in the special election/primary cycle so far where the vastly- underfunded candidate won; perhaps when you’re tossing around as much money as is in the mix here, there’s a point at which it becomes irrelevant.)
The local support I see for Jammal is strong and I think that’s telling given the carpet-bombing mailings Cisneros and Thorburn have done till now. The Cisneros-Thorburn feud seems to have been suspended according to the article I read today that says they’ve agreed to attack Huff and Nelson instead, but though their spat may have passed right over most voters’ heads, it certainly won’t do much for either of them in the minds of the large numbers of voters who are sick of all the Washington chaos and fighting.
I can go for Cisneros if necessary, but I agree that he would be a backbencher and that he doesn’t seem to have any burning reason to run for Congress. For now, Jammal still seems the best choice, but I do wish we didn’t still have four in the race and I will switch and vote for Cisneros if the polling demonstrates it’s necessary. Hoping to see some numbers before too long; and definitely, hoping Democrats will refrain from voting too early!
No Name: I like Jammal, and Tran as well. I sort of like Thorburn too, but just am not confident about him (Greg and I have gone back n forth at length here, but again, I do not accuse Thorburn of any wrongdoing, just point out why it’s hard to clear up red flags and resolve skepticism).
But what I like about Cisneros is mostly what he did before and after winning his money. Before: Navy, ROTC, hard work, graveyard shift, etc. Normal stuff that a whole swathe of the 39th lived through, and anyone could understand, and many would respect (many who will never understand or relate to Jammal, even if he’s also worked quite hard).
After? Setting up a foundation, working on problems pragmatically, realistically, passionately. Again, NORMAL, but in an admirable way for a whole different swath of the 39th.
Both show me a ‘workhorse’ mentality: not a show horse. Jammal (and Thorburn) are candidates activists may like. Cisneros (and Tran) are different: the quiet, dutiful Americans who are typically self effacing, yet when they saw what Trump represents, stood up and said they’d do all the could to stop him. This is the group I’m willing to bet on, and not just in the 39th: not the leaders of revolutions, but stalwart, ordinary, relatable folks who see the risks clearly and step up to avert them.
Donovan –
I really do respect Cisneros as well. It certainly would have been easy to win the lottery and sit back and enjoy life. I won’t be disappointed to vote for him if he ends up being the choice. Tran and Jammal to me have the best ‘’life stories’’ as immigrants or children of immigrants working their way through school, but I do understand when you say that Cisneros’ mild demeanor, which is precisely what makes me less enthusiastic about his potential success as a legislator, may well appeal more to the typical voter.
Based on new information about his campaign, and certain egregious unfair and super personal attacks from either Jammal or Team Jammal, I have to change my tune on him: I liked him, until I learned he was spreading nasty rumors.
Up until last night, I had thought he looked like a promising Democrat. But if he mixes quips with punches below the belt at targets there is no reason to attack, then may he have no future whatsoever, and may he be properly blamed as part of the problem if the Reps take the top two in the 39th.
A credible poll is out, putting Gil on top, I think I need to do a full-fledged story on it:
The poll matches others I’ve seen, and looks like the numbers haven’t changed all that much in weeks/months. Gil’s got quite a ground game going on.
But with 15% undecided, and a historical pattern of more Reps actually voting in the primaries (which may or may not actually happen this time, but should at least set our expectations) – it’s still a slog.
BTW, looks like Phil Liberatore has a new ploy to break into the top 10: supposedly, he’s bringing back Joe Arpaio for an event this week in Yorba Linda. That ought to fire up the hellfire squad!
https://www.ocweekly.com/ex-sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-appear-in-yorba-linda-next-week-amid-rising-xenophobia/
Great — the jagoff can pull as many votes away from the competitive candidate ass he’s like. Thanks, Phil!
Great — if that’s true, then I can vote Thorburn and try to shut the Republicans out of the Top Two.
In terms of the Arpaio event, it’s one of those items that all well-meaning Dems will want to show up to and protest – to draw out media coverage – to get his name out there in big letters – to draw every last crazy Republican to vote for him. Shucks, with enough coverage he might rocket from <1% all the way up to, what, 5%?
No, “No Name,” you’re not a voice in the wilderness — your comment is welcome and you make good points.
I think, and this is backed up by my getting reactions to video of him from various persons less interested in politics, that Jammal is currently a lousy speaker: he’s a party insider’s view of what a populist would look like. He would benefit GREATLY by climbing up the rungs of the political ladder more slowly, without skipping right to Congress. He’s impressive as a legislative wonk, but being the elected is different — and it’s a skill one pretty much only learns on the campaign trail itself (or, as in Young Kim’s case, at the elbow of someone who is.). He hadn’t Yet learned that common touch yet: he seems scripted (with, as I’ve said, one truly great line regarding his heritage.). And it’s not at all a foregone conclusion that money will flow in to the contender; there is a *truckload* if races both for Congress and state office demanding money this year and it is far from obvious that CA-39 will survive triage giving the quality of the Republican candidate in November. That’s why the party — me included, this time — has wanted a self-funder. I think that Sam has done himself a disservice by aiming too high — he should run for City Council or move to AD-55 and prepare to take on Phillip Chen, using the skills that he is ONLY NOW perhaps developing to aim at a lower goal.
I think that he’ll look back on this race in 5-10 years and realize that, given that it was not the place for a sacrificial lamb, his choice of race was a mistake — and, selfishly, I hope that he’ll realize that those of us telling him so we’re trying to help both him and the party (though admittedly not in that order.). He’s a good guy and would be a gifted elected, but being able to impress OCYD is VERY different from being able to impress non-wonks. I certainly hope that the sole Dem in the runoff (if there is one) will hire him to seek his advice on policy as well as his slice of the district. If there is a large group of activists out there behind him, he can help bring them in — and lead that battalion.
“I think that Sam has done himself a service by aiming too high”
I think Greg meant ‘disservice’ there, and I concur. Sam SHOULD have a bright future in the Dems. But in this present, the 1-3% he might pull on June will come from another Dem: if we get Democalypse, he will shoulder blame in that. I don’t care about the effort to prove ‘one need not start with millions’ – I care about DACA. Taxes. Regulations. Congress.
We don’t need to win a Dem majority to shift the initiative on these things: just enough seats to prevent a radical rightwing series of scoundrels from going further on their current trajectory. Kim? Huff? Nelson? As freshmen legislators, any would become a Trumpist 90% of the time, no matter what they say.
You’re right, Donovan: it was “disservice,” and it’s now fixed. Thanks. I do think that he’ll get the blame — butt-covering among DPOC-types is already in full bloom. Too bad no one from the party leadership had been arguing persistently since January 2017 that we had to do our own “fair broker” polls in these races — oh wait, there WAS someone doing that, and it was me.
The only cogent reasons I can imagine that that’d choose Kim as to one to which they’d try to stampede votes are that she’s either in third place or she has the highest negatives. Otherwise, deciding that Royce’s heir apparent is the least dangerous politically does seem weird to me. I might have suggested slamming all three of them and funding an ad promoting Steve Vargas. (But that’s too clever for Democrats.)
I started writing a full-throated pro-Jammal argument, but I don’t think anyone’s going to read this far down. What puzzles me is that I have seen no updated polling. If Jammal is really at 1-3%, I agree that those are votes the party can’t afford to lose. But what if the race has changed dramatically as more have tuned in? That is the sense I get from my conversations.
This seems important to know precisely because of your and Donovan’s pros and cons about Cisneros and Thorburn up above. Each one of those potential points of concern is an attack ad waiting to be written, even if not true. If any of them *are* true about the one who makes it into the general, goodbye Democratic seat. Added to those are the lack of governing experience, the carpetbagging, and the ‘’buying the election’’ slur, and I think neither of them is a perfect candidate for a bound-to-be-razor-close general election. I give Cisneros the edge because of the naval service and the philanthropy, but I still don’t think he’s a shoo-in.
It seems like in a race like this which is getting national attention, some newspaper would have published some polling data by now, but all I’ve seen are figures from almost two months ago from Cisneros’ and Thorburn’s internal polls. Is this lack of data typical? Can we expect any before the election?
Sure we read this far down! And people who come to these posts tend to be legitimately interested and capable of following a conversation, so keep going.
The internal polls are terrible. The results are torqued and serve mainly to convince doomed candidates stay in the race. As I write above, and have written often before, DPOC had to have “fair broker” polls out there, ideally taxing the candidates’ campaigns (as well as DCCC and maybe Steyer money) to do so.
I don’t know what if any new polls are coming out. The prospect that one or more might (here and in Gov & Senate) are what prevents me from turning in my ballot early. I can say that I hear NOTHING about a late shift to Sam, and people usually do try to get that stuff to me.
Tran signs are suddenly up — not enough to do her much good, but in time to further dilute the Democratic vote. I’m still thinking “shutout.”
I read this far down. I feel compelled to step into this after 2016, but still respect the views of those who’ve been engaged for much longer than I.
“I’m still thinking “shutout.””
Me too. Reps turn out reliably in mid-term elections. Dems do not. Unless some group participates in numbers that we’ve not seen before in the 39th (Latinos?) – a repeat of 2014 is highly likely (two Reps fighting, the incumbent’s machine amassing 70% of the vote, and leaving a war chest large enough to finance dozens of down ticket races). Blue waves may hit, unicorns may attack, and anything else could happen: but realistically, we have to look at what the candidates bring to the table (and hopefully, the voting booths) with a skeptical magnifying glass.
Since your knowledge is the reason I read the blog, it would be foolish to disregard it. Maybe the reasons my conversations suggest a more pro-Jammal bent is just because I’m too darned convincing and I should shut up! I’d still sure like to see some numbers, though.
I’d like to see numbers too. I’m happy for your presence (and thrilled by Donovan’s) — I do the best I can on the D side, as does Vern, but we cannot come near to covering the waterfront, nor can we claim a monopoly on insights. The more smart people with eyes open that we have in these discussions, the better that will be. I strongly believe that knowledge best proceeds from dialectic discussion.
What I can’t stand, along with anonymous character assassins, are people out to disrupt the whole project for their own political purposes. The conservatives who used to do that — Tardif, Fiala, the Donkey Hooker lawyer, some others — are gone now, as are the semi-liberals (KLND in his many manifestations), and it has been addition by subtraction. I respect the intelligence and seriousness of our conservatives here (mostly Ryan and Zenger, and of course Cynthia when she shows up) and, yes, the historical perspective of the ‘Ships, even if sometimes I can’t follow what they write. I hope that you newbies will stick around.
The wild card I don’t see being discussed is ballot order. In the case of CD CA-39 the first serious candidate (realistically) is Kim at #4. Nelson is next to last.
How this might figure I to the uninformed electorate (which in my opinion is <60%) is anybodys guess.
I really like structuring your reasoning in the Socratic method. To me, the most important questions are #2 and #5. I also appreciate Donovan’s comments to challenge your answers.
The NRCC “seems FAR more scared of Cisneros right now — but that seems to be because they think that Thorburn has already been destroyed by the report Cisneros put out on him,” you wrote. Unlike the DCCC’s duo attacks, the NRCC decided to singularly focus on attacking only one of the Dem front-runners. I think the NRCC’s strategic MOTIVE in their attack focus can elucidate in answering question #5.
Why do you suggest that their attack focus “seems to be because they think that Thorburn has already been destroyed by the report Cisneros put out on him”? I’m unaware of the NRCC attacking Throburn prior to that report. By Cisneros’ own polling, his margin over Thorburn has remained unchanged which suggests that the report hasn’t impaired Thorburn.
NRCC’s attacks have been limited to amplifying bad press on Cisneros, presumably because they have limited oppo research at this time. Why isn’t the NRCC amplifying Cisneros’ attacks on Thorburn then? The simplest explanation is that they’re hoping Thorburn drags down Cisneros in vote shares.
Since I haven’t found any results of Republican polling, I hypothesize that the NRCC is confident of a Republican receiving the most votes. Under this hypothesis, they can shut-out if they drag down the leading Dem candidate. In the absence of Republican polling, it’d be impossible to support/refute my hypothesis.
In any case, NRCC’s strategy must be motivated by their fear of running against Cisneros. The followup question would be: why do they fear running against him? Based on the followup question, its corollary would be: do you think their fear is justified?