.
.
.
So, for those of you North County voters who’d been waiting for a reliable poll to help you decide the wisest way to vote in the 39th Congressional district, the Tulchin Research group has released one of 500 likely primary voters, showing Democrat Gil Cisneros leading decisively, with Republicans Young Kim and Bob Huff battling it out for second place, and Democrat Andy Thorburn hanging on at fourth:
Thoughts: This shows the Republicans know what they were doing when they focus attacks on Gil; and also it doesn’t seem like those attacks had much impact, unless he was originally even higher.
Some progressives see this as a chance to try and push Andy up past 14% and get an unexpected Dem-on-Dem general, how great would that be? I wonder what sort of voters those “undecideds” are.
I’m glad to see that Shawn‘s sanctuary-bashing didn’t help him. The voters who were obsessed with keeping Mexicans out of the country probably went with the TRUE hater, Arpaio’s favorite Phil Liberatore (who was not included in this poll.)
It’s too bad about Jammal, but apparently you need lots of your own money to compete as a Democrat in these races. Sam or Jay Chen would have been the best Congressmen, if all things were equal in the election. But even now, they could probably help make a D-on-D general possible, if (Sam dropped out and) they both endorsed Andy.
And then, down in South County…
Progressive firebrand Colonel Douglas Applegate continues to poll consistently as the Democratic frontrunner, and often the frontrunner period, such as in these two FM3 Research polls from February and late April:
Both Doug and Rocky took a lot of attacks during that period (and since) – Rocky from his own Republican establishment for being insufficiently right-wing, Doug mainly by his Dem opponent Mike Levin (and Levin’s even-worse supporters like Dan Chmielewski) with the same usual bullshit exaggerations about his marriage.
But it doesn’t seem like the constant attacks against Doug HELPED Mike at all. It is Sara Jacobs, whom nobody seems to dislike, and doesn’t campaign negatively but is spending millions of dollars, who is gaining ground. And Mike, who had seemed formidable up here in the OC where all his corporatist supporters are, has been stuck in 3rd to 5th place consistently. Maybe he should think of AT LEAST stopping his attacks on the Colonel, if he’s too stubborn and proud to bow out.
It’s sad to see nice-guy moderate Republican Chavez overtaken by the financial crook and immigrant basher Diane Harkey, who has the endorsement of slimy retiring incumbent Darrell Issa and the support of both County Parties.
In short though, this is not like CA-39 where we Democrats can hold out a hope of shutting out the Republicans (by for example rushing to support Sara) – Democrats must coalesce around the frontrunner, Colonel Applegate, who’s most likely to be facing horrible Harkey. And at that point CA-49 will be hearing a lot from this writer.
In closing, listen to Doug’s kids:
Diane harkey would be a dream opponent against any democrat. You will recall she along with most of the others on the BOE are still being investigated by prosecutors after betty yee and john chiang blew the whistle on them resulting in jerry brown breaking up the BOE
*We love Diane, but she is for the extension of the 241 Freeway and that is a non starter for most of us in South County.
How the hell can you possibly love Diane harkey?
The Winships manage to love the most grotesque politicians … as long as they treat them with charm and “return their e-mails.”
*Yeah, so true….Diane invites us to her parties and we don’t have to pay.
Diane answers our e-mails and keeps us on her mailing list. Diane even invited us to the Federal Tax Reform Debate last year via the Phone Forum. We call that engaged in the process. Now, if only Doug Applegate could do the same thing. We would be honored.
cause… We are so easily bought!!
*Our bet is that Doug already got the phone call. That is fine we wish him well and he
gets our vote. Now…..the biggest question of all: Will he have to approve of Trump
Appointees for Judges and the like?
*???
What phone call?
And you don’t live in that district.
And he’s not running for Senate, so no he won’t have to decide on any judges, and he’s not a Republican, so he wouldn’t approve or “have to approve” on any Trump appointees even if he had the chance.
Re the 49th: Hearing about Republicans ripping up a Latino marine in Camp Pendleton makes me giddy. Applegate impressed me in the 90 seconds I had to speak with him and in his public presentation a year ago.
For the 39th, every time I interact with Cisneros, I like him a little more. Steady and decent – you’re underestimating him.
So the Dem establishment failed to force carpet bagger Sukhee Kang upon State Senate District 29 in 2016. But they are at it again with out of district candidates Cisneros in CD 39 (yes, technically doesn’t have to live in the district) and Kerr (does have to but doesn’t) for BOS District 4. Blech!
Why is the Democratic establishment so undemocratic?
We need to gett rid of the Prop 14 top 2 primary so they cannot keep using that as an excuse. Its like that whole lesser of the evils Presidentisl election crap has made its way into corrupting all other elections.
This is not a democracy. It has been destroyed by power hungry party leaders. Geez. I could go on.
I think the case of Cisneros is different from Kang or Kerr – a shitload of guys (him being the richest and most lovable) rushed to run for Ed Royce’s old seat, and after watching a long time the Dem est. weighed in on the guy they thought could win.
Unless you’re calling ME the Dem establishment! And I hadn’t even made up my mind till recently!
I said I could go on. So here’s one more comment.
Why is it that “you need lots of your own money to compete as a Democrat?”
It gives the appearance that Dem voters can be manipulated by loads of campaign materials and then, I guess, Rep voters are more principled in their personal decision-making process when selecting a candidate for which to vote.
Wake up Dems. Stop being led by the nose by the biggest spender. That Is Not What Democracy Looks Like.
“Why is it that “you need lots of your own money to compete as a Democrat?”
Because you don’t have a slate of billionaires who will boost your campaign as soon as you announce and tear down rivals through media channels dedicated to no other purpose.
It’s not that Dems are manipulated or Reps are principled: it’s that media has always favored wealth.
Until you change their business model, you need a fortune to run a competitive race – either a fortune of your own, one obtained through parents/grandparents (Sara Jacobs), or pieces of one provided by others (who seldom donate entirely for charitable reasons).
Donovan, you’re talking to a great woman who’s run repeatedly for several offices with even less money than a Democrat would ever get – she’s a Green!
(Just letting you know since you’re new in town … multiple runs for Fullerton Council and Assembly, I think more…)
Vern, I am confused what difference my party registration would make in this discussion.
My concern is that Dems are gonna get all excited about electing a guy who will not do what most Dem voters want but will do what the monied Dem Party power brokers want – more of the same and not:
Single Payer
Free college tuition
Immigration reform
and an end to endless war.
Good luck to my progressive friends who might hold their nose to vote for a person to get nothing more than the satisfaction of saying that you got someone to fill a seat on your side of the aisle.
Because Donovan was telling you that Republicans get a lot more corporate & millionaire money, which pretty much dwarfs the money Democrats get which is mainly from unions. And I was just telling him that you run with even less money than a Democrat.
It seemed to give some context to the discussion, since like I said he is new in the OC.
I thought Vern was praising you, Jane, and gently suggesting I refrain from disrespect. Yet I hadn’t intended any, and stand by my view: media has always been ‘wealth-centric’ at best, propagandistic more often. To get a message out, one either works with what exists, or creates something new (also using what exists, but at considerable cost).
That said,
“My concern is that Dems are gonna get all excited about electing a guy who will not do what most Dem voters want…”
Really? In what way? The fact that Cisneros is a Dem who doesn’t need to beg favors suggests he can do what he thinks is right without obtaining permission from anyone else on issues I care about (e.g., the OC North Basin ‘superfund’ listing – something I think could be a good idea given the recalcitrance of local players to clean up other messes and the history of entrenched players passing the buck and turning their gaze).
I don’t know the Green candidates and haven’t evaluated them. I’ve expressed my reservations about Thorburn at length (they are not slurs or accusations of impropriety to me – just red flags that he hasn’t addressed), and as for Jammal, I’ve recently learned some new twists on him (and/or his campaign) from people not associated with any of the campaigns but which are outrageous and infuriating.
On the issues you list:
-Single Payer – Cisneros is a strong supporter, and has family history many in the OC can understand (his dad going to Mexico to get treatments for Agent Orange exposure that the VA wouldn’t cover). For Thorburn, I fear what may lurk in his closet – facts that even a DCCC research squad cannot uncover, but an insurance firm with $1-2m to burn could (and wouldn’t hesitate to do if they felt it could safeguard hundreds of millions).
Free college tuition – what other candidate has personally done anything at all about college tuition so far?
Immigration reform – I don’t see much that can be done except blocking things from getting worse – and that will only happen with a Dem majority. So first issue is, “can he help take the majority” – and second is what, if anything, would he do with it? As I see it, long-term, both the OC and CA depend upon Latino communities rising up and taking leadership roles.
end to endless war – Dems are divided here. I’m probably a bit more hawkish than most Dems – favoring ‘humanitarian interventions’ a la Milosevic/Qaddafi, and by extension, seething with fury that Bashar Al Assad was not squashed weeks after he dared to use chemical weapons. I have no idea where Cisneros or Applegate stand on those matters. All other things being equal, I’ve found those who actually served in the military have a better sense of the risks than those who have not.
Sadly, Gil Cisneros is not “a strong supporter of single payer.@. From his website — which … could use some updating:
On “CisnerosForCongress,” click on “Gil’s Plan” and scroll diwn to “Healthcare for All” — which he doesn’t actually support. He’s much better than Royce, but he’s spouting the moderate DNC line that would support a public option — “Medicare for All (Who Can Buy Into It.)”. This is part of the root obsession of the DNC: “Never Support Anything That Could Be Described as Socialist” — even though Canada, the UK, mainland industrialized Europe, Japan, etc. enjoys ACTUAL single-payer, generally without being “socialist” overall.
Why? Because it’s cheaper, more efficient, as well as more humane. That’s compared not only to the present system, and far more than to what Trump and Pence would bring us — but also to the likes of this.
“Health care is a right, not a privilege. I will defend the ACA from Ed Royce’s attacks and fight for increased access and more affordable care for everyone.
“President Trump and Ed Royce are doing everything they can to sabotage and repeal the Affordable Care Act, with legislation that would strip healthcare from millions and increase premiums. As long as Republicans control Congress, they will continue to attack the Affordable Care Act.
“I will defend the ACA from their attacks and fight for increased access and more affordable care for everyone. We need to work to fix and improve the ACA, not repeal it. I will fight for the public option that was originally intended to be part of the ACA, and give people the option to buy into Medicare. We need to work to stabilize insurance markets and have the government directly negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies to bring costs down.”
See — he wants to protect the ACA. That’s nice — and a worthwhile short-term dial — but it’s not really “healthcare for all,” and Trump has already shown us how easy it is to break.
What does Thorburn have to say?
“As a global healthcare provider, Andy has seen every type of health care system imaginable, and he knows we can do better. We spend more money per person on healthcare than any other country on the planet, yet more people in America die due to a lack of care than in any other developed nation. He believes healthcare should be a right, not just a privilege for those who can afford it. To fix our healthcare crisis, we need to:
• Enact Medicare for All as soon as possible.
• Lower prescription drug prices and fight for prescription drug transparency.
• Protect the Affordable Care Act while building the Medicare for All system.”
THAT is “supporting single payer”! THAT is visionary. Not only is it better policy, but it’s more rousing to voters as well! Vern might want to think of it as “Chiangworthy”!
They are not, not, not the same on single-payer. Thorburn can be one if the party’s pine spokespersons on this issue, given his experience. Gil may — MAY! — be a little better than Correa.
Greg: Well, it’s not unlike the debate between Hillary and Bernie on minimum wages: Clinton at $12/hr, Sanders at $15/hr. She argued that $12 was an ‘easier’ number to get a unified Dem bloc behind – indicating limits to how much she thought she could dominate and enforce her will on that bloc. He argued that demanding a higher number would result in a better negotiation position (which might also yield $12/hr as a compromise in the end).
Thing is, some of the Bernie backers were so pissed off that the Dems favored Clinton over Sanders that they stayed home. Did that cause her to lose, or something else? Did Bernie backers stay home in other winnable senate and house races? Opinions vary. But the fact is that federal minimum wages remain $7.25.
To me, health care is a variation on the same considerations.
And Dr. Mai Khanh Tran? What evil deed has the pediatrician refugee wreaked upon unknowing voters?
She’s raised some serious cash.
Is Cisneros blameless or are we overlooking his misdeeds because he’s the anointed one?
Just hoping I can ferret out why Gil’s the guy for reasons other than he has the dough and was hand picked by party cronies.
Tran? Ah, I have nothing negative to say about her. I like her story. I like her demeanor. I like her as a doctor, as a woman, as a refugee who made it to Harvard, worked as a janitor, then made it big – and who reminds us all why refugees are crucial Americans. If I didn’t like Cisneros more (and this was only after a great deal of soul-searching), she’d be my next choice among the candidates still standing. Unfortunately, she’s coming in 8th – which makes her more likely to serve a spoiler role than break through.
“Is Cisneros blameless or are we overlooking his misdeeds because he’s the anointed one?”
Which misdeeds are you referring to? Greg and I parsed the Fazli claims (Greg’s view: ‘bizarre’ – my view: ‘bizarre…at best, and probably worse’). The ‘thorburntaxevader’ site? Greg does see a ‘misdeed’ there, but I see it as simple opp research – no allegations of anything illegal, just rounding up the claims that most people couldn’t but ought to think over.
“Just hoping I can ferret out why Gil’s the guy for reasons other than he has the dough and was hand picked by party cronies.”
I thought the cronies also encouraged Tran to run, back when it looked like it was 4-5 Dems v. Royce and a strong primary was crucial to getting someone who might break through to emerge. If they discouraged her from running when it became a free-for-all, then that’s simply a reflection of a changed landscape: it’s simply too important to take a chance that the Dems splinter 4 ways, while the Reps splinter 3 ways (and 2 break through).
None of that is a solid positive case for Gil. And that’s hard to explain, because my gut is ultimately what is thinking for me: I like his bearing, modest, gentle, decent. There’s no egomaniac ambition. No narcissism.
He’s sort of the ideal soccer dad you always wanted to watch over the kids on the field – the guy who would keep an eye on things, calmly talk the kids down if they get into a scrap, and would keep thugs away from them all.
That’s probably not a compelling case that will convince you if you’re looking for the knockout political justification for why him v. all the others. Thing is, I’m used to finding reasons not to trust people: I watched him pretty closely, and all I see so far are reasons he deserves trust.
I like Gil and I think your characterization of him is quite fair.
Thorburn has been endorsed by Our Revolution. That’s even better than being a soccer dad.
http://www.politicaldata.com/absentee-vote-tracker/
Note that in the 39th, Reps currently have a 12% advantage in returned ballots.
The problems with Dr. Tran is that she’s a bad campaigner with few ties (and even few appearances, if you don’t count roadside signs) in the district, If she makes the top two against a Republican, I’ll support her without hesitation — but right now it looks like she’s just going to split the vote and allow a D-on-D.
Unlike my colleagues here, I’m for Thorburn — yeah, the insurance exec hundred millionaire — because he’s VERY good on single payer, more so than Cisneros, and I think that if elected he will be a powerful voice on the issue, because of the novelty of an insurance exec who knows where the bodies are buried (so to speak) essentially saying that the industry should be put out of business — or at least become government contractors. He’s an eloquent guy who I think has walked the walk — while I’m afraid that Cisneros has largely been propped up by Latinos to whose causes he donates.
As for why Dems are looking for a self-funder: well, Republicans are going to spend enormous amounts of money on this district — we’ll see ads upon ads in the fall — and we want someone who could keep up. Jay Chen would have been ideal; Phil Janowicz (while a hell of a nice guy) probably wouldn’t — and that’s ALL about money.
You’re completely right about Prop 14. It is to the Dems establishment’s eternal discredit that it doesn’t make getting rid of it a top priority. But the fact is that both major parties are more afraid of third parties further from the middle than they are about the other major party. It’s pure chickenshit — and you can rest assured that I’ve pushed on this issue many times in both local *and* state party forums. Top Two is a dumb idea whose time has passed.
Tran seems like a nice person with an inspiring life story, but the impression of her that I formed at the Democratic candidates’ forum at FC was that she wasn’t able to discuss policy. I never heard her specifically address any public policy issue or make any public policy proposal.
When the candidates were asked about health care, I expected her to finally speak up and sound like a policy wonk, since she’s a doctor and presumably knowledgeable about the topic. Instead it was more of the same kind of warm and fuzzy emotional talk. I got the possible impression that she was the only candidate there who wasn’t in favor of some kind of single-payer or medicare-for-all system, but it was hard to be sure because of the way she talked.
That explains my own perception of her better than I’ve done myself.
I like her helping save toddlers, but she’s aiming for a position where she’d be making laws — and she seems to have little interest in it.
By the way, if my memory serves me, Tulchin’s reputation among pollsters is akin to Mr. Pibb’s reputation among carbonated sodas. You can ingest it, but you don’t want to swirl it around in your mouth for very long.
Today’s post from Ballotpedia is about Rep and Dem national party leadership playing king-maker in local jurisdictions. Please see the following link about the DCCC.
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_factional_conflict_in_U.S._House_primaries,_2018
The CDP is pretty much the same as the DCCC, and the DPOC is tightly bound to the CDP. I don’t really care whether I’m oppressed by a king, a duke, or a count — do you? I’d like leadership to pay more attention to the peasants.
Some districts have fought back.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dccc-democratic-primaries-congress-progressives/
I’m sure that there must be a pony in there somewhere, but experience suggests otherwise. Still, we can dream.
Reading the articles Jane posted reminds me that CA-39 is, quite literally, a race between a DCCC anointed “Red-to-Blue” candidate and a Berniecrat-endorsed candidate.
That makes things a lot simpler for people who align on one or another side of that divide. (Vern and Donovan apparently excepted.) I don’t think that there’s a difference in electability there; so I’m happier going with the Berniecrat, even if I had already reached that conclusion on other grounds.
Well if that poll is at all reliable, we will have at least one Dem in the final (Gil) and it’s safe to vote for the Berniecrat (Andy) and not outside the realm of possibility to end up with a Cisneros vs. Thorburn runoff.
That’d be a great race, and I would then back the Berniecrat.
Which reminds me, the number of ballots received in ALL these OC districts isn’t looking good for Dems yet. Are we all waiting to turn in our ballots till Tuesday? (Like I always do.) We really have to get out the vote Tuesday or all this is wankery.
We all see different things. To me, the 15% ‘undecided’ in 2018 may work much like the ‘undecided’ pool in 2016 – with an outcome Dems never anticipated (not just in the presidential, but up and down the tickets as well). What’s the history? Reps vote in primaries more than Dems. Will that change now? There’s a chance it will, but it’s merely a possibility.
Who among the Bernie backers in 2016 saw Thorburn back then? Plenty of Dems saw Cisneros long before 2018…and not just candidates seeking money. Did Thorburn become a Berniecrat once it was clear that he wouldn’t get a nod from the DCCC? Did Thorburn oust Chen (who had proven credentials) by tying up his main backers?
As for ‘Our Revolution’ – I note the recent “Politico” coverage – https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-democrats-2018-599331. The bit about Figaro is telling: how many ‘Bernie Backers’ were really Trump agents seeking to divide and spoil Dem races?
For the gubernatorial, there’s a realistic prospect of a Dem v. Dem general election – which ought to help every Dem candidate down ticket. For the 39th? Unlikely in the extreme. Indeed, the risk of a Rep v. Rep race is too great to be tolerated, esp. if we have a very good Dem to back.
Oh, puhhhleeeze. We may have to have a transcribed messenger dialogue on this — just to help boost turnout!
(We should both get to call the other “you ignorant slut!” It’s only fair.)
(We should both get to call the other “you ignorant slut!” It’s only fair.)
That’s not fair at all: I couldn’t possibly call you that, and when it comes to the OC, I am indeed rather ignorant (though not a slut). But if I’ve erred, I always welcome correction.
With Cisneros polling well, we have good reason NOT to expect a Rep v Rep race in the 39th. But in 2016, we had even better reason NOT to expect a Trump victory, based on all the polling data and projections available.
And as for Thorburn, is there a Bernie backer who can say anything about his Bernie efforts back then? Did he donate? Did he finance Bernie efforts in SoCal? I can respect a new convert to a faith. But I’d like to know when that faith actually took hold, and why.
(Psssst: Are you familiar with the very early Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” versions with Jane Curtin and Dan Ackroyd as co-anchors? If not, it’s no wonder if you think me mad, for the moment ….)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91XUyg9iWM
My belief that he is and was a Bernie backer is based on more than his say-so: it’s based on the fact that the Bernie-initiated organization, Our Revolution, has endorsed him. Furthermore, they did so despite his being an insurance executive — not generally their favorite flavor of tea. I presume that, eager to “protect their brand” against especially the most obvious charges of selling out, they vetted him pretty aggressively before endorsing.
Cisneros, meanwhile, got the Red-to-Blue “de fact endorsement” nod from DCCC over his fellow self-funder. I don’t actually need this prop for my argument, but — my guess is that, especially after compiling that substantially bogus “report” that they had Cisneros pretend to have commissioned, they vetted Thorburn pretty extensively too! (In terms of ideology, I mean, not character. If he was the more conservative among them, they’d have tried to protect him. Don’t make me provide evidence for e this assertion, DCCC!)
Our Revolution. Well… (just as an essential devil’s advocate who does trust Thorburn)…
I just hope they’re a little more serious than Our Revolution Costa Mesa, who is not only endorsing independent suicide bomber Kensinger in CA-48, but, seriously, LENORE FOR DA, who has just gotten new “moral turpitude” charges added to her plaudits.
“I presume that, eager to “protect their brand” against especially the most obvious charges of selling out, they vetted him pretty aggressively before endorsing.”
My presumptions work differently: a group does what it can with the extremely tight resources they have. Yet why did Our Revolution back Thorburn over Chen – a candidate you know, like, and even trust – one they knew about as well? Chen is/was certainly impressive.
My guess is their vetting process consisted of an intern doing a few minutes of googling, before they turned to considering Thorburn’s positives (donations = they can meet payroll for paid staff this month), and negatives (his opponents don’t like him, but since they’ve been pegged by the DCCC, that’s an even stronger reason to like him – and even they didn’t allege criminal misconduct, so…). Not ‘aggressive vetting’ at all – just business as usual for orgs that are desperately trying to keep themselves afloat (that’s also my take on the Figaro story at ‘Our Revolution,’ and probably the Lenore nod from the Costa Mesa group as well).
I don’t actually know anything about how those decisions were made: only, I think I’ve got a reasonable basis for guessing.
Ah, I remember that skit now…from like a 30-year anniversary ep. Jon Stewart was always much cooler. In terms of making cool slurs to boost turnout – I’m game to try…
They’re presumably basing that on their first impression of Lenore. As you recall, my first impression of Lenore was also favorable: she talks a good game about serious issues. Then I learned more about her. I grew disillusioned. Then I learned even more and grew disgusted. Then I learned even more….
I can see how a Bernie group could be impressed by her pitch — but she is too divorced from reality for the magic to last for long. Sometimes, though, as with endorsements, that’s just long enough.
John Thomas, one of Shawn Nelson’s consultants, called B’S on this poll specifically, based on its skewed numbers of Latinos voting at a three to one more than expected turnout.
I wouldn’t celebrate just yet if I were Gil.
Besides I heard he didn’t even choose the winning numbers it was all luck: a quick pick, how smart can he Be? (Joke)
How did John Thomas access the pool of polled ‘likely’ voters? How would he know how many Latino voters were polled? Simply making guesses at the number of Spanish speaking pollsters who conducted the poll doesn’t tell him anything about who they actually spoke to (esp. if most of those pollsters were bilingual).
That said, the poll itself notes a 5% margin for error, doesn’t diverge much from other polls I’ve seen, and that 15% undecided pool says a lot. In my book, the odds look like this:
65% Gil v. a Republican rival
34% Two Republicans v. each other
1% Gil v. Thorburn
Note that oddsmakers gave Clinton a 75% chance of beating Trump a week before the election in 2016. We’ll just have to do what we can and make things come out as we hope.
I like that Freudian typo: “said it in an op-ed price.”
As of June 1, 2018, according to ‘Political Data Inc’ – Rep absentee voters have turned out in MUCH greater quantities in both the 39th and the 48th.
In the 39th, it’s 34% Dems, and 46% Reps. The NPP voters & ‘other’ voters are 20% (which may overlap with the ‘undecided’ = no way to guess how they’ll come down). Assuming the numbers hold, Gil MAY break through, but a vote for Andy will probably be tossed – your 2nd choice will be either Huff or Kim (unless you believe that Dems will turn out in person on Tuesday…in which case…based on what? hope? has it ever happened before?).
In the 48th, it’s 36% Dems and 46% Reps.
In the 49th, it’s 38% Dems, and 39% Reps. (Note that Issa won the district by less than 1%).
It was a methodology question, John – not a freakout. Unless Thomas has access to the data set (which is possible, but I see no place where the pollsters suggest they’ve made it available), his prognostication is based on a guess.
“As an aside, while you are new to OC, the district and the blog, LatinX voters don’t necessarily speak Spanish! But, you’ll get it someday.”
I may be new to the OC, but I did learn English fairly well: I never made that claim, and if you worked on your English comprehension, you’d get it some day too. 😉
As an anti-Trump NPP voter, I’m extremely disappointed with how the CA-39 race is shaping up.
On the Republican side, we have Young Kim, whose 2016 assembly campaign played to homophobia; Shawn Nelson, who is a Trump supporter; and Bob Huff who I assume to be guilty of trumpism since he hasn’t proved himself innocent.
Among the Democrats, there is not a single candidate who voted in the district last year, none who have ever held elected office, and only one (Jammal) with any experience in government. Cisneros and Thorburn have attacked each other in such nasty ways that if either of them makes it to the general election, the Republicans’ opposition research will already have been done for them.
Thorburn’s attacks on Cisneros seem especially distasteful to me. Thorburn’s flier accuses Cisneros of owning non-socially-responsible stocks, which I suppose means that Cisneros has money in an index fund. I guess I’m guilty of that charge too, as are many people who have no other viable option for their 401(k) or 403(b). Thorburn’s campaign workers showed up to our house twice last week, and when I told one of them that Thorburn was my third choice, she tried to insinuate that it was somehow a problem that Cisneros’s money came from the lottery. Yeesh.
“As an anti-Trump NPP voter, I’m extremely disappointed with how the CA-39 race is shaping up.”
Yeah…I get it. And yet, for all the reasons to be angry, consider: have you ever seen any Dem, ever, spend as much on the 39th as Thorburn and Cisneros have so far on this primary? Whatever anger you see, perhaps there’s some basis for hope too: if it weren’t a winnable fight, nobody would bother.
Today, I met one voter, saw his home, saw a young boy (his son?) in a wheelchair, grandma (?) performing suction on him so he didn’t choke as he breathed with an O2 tank…and I stood there, a little ashamed, thinking: God, we’ve got to save this kid’s health care. This is real.
Basketball teams may trash talk each other, bruise and bash each other – all part of the struggle – they may hate each other for a season, but will respect each other eventually, and in a way, even the trash talk is just a mark of respect for a strong adversary. The stakes are higher in this struggle than they are in any sport, and everyone seems to be giving it their all – good, bad, and ugly – but end of the day, I’m convinced every Dem candidate wants to guard that kid’s health care from Trump’s buddies who would just flip a switch and throw him under the bus with a shrug. We cannot let that happen.
I think that you’re going to hear the “getting rich from winning the lottery is a problem” perspective a lot if Cisneros wins — largely from people who turn out not to exist by the names they use once you look into it.
I’m not going to criticize him for it: it’s not a “presence of evil” sort of thing, and wouldn’t be even if he had hoarded it rather than making good use of it, as he has done. It’s more an “absence of comparative good.” I think that amassing one’s fortune by winning the lottery, and using a lot of that money for good works, is a good thing. But I think that amassing one’s fortune by working hard and (as I believe) ethically in a generally unethical industry is more admirable, mostly in what it says about someone’s abilities and to a lesser extent in what it says about their ethics. Thorburn, if you credit his self-narrative, has really done some amazing things — not least of which is coming out for single-payer as an insurance executive. Most everything that Cisneros has done with his fortune is good — but not especially hard to do if one is morally centered. I think that Republicans will score points against Cisneros with arguments that he made it in life due to luck rather than to hard work. (They would never use the same logic against a Republican lottery winner — unless trying to defeat them as a competitor.)
My rebuttal is that none of the three leading Republican candidates, though this is aimed much less at Nelson than the others, made it through HONEST hard work — and that Cisneros making it through luck but then channeling his good fortune very responsibly is far, far better than either Huff’s or Kim’s despicable “hard work.” Lots of corrupt thieves “work hard” too.
But we’ll leave most of that for the summer and fall.
Greg: After this is all said and done, the only points I care about scoring are the ones that make it less likely Kim, Huff, or Nelson will turn off that kid’s oxygen.