The Jungle Primary (General Thoughts & Results)

[Ghost of LL 15606]

So it appears that both the Democrats and Republicans avoided catastrophe yesterday in California's "jungle primary."  Democrats got a candidate on the November ballot in every congressional race they are shooting for in November; Republicans got a candidate on the gubernatorial ballot on November.  The latter may be every bit as important as the former--if the Republicans didn't have a candidate in either the Senate or Governor's race, that would likely have a very negative impact on Republican turnout.  As it is, John Cox won't beat Newsom in the governor's race, but at least he'll turn out some Republicans.

That outcome is interesting from a broader political-science standpoint.  And let me state my bias upfront--I think the jungle primary is something that sounds really interesting in a PoliSci classroom, but it sucks in real life.  It was intended to weaken political parties--because that is seen as a desirable outcome for some reason--but in practice it strengthens them.

This jungle primary reflected that practical effect:  Democratic voters didn't want to have a congressional election with two Republicans on the ballot.  But how can the individual voter know which Democratic candidate to vote for when the effect could be to split the Democratic vote?  In swoops the DCCC, which signaled to voters which congressional candidates to coalesce behind.  The result is that Democratic establishment candidates had a good night; candidates supported by Bernie Sanders had a very bad night.

The same thing worked on the Republican side.

So now all these races have candidates backed by the party apparatus.  And there's no Libertarian or Green candidate on the ballot in November--it's a straight Democrat v. Republican contest in which the parties had an instrumental role in picking the candidates.  I don't think that's what they had in mind in those PoliSci classrooms.

As to the results, even though there wasn't a Democratic apocalypse, there were some results that should encourage Republicans.  

In CA07--kind of a swing district currently held by Democrat Ami Bera--Bera leads with 51.6% with just 20.6% of the vote counted.  That's damned near exactly what he got two years ago.  There are a lot of votes to be counted, but if that number holds, it's hardly indicative of a blue wave. 

In CA10, Jeff Denham got 38% and the Republicans generally got 52% of the vote.  That's a major Democratic target.  On the one hand, Denham shouldn't be happy that among the Republican voters, he only got 72%--that's roughly the same number Dan Patrick got in his primary, and I don't think Dan Patrick should be feeling particularly good about his world.  But in Dan Patrick's race, Republican voters outnumbered Democrats 3-2--not so in CA10.  BUT--and it's a big "but"--the Republicans still have to be encouraged that they had more votes than the Democrats.  That's a big deal in a swing district (but it's still a swing district, albeit one that Denham is probably now favored to win).

In CA22--Devin Nunes got 58% of the vote.  I mean, I guess that's good.  It means he'll likely be reelected.  But damn--2 years ago he got 68%.  That's a 10-point drop.  And there was no other Republican candidate on the ballot (and the Libertarian got less than 1%).

And something for Bera, Denham, and Nunes all to be somewhat worried about--isn't this jungle primary the one in which they're going to get their best numbers?  Primaries still have lower voter turnout, which means that only those motivated to vote will do so.  And those motivated are generally going to be motivated by a candidate they know.  And since an incumbent naturally has a higher name recognition, that should generally favor an incumbent.  

I don't know--just a thought.

That also goes for Carbajal in CA24.  He only got 53% of the vote, which is just a little bit below what he got two years ago.  That's not the stuff of a blue wave.  I'd also note that turnout was really low--only about 120,000 people voted.  That's down from 208,000 in the primary in 2016 and 311,000 in the 2016 general election.  I don't know that I have a real good explanation for that.  It may be that with only three candidates on the primary ballot, nobody felt any real urgency to take time out of their day to go eliminate the distant-running superfluous Republican.  I guess I'll go with that working theory for now.  But it's something that bears watching.

In CA25, Steven Knight is in the same boat as Jeff Denham.  He got 53% of the vote (again, on fairly weak turnout).  I think he is the distinct favorite.  But Katie Hill, the other candidate that made it through, is really interesting.  She's a 30-year old bisexual who is the executive director of a big nonprofit in the district.  She's running on universal healthcare, among other things.  I don't know--and maybe I say this only because she's a cute blonde bisexual--but I think this is going to be an interesting race.

In CA31, Democrat Pete Aguilar actually ran behind his Republican opponent.  This was (again) on a minuscule turnout--I guess nobody cared to go vote to eliminate the extraneous Democrat in the race.  But at the same time, it calls the whole "Democratic enthusiasm" theory into question.  The same is true in CA35--only 39,000 people voted.  That's incredible.

CA39 is an open seat that went for for Clinton but was held by Republican Ed Royce.  Republican candidates got 54% of the vote, which is maybe what they should get in that district (but obviously a helluva lot better than Trump did).  This one had 17 candidates on the ballot, so I'm not sure what I can take from that.  It's a suburban district in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties (suburbs like Fullerton, Diamond Bar, and Chino Hills).  Cook PVI has that as an "even" district.  It's worth watching, but based on these results, I'd have to say the Republican is the slight favorite.

In CA48--the Democrats got a candidate on the ballot.  That's pretty damn good when they had eight candidates running against Dana Vladimirovich Rohrabacher, and their top two candidates split their vote share almost evenly.  All-in, Republicans got more than 50%, but Rohrabacher himself only got 30%.  I think he needs to be really concerned.

The Democrats also got on the ballot in CA49--Darrell Issa's district.  And there, the Republicans only got 48% of the vote.  That's definitely looking like a flip to the Democrats.

In CA50--a safe Republican seat, Duncan Hunter got less than 50% with only two Republican challengers--one getting 13% and one getting 2%.  Man, I just always think that's dangerous when you're an incumbent and you're (1) getting less than 50% and (2) getting less than 75% in your own party.  As I said--it's a safe Republican seat.  But if there is a blue wave, this could be one of the surprises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tuco 5085]

I agree with your thoughts about how it strengthens the party's hand. 

I'm not sure if it's good or bad for third party candidates.  The way it played out this time, it was bad for them.  But, assuming their goal is to actually elect third party candidates rather than just drive the public debate, I think the best chance would be to make the final ballot from a divided jungle primary.  At that point, voters faced with a Republican vs. Green or a Libertarian vs. Democrat race would be more likely to vote in a 3rd party candidate than in a Republican v. Democrat v. Green v. Libertarian race. 

It seems like in the computing age, it may make sense to do a ranked ballot with the algorithm going through multiple rounds and dropping out the lowest vote getter each time, until you get to the top 2.  But that would be hell on recounts and the news programs would be baffled on how to report returns.

 

[Sawbonz 27793]

All things considered had a poli sci professor from USC on yesterday and he said that in the Cali state leg and some of the statewide offices at least it has had a measurable moderating effect. That is to say those positions are still mostly won by democrats but the more moderate dems tend to win, and in the (few) republican strongholds the more moderate republicans tend to win

[TahoeHorn 107]

49 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

All things considered had a poli sci professor from USC on yesterday and he said that in the Cali state leg and some of the statewide offices at least it has had a measurable moderating effect. That is to say those positions are still mostly won by democrats but the more moderate dems tend to win, and in the (few) republican strongholds the more moderate republicans tend to win

I'm not sure I buy that as a rule.  Well, I don't.

I will guess that game theory would show that as the effect in a three person race.  But in a ten person race where nobody has big name recognition you'll likely get two extremists with strong special interest bases.

I don't think we'll see the phenomenon catch on.

[Tuco 5085]

Assuming you agree with LL's theory that it gives more power to the party, do you think that the party is more likely to push a moderate or a fringe candidate in the general, assuming it's a purple district?

 

[Ghost of LL 15606]

25 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Assuming you agree with LL's theory that it gives more power to the party, do you think that the party is more likely to push a moderate or a fringe candidate in the general, assuming it's a purple district?

 

Well, I think it's both, isn't it?  You'd have the party pushing a more moderate candidate.  But at the same time, if you had an extremist with a strong base of support on some single issue, s/he could have enough votes to overcome the party's preferred candidate.  

So I could see the choice often coming down to those two options (as it often does in a normal primary), and it isn't at all clear to me which candidate this system advantages.  My suspicion, however, is that in most races it's going to work to the advantage of the party's preferred candidate just because of the size and diversity of these districts.

[Gil Bang 26110]

Quote

CA39 is an open seat that went for for Clinton but was held by Republican Ed Royce.  Republican candidates got 54% of the vote, which is maybe what they should get in that district (but obviously a helluva lot better than Trump did).  This one had 17 candidates on the ballot, so I'm not sure what I can take from that.  It's a suburban district in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties (suburbs like Fullerton, Diamond Bar, and Chino Hills).  Cook PVI has that as an "even" district.  It's worth watching, but based on these results, I'd have to say the Republican is the slight favorite.

Just a couple of things that you may find interesting:  The Dem in the 39th is Gil Cisneros, who, quite literally, won the lottery. To the tune of $220 Million. He's mostly self-funding.  He's a navy vet.  After winning the dough, he and his wife started a foundation to give scholarships to latino kids. 

Of those 3 suburbs that you mentioned, two, Diamond Bar, and Chino Hills are interesting.  They used to be upscale bedroom communities populated by upper middle class white folks;  now they are very very Asian. Chino Hills is 33% Asian (almost all Chinese as far as I can tell) and Diamond Bar is 53% Asian.  Snoop lives there  too.   I wish I had some insight as to how that will impact the election, if at all, but I don't. 

Anyway, Royce is retiring for the same reason Issa is retiring.  The  voters are sick of his shit and were gonna toss his ass out anyway.  

Edited June 8, 2018 by Gil Bang

[TahoeHorn 107]

On 6/6/2018 at 1:17 PM, Tuco said:

Assuming you agree with LL's theory that it gives more power to the party, do you think that the party is more likely to push a moderate or a fringe candidate in the general, assuming it's a purple district?

 

I think the party pushes candidates far less than people understand.  I work aggressively to keep the party neutral in most races.  For example in the Governor's race I was a Battle supporter but successfully led the effort to quash a motion to censure Kay Ivey that was ready to pass.  Members who were upset with Ivey bought my argument that it was wrong for the party apparatus to put its thumb on the scales - that they needed to push that idea elsewhere.

There are obviously different definitions of "party".  At the national level I call the RNC the "party" and they pretty much keep their thumb off the scales.  But there are various committees, PAcs and special interests that work on behalf of candidates.  There are even special interests like the NRA that are mostly with the GOP but often enough to count, with a pro-gun Dem.

I'm not being pedantic but I need to know what you think of as "party" to better answer the question.  What the RNC wants is not necessarily the same as what some wing wants,  what Trump wants or what the NRA wants.

Edited June 8, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Tuco 5085]

20 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think the party pushes candidates far less than people understand. 

I certainly agree. 

But, the party does certainly recruit candidates they believe can win a district.  And, candidates who are more in-line with the parties preferences generally understand what resources there are available and have an easier time accessing them.  They also have built up a network of allies within in party, many of whom are willing to (as individuals) donate their time and money to the candidate.  And there are times (as with Hillary famously, or with Eastwood/Ashford recently in my district) where the national party inappropriately supports their preference. 

All of that tends to favor an "establishment" candidate, and, in a purple district, that establishment candidate will tend to be more moderate.

[TahoeHorn 107]

I'll buy that.

[Ghost of LL 15606]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

Just a couple of things that you may find interesting:  The Dem in the 39th is Gil Cisneros, who, quite literally, won the lottery. To the tune of $220 Million. He's mostly self-funding.  He's a navy vet.  After winning the dough, he and his wife started a foundation to give scholarships to latino kids. 

Of those 3 suburbs that you mentioned, two, Diamond Bar, and Chino Hills are interesting.  They used to be upscale bedroom communities populated by upper middle class white folks;  now they are very very Asian. Chino Hills is 33% Asian (almost all Chinese as far as I can tell) and Diamond Bar is 53% Asian.  Snoop lives there  too.   I wish I had some insight as to how that will impact the election, if at all, but I don't. 

Anyway, Royce is retiring for the same reason Issa is retiring.  The  voters are sick of his shit and were gonna toss his ass out anyway.  

Thanks for the local knowledge.  I didn't know that.

I had an uncle who used to live in Diamond Bar.  I spent the summer out there with him in 1988.  Only time I've been in an earthquake.  But yeah--it was a standard-issue Southern California suburb, filled with a bunch of white Republicans (including a shocking number of Mormons--it was also the first time I met a Mormon).

I'm going to be real interested in watching that district.  

[Gil Bang 26110]

Regarding the 50th:  I'm not sure how much noise it made nationally, but Hunter is up to his eyeballs in campaign finance problems.   

Like a cunt, he tried to throw his wife and kids under the bus to save his own skin.  

 

...But in a year when control of the US House of Representatives could come down to one seat, it's evident from two dozen interviews here that there is growing unease among Republican voters about Hunter and the Department of Justice investigation into his campaign spending, which has stretched for more than a year.

The California secretary of state has now certified the list of candidates for the June 5 primary, meaning that if Hunter were indicted in the middle of this election year, the only path for another well-known Republican -- such as retiring Rep. Darrell Issa -- to replace him would be a write-in candidacy, according to state officials. Even if Hunter were to resign, the only way to remove his name from the ballot would be a court order.

The five-term congressman maintains his innocence. His aides and his lawyers did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the allegations for this story.

 

He has reimbursed his campaign account more than $60,000 since the FEC first questioned spending on video games in 2016, according to FEC records.

"There was wrong campaign spending, but it was not done by me," Hunter recently told local TV station KGTV-10News. His comments have put the spotlight on his wife and former campaign manager, Margaret Hunter, who also held and made charges on the campaign credit card. He told the San Diego Union-Tribune in April 2016 that he and his wife were the only holders of the credit card. At that time, he said he would be the only one to use the credit card in the future...

Hunter’s legal headaches started in 2016 when The San Diego Union-Tribune reported on $1,300 in online video game purchases charged to his campaign account. At the time, Hunter, a married father of three, said his son used a campaign credit card to buy the games.

Other reports of questionable spending followed, including campaign payments to his kids’ private school, an oral and facial surgeon, fast food, groceries and costs tied to trips to Italy and Hawaii. The campaign’s credit card was even charged $600 to fly the Hunter family’s pet rabbit; Hunter spokesman Joe Kasper described the charge as an oversight and brought it up in the context of criticism of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

[Gil Bang 26110]

Rouda's an interesting candidate.  GOP for most of his life, gave money to Kasich, was a lawyer then took over the family's Real Estate brokerages in the midwest before cashing out and settling in Laguna Beach.   His dad was really a big shot in Real Estate...past president of NAR.  Not a wild-eyed liberal by any stretch, so, I won't be donating to his campaign (j/k)

Keirstead's originally from Canada.   He is a stem cell researcher,  professor at UCI. and owns some big biomed company. He's loaded too.  Wife's also a brainiac "neuroscientist" and she's kinda hot. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Gil Bang

[RDCanecutter 26570]

22 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 Chino Hills is 33% Asian (almost all Chinese as far as I can tell)

Seems like it would be more.