House: Democrats Risk Disaster in California's Top Two Primaries

[brooklynite]

Cook Political Report:

Republicans badly need a few lucky breaks to hold their House majority in November. So far in 2018, it's been the opposite story — from an unfriendly new Pennsylvania map to Speaker Paul Ryan's retirement and bleak special election results. But with five weeks to go before California's June 5 primary, Democrats are at risk of squandering several seats that would otherwise appear to be golden pickup opportunities.

Democrats' path to a majority depends on California more than any other state: they have excellent chances in seven GOP seats that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, and a few more could be long shots in a wave. But in at least four districts, Democratic over-enthusiasm has produced crowded fields that could lock Democrats out of the fall race altogether.

Under California's unorthodox "top two" primary system — first implemented in 2012 — all candidates appear on the same June primary ballot and the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to a November runoff. In 2012, catastrophe struck Democrats when their top candidate in the new 31st CD, Pete Aguilar, took third place in the primary behind two Republicans, locking them out of a highly winnable race (Aguilar won the seat in 2014).

The same fate could befall other Democrats in 2018. In the 39th, 48th and 49th districts -- all Orange County GOP seats that voted for Clinton — the "blue wave" has generated throngs of viable Democratic candidates in districts where GOP voters traditionally make up a majority of the primary vote. And while Democrats have struggled to break out of their packs, there are at least two viable Republican candidates on the ballot in each of those races.

This is one reason DCCC has become more engaged in the Primary phase than they normally are (to the irritation of some folks here). Consider the latest fundraising figuires for CA-49:

Andy Thorburn $2,565,707
Gil Cisneros $2,513,712
Mai Khanh Tran $1,188,828
Sam Jammal $433,618

Each of those figures would be a respectable figure for a candidate without a Primary. That's a hug amount of cash being burned in a Primary that won't be available in November. Add to which, campaigns that are this viable are likely to chop up the Democratic vote into very small chunks.

[H2O Man]

1. It might be the water?

I have extended family in Orange County. Two of my father's brothers moved there. They were FDR Democrats when they left New York, but became conservative republicans after living in Orange. Most of my cousins were/are conservative republicans; the few who appeared sane in their youth have since mutated into republicans. Even my normal brother (relatively speaking) began repeating conservative nonsense while he lived there. Thank goodness he relocated to Eugene, Oregon, and has recovered.

[eissa]

2. I'm in one of those districts, CA-10

And we are beyond frustrated. There are five Dems listed, 3 of which have no fucking chance but don't want to drop out. The Reps have two, incumbent asshole Jeff Denham, and teabagger nutjob Howze. We started off with such enthusiasm, and now there is a real chance two republicans could win the primary and advance to November.

[OnDoutside]

3. Can the DCCC pump some money to suck the oxygen out of the campaigns of the Dems who

aren't currently leading in the polls ? i.e. whoever is currently in the lead, pump extra money into to push them further ? Really, the gloves need to come off, it's too important not to win these.

[eissa]

5. I think the DCCC is trying to exert some pressure in the background

but are fearful of alienating those voters come November. I think they're hyper-sensitive of being too involved, lest we have another backlash, ala the DNC and Bernie voters.

[OnDoutside]

6. I can imagine it might be a touchy subject, as they'll also get it in the neck if they don't do

anything ! Whatever it takes, get it done.

[gratuitous]

4. Dammit, California, get it together

It's too late (again) to get rid of this moronic "top two" primary system for this go-round. But fer crissakes, California Democrats need to come up with a system for instilling a little bit of discipline for their own candidates. Unless, of course, they like Democratic-majority districts to have Republican representatives more than they hate being authoritarian.

If you're new to this stupid concept, here's how it works in practice when a bunch of candidates are all vying for the same seat. In the primary, all the candidates are on the ballot, and all voters - Republican, Democrat, minor party, unaffiliated - choose from the slate. Let's assume the electorate is 30% Republican, 30% Democrat, and 40% minor party and unaffiliated. On a slate of seven candidates, two Republicans and five Democrats, the Republicans split their votes 15% of the total ballots for each their two candidates. The Democrats more or less split their votes for their five candidates, giving each candidate 4% to 9% of the vote. The other 40% of the vote is distributed among all seven candidates. In order to crack the top two, the leading Democratic candidate is going to need to pull anywhere from 40% to 50% of that vote. Unlikely.

So, the Democrats can take 60% of the primary votes, but the November ballot will list only the two Republicans. Brilliant!

[kcr]

7. This is why I'm tired of all the reactionary howling about Dems putting their thumbs on the scales

Particularly in the case of California.