California Primary: Senator

The Senate primary resulted in two Democrats advancing just as it did in 2016. That year Democrats got 63.9% of the vote to 28.6% for Republicans. This year, as of 6/14, it’s Democrats 62.5%-34.2%. In two party percentages the Democratic share dropped from 69.1% to 64.6%. In 2016, Kamala Harris got 40% of the vote, Loretta Sanchez got 19%, and other Democrats got 5%. This year Dianne Feinstein got 44% of the vote, Kevin De Leon got 12%, and other Democrats got 6%.Even though De Leon got 7% less than Loretta Sanchez, and Republicans got nearly 6% more votes the GOP vote was once again spread thin and no one topped De Leon.

Kamala Harris is seen as more progressive than Loretta Sanchez and won in a landslide 62%-38% in November. Some people could look at that and assume De Leon has a chance.

They’d be wrong.

Harris didn’t run as the more progressive choice. She ran as the attorney general who fought for Californians and won in battles against Wells Fargo, among others. Sanchez didn’t really run to Harris’ right. Harris ran as the establishment pick and Sanchez as the insurgent. Granted, it wasn’t exactly an insurgency that caught fire.

Dianne Feinstein is even of an establishment pick than Harris was. She has a long history with the Democratic party and with the California voters. Hence, why she did a few pointes better than Harris did even though Democrats got a lower percentage of the votes.

De Leon, on the other hand, did much worse than Sanchez. His 12% was less than 2/3 of her 19%.

How will De Leon do in November? It’s possible that De Leon could pick up the lion’s share of the 6% of voters who voted for other Democrats. They may be protest voters who don’t like Dianne Feinstein. Unfortunately for him, that’d put Feinstein up by around 45%-17% or 72%-28% when translated as the full electorate.

What about the voters who didn’t vote for a Democrat?

Loretta Sanchez lost in June by 21 points and in November by 24 points. She sort of split the voters who didn’t vote for her or Harris. I say sort of because there were a lot more general election voters than primary voters. Each of them picked up a lot of new voters.

The exit poll tells us that while Harris won Democrats 68%-32% and independents 62%-38%, Sanchez actually won Republicans 56%-44%. That doesn’t surprise me. Sanchez was seen as the more centrist choice, although Harris running a rather non-ideological campaign probably helped her a bit with Republicans.

The exit poll says that the Presidential race consisted of 47% Democrats/23% Republicans/30% independents, but the Senate race was 50% Democrats/19% Republicans/31% independents.

Most of the other Senate races had vote drop-offs of 0-2% from the Presidential to Senate races. California had 14% less votes. So a lot of Trump voters probably passed on the race.

In top two candidates will usually go after voters who voted for someone other than themselves in the primary. In a crowded field like this one, 56% of the voters voted for someone other than Dianne Feinstein. Unfortunately for Kevin De Leon most of those voters voted Republican. One of the central themes of De Leon’s campaign is that Dianne Feinstein isn’t fighting Donald Trump and the Republicans hard enough. So it’s hard to see what De Leon’s appeal to the Trump voter will be.

“You’re a sexist, racist, homophobe. Vote for me.”

I don’t see that going over. In fact, any appeal to voters who voted Republican in the primary would be contrary to De Leon’s brand. He’s ceding those voters to Dianne Feinstein.

Not only is it difficult to see De Leon winning but I have a hard time seeing how he even gets 25% of the vote.

California Primary: Governor

As many of you know, California doesn't count the ballots quickly. Complain if you want but there are a bunch of reasons. Because of that I'm going to post about the primary slowly. If there are conclusions that can only be drawn after the outcome is clear then I'll wait.

Let's start at the top of the ticket. Gavin Newsom got 33.5% of the vote. John Cox finished second at 26.2%. They'll both advance to November. Antonio Villaraigosa was a distant third at 13.2%. Travis Allen was fourth at 9.6%. John Chiang finished with 9.1%. There were a few reporters and pundits who insisted that Antonio Villaraigosa was going to make top two. After all, California is a Democratic state, Villaraigosa was fairly well known, and was spending a lot of money. The media is very caught up in the idea that money in politics is bad and thus every dollar a candidate spends means votes. Except it doesn't. Money can help but it's not that important.

Yet they're still caught up in it. So Villaraigosa didn't spend the money early enough. Or he made a mistake in who he was attacking. No, he shouldn't have gone after John Chiang. Chiang didn't have much support. Getting some of his voters wouldn't have helped. I've heard, somewhat derisively, that Donald Trump's Tweet did Villaraigosa in. None of that is true. Republicans got between 39.3% and 41.7% in three races with no incumbent. In three races where there was an incumbent they got between 34.5% and 37.3%. There was no incumbent here but Republicans were closer to the open seat share at 37.4%. No matter what Villaraigosa did he wasn't taking Republican votes. Spending more wouldn't have convinced Republican voters to vote for someone with a D next to their name.

President Trump's Tweet may have helped John Cox gain a few points but those weren't Villaraigosa voters. People influenced by a Trump Tweet aren't going to vote for a Democrat. Cox and Travis Allen got 35.8% of the vote. If they split that evenly they both would've gotten 17.9%. If Trump did help John Cox he took votes from Travis Allen and prevented Villaraigosa from finishing behind both Cox and Allen. Villaraigosa was only going to make top two if he had gotten enough Newsom voters that he would've beaten the Lieutenant Governor. That wasn't going to happen.

Things to Know Before the California Primary

The California primary is tomorrow and you're very interested in it. I'm assuming that because you're reading this. You should be getting all your Vote By Mail data from Political Data here. Shout out to Paul Mitchell and the team there. They provide data that's invaluable.

Gavin Newsom and John Cox will finish first and second in the governor's race. Yes, I know I've written it before but too many people seem to think Antonio Villaraigosa has a shot. He never really did. There are too many Democratic candidates, too few Republicans candidates, and enough Republican voters that Cox will beat Villaraigosa by a comfortable margin. I think Travis Allen will finish ahead of Villaraigosa more likely than not. One thing to watch is the percentage of the vote Democrats and Republicans get. In 2014 it was around 57% Democratic 43% Republican. In 2016 the Presidential and Senate races were around 70% Democratic 30% Republican. I'm thinking it'll be midway between the two. When we see, we'll figure out what it means.

There's not enough information to predict if Kevin de Leon will finish second in the senate race. Republicans have a history of voting for Republicans in top two. Will the Republicans here get as many votes as the Republicans in the governor's race? I say yes, but it's something to watch for. Will Republican votes consolidate behind one candidate, most likely James Bradley? If so, De Leon doesn't advance. So I'll be watching how the total votes compare.

In 2014, any race where Democrats got 50% or more of the two party vote went Democratic in November. If Republicans got 50-55% it was competitive in November. If Republicans got 55%+ they won in November. The 2016 vote was more apples to apples. Whoever won in June won in November. As I mentioned earlier, November 2014 was a Republican election but the primary was even more Republican. November 2016 was a Democratic election but the primary was even more Democratic. That doesn't make it easy to figure out how to translate the primary vote but any district where Republicans get 50-55% should be one to watch.

The possibility of a shutout in a specific district is real, although unlikely. As Paul Mitchell has Tweeted, however, there are enough congressional districts where shutouts are possible that one probably will happen. The districts that most concern people are CA-39, 48, and 49. So watch for those. I'm going to predict that CA-50 is going to have a Democratic shutout. That's Duncan Hunter's district. It's probably too Republican for Democrats to have a shot in November. Hunter, however, has been caught up in a scandal, however, and if a scandal blows up it sometimes doesn't matter how partisan a district is.

A lot has been written about how this year will be a big Democratic wave. And it might be. We should still look at the results in Democratic districts like CA-7. Don't dismiss the idea they could be competitive this year.

The first results usually come in around 8:40 Pacific. These are the vote by mail ballots received before election day. In 2012 and 2014, these were very Republican. In 2016 they weren't. So we don't know if the results will get more Democratic after these are announced. Likewise Democrats did even better than the election day count in the post-election day count in 2012 and 2014. They didn't in 2016. There are a lot of ballots counted after election day. Hopefully the election day ballots will give us an idea the way those will go. I'll try to figure that out Wednesday.

The partisan results changed quite a bit after election day in 2012 and 2014 with Democrats gaining quite a bit. What doesn't change is how individual Democrats or Republicans do. If two Democrats are close for second and third in a district the candidate who is in second place on election day is going to end up in second after all the votes are counted.