First off, there won't be any results from the CA-10 race until 10:00 p.m. As reported by Lisa Vorderbrueggen, the registrars in the district have been ordered by Gov. Schwarzenegger to hold the results until CA-10 first responders who are serving away from home on the fire lines in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Mariposa Counties have had an opportunity to vote. Since they have until 10:00 to cast their votes, the running tallies will not be posted until then.
Of course, the regular polls close at 8:00, and the registrars will immediately commence with counting votes just as if there were no hold. So look for the first results, when they come at 10:00, to be fairly complete. Tonight there will be no hitting "refresh" for updates, no cheering if the numbers shift a little bit. Instead, just look for pretty much one big information dump.
KTVU Political Editor Randy Shandobil reported on the CA-10 race on last night's Channel 2 News...
It's kind of amazing to see the impunity with which Garamendi offers up a lie that can be (and is) easily debunked by a good reporter, and then responds, "So what's the point?"
The Bay Area News Group (Contra Costa Times, Tri-Valley Herald, etc.) yesterday endorsed John Garamendi in the CA-10 race (although it's not online). Of course, Garamendi wasted no time in sending out an email crowing about the endorsement. What's interesting about the email, however, is what Garamendi omitted.
Here's Garamendi's email, with his excerpt from the endorsement:
Garamendi is our choice for the 10th Congressional District
THE DEPARTURE of Ellen Tauscher as representative of the 10th Congressional District to serve in the Obama administration has left a void that will be a challenge to fill.
The diverse district, which runs from Fairfield through much of Contra Costa County and into southern Alameda County, has become increasingly Democratic.
It is heavily favored to elect a Democrat to replace Tauscher, especially without a Republican officeholder seeking the seat.
Among the five Democrats running are three state officeholders: Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan.
Of the three, only Garamendi has experience working in Washington, D.C., as deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior in the Clinton administration. Garamendi also has broad experience in state government with two years in the Assembly and 14 years in the state Senate. He twice was elected as California Insurance Commissioner, where he helped make significant consumer reforms.
Of all 14 candidates, we believe Garamendi has the right combination of experience, knowledge of key issues and dedication to serving the public interest that make him the best choice to fill Tauscher's seat.
With eight years' experience as insurance commissioner, Garamendi has valuable knowledge needed to make informed decisions about health care reform. As a rancher and with service in the federal Department of Interior, he has credibility with agricultural interests and environmentalists, which puts him in a favorable position to work on critical water issues that affect the Delta.
Garamendi lives on the edge of the 10th Congressional District, but has considerable knowledge about the area, expertise on issues affecting the region, and is not beholden to special interests.
Tauscher's replacement will be going to Congress at a critical time, with major issues confronting the nation, including economic recovery, health care, energy, the war in Afghanistan and reform of financial institutions. The 10th Congressional District needs someone with broad experience and dedication to the public interest. We believe John Garamendi best meets those criteria.
And here's the part of the endorsement that the Garamendi campaign probably didn't want its Democratic supporters to see:
We have serious questions about [DeSaulnier's] commitment to the public interest independent of acceding to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions.
Many of the financial problems that afflict Contra Costa County today stem directly from decisions DeSaulnier championed while he was supervisor. Most notably, in 2002, at a time when the county faced a $31.5 million shortfall, was already laying off workers and was already experiencing increased public employee pension costs, DeSaulnier supported unsustainable pension increases that hiked benefits for public safety workers by as much as 50 percent.
The plan allowed public safety workers to retire at age 50 with a pension worth 3 percent of their salary for each year served.
Such excessive public employee union benefits have strained some local jurisdictions to the brink of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy, which would allow the rewriting of unaffordable employee contracts, might be the only way out for some jurisdictions. But Democratic legislators, DeSaulnier and Buchanan among them, have backed an effort to remove the use of local government bankruptcy. They are pushing Assembly Bill 155, which would require state approval of such bankruptcies, severely diminishing local control of fiscal policy.
Now, the Bay Area News Groups is owned by MediaNews Group, whose founder and owner is one William Dean Singleton. It probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that Singleton is rabidly anti-union -- witness the editorial screed that his flagship paper, the Denver Post, published on Page One, above the fold, when Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed an executive order allowing collective bargaining for Colorado's state employees. So it's hardly shocking that Singleton's hatred for public employee unions would be reflected in BANG's endorsements.
Here's the problem that I see. Making no bones about their anti-union prejudice, BANG's editorial board has "serious questions about [DeSaulnier's] commitment to the public interest independent of acceding to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions" but in the same breath claims that "We believe Garamendi has the right combination of experience, knowledge of key issues and dedication to serving the public interest."
So BANG has set up a political equation where public employee unions are the antithesis of the public interest. According to their logic, because DeSaulnier supports those unions, he is disregarding the public interest. But if you apply that equation to BANG's comments about John Garamendi, then logically, his dedication to serving the public interest must necessitate that he has repudiated the public employee unions.
And that raises the question of exactly what was said by Garamendi in his interview with the BANG editorial board. How did he convince an editorial board that he was dedicated to serving the public interest when that same editorial board clearly believes that public employee unions are damaging to the public interest? Could it have been that part about him not living in the district, so he's not "beholden to special interests"? Because that sure sounds like some ugly code to me.
Well, there's new polling data in the CA-10 race that's been released by the John Garamendi campaign. Predictably, Garamendi's polling shows him with a double-digit lead (just barely). Here's the quick summary:
Candidate
Initial
After Positive Bio
John Garamendi
31%
36%
Mark DeSaulnier
21%
22%
Joan Buchanan
17%
20%
Anthony Woods
9%
9%
David Harmer (R)
5%
7%
Adriel Hampton
1%
0%
Undecided
17%
8%
Phone survey of 400 likely voters, Democratic and DTS , conducted 8/2-8/4, MoE 4.9%
The Garamendi campaign hasn't made the crosstabs public, so this poll raises almost as many questions as it answers. But I just can't shake this feeling of déjà vu when I look at these numbers. They make me think of another recent primary race: the Virginia governor's race last June. Of course, I could be totally wrong about this, but the similarities are striking.
You've got the late entry with big name recognition, lots of fundraising ability, and an endorsement from former President Bill Clinton in his back pocket -- that would be Terry McAuliffe. Then you've got the guy who started off as the presumed front-runner (before McAuliffe jumped in), Brian Moran. And you've got Creigh Deeds, who was bringing up the rear, running as a moderate. Three weeks out from election day, a DailyKos/Research 2000 tracking poll showed the following results:
May 18-20, 2009
Terry McAuliffe
36%
Brian Moran
22%
Creigh Deeds
13%
Undecided
29%
But a mere three weeks later, after Moran launched a series of negative attacks on McAuliffe which ended up bloodying both McAuliffe and Moran, Deeds swept to victory.
June 9, 2009 Election Results
Creigh Deeds
49.76%
Terry McAuliffe
26.43%
Brian Moran
23.79%
All of which is a kind of fancy way of saying, "Who knows?"
For the DeSaulnier campaign's response, flip it...
So absentee ballots arrived in today's mail. Here's the lowdown. First, the order of appearance on the ballot is as follows:
ANTHONY WOODS
Democratic
Economic Policy Analyst
DAVID HARMER
Republican
Independent Businessman
ADRIEL HAMPTON
Democratic
Investigator
GARY W. CLIFT
Republican
Retired Peace Officer
JEREMY CLOWARD
Green
College Instructor
MARK DESAULNIER
Democratic
Senator
JEROME "JERRY" DENHAM
American Independent
Insurance Agent
DAVID PETERSON
Republican
Accountability System Owner
JOHN GARAMENDI
Democratic
Lieutenant Governor/Rancher
JOHN TOTH
Republican
Physician
MARY C. MCILROY
Peace and Freedom
MARK LOOS
Republican
Small Business Owner
JOAN BUCHANAN
Democratic
Assemblywoman
CHRIS BUNCH
Republican
Small Business Owner
Along with the ballot, voters received a Voter Information Pamphlet, which contains the ballot statements for the candidates. Worth noting is that Democrat Adriel Hampton failed to submit a statement to the Registrar's office, and he was not included in the pamphlet. Hampton joins Republican Mark Loos and the Green, American Independent, and Peace & Freedom candidates, none of whom appear in the pamphlet. Also worth noting is that while all five Republicans who appear in the pamphlet listed their websites, Anthony Woods is the only Democrat who directed voters to his website for more information.
Conventional political wisdom holds that the ballot statement is the single most important component of a campaign -- it is the means by which many, if not most, voters will select their candidate. Also critical is the position on the ballot itself (the closer to the top, the better).
Anthony Woods would seem to be the best served by his slot at the top of the ballot and his page 3 ballot statement. Joan Buchanan is stuck near the bottom of the ballot, but the fact that her ballot statement leads on page 1 of the Voter Information Pamphlet should help her overcome the ballot position to some extent. That leaves Mark DeSaulnier stuck in the upper middle and John Garamendi in the lower middle of the pack, both ballot-wise and pamphlet-wise. That positioning could cost both DeSaulnier and Garamendi, if you believe all that conventional wisdom stuff.
You can read the Democratic ballot statements in their entirety on the flip...
Well, the State Department has responded to the complaint filed by Jason Bezis with regards to Ellen Tauscher's endorsement of Mark DeSaulnier. As you might have expected, they're reluctant to acknowledge that their new Undersecretary, Ellen Tauscher, has acted illegally in continuing to endorse Mark DeSaulnier as her replacement. But they also have asked the DeSaulnier campaign to immediately remove Tauscher's name from all of his campaign material. (Emphasis added)
July 29, 2009
Dear Mr. Bezis,
We are in receipt of your letter of complaint dated July 16 and follow-up letter of July 27, concerning activities of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher. The Department takes seriously our guidelines concerning political activities of senior employees, and we appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. In that spirit, we have reviewed the complaint letter and its attachments. We believe that the materials disclose no violation of law or policy.
Our guidelines do not restrict political activities of Department employees before they join the Department. Under Secretary Tauscher began as an employee of the State Department on June 26,2009, having resigned from her former position as a Member of Congress shortly beforehand. The endorsements you cite in your letter and attachments refer to her by titles such as "Representative" and "Congresswoman," and not "Under Secretary." We understand that all these references concern endorsements made before she began employment with the State Department. Endorsements made before State Department employment violate no Department directive. You have not identified an instance where she endorsed publicly a partisan political candidate after having been appointed as a State Department employee.
Under Secretary Tauscher is committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, on behalf of Under Secretary Tauscher I have asked Senator DeSaulnier to remove all references in his campaign material of any endorsement she may have made.
Again, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Sincerely,
James H. Thessin Deputy Legal Adviser and
Designated Agency Ethics Official
And what does DeSaulnier campaign spokeswoman Katie Merrill have to say in response? Well, she hasn't yet issued a comment. But I'm guessing when she does, it won't be "Seriously?"
Before I get all wound up here, I'd like to start with a not insignificant disclaimer. I do not support Joan Buchanan. In fact, I view her as being dangerously close to a clone of Ellen Tauscher, with her much-vaunted "follow-through" and "pragmatism" really just being code for a big-business background, corporate outlook, and a willingness to concede points before she even arrives at the table. But that being said, she is running the best and smartest campaign I've seen in a long time, and I'm afraid that she's leaving her competition in CA-10 in the dust.
Much has been made of the fact that Buchanan's fundraising was anemic for the second quarter and that she's only in the game because she lent her campaign $250,000 (which she can easily afford). But I'd argue that her approach to financing her campaign was nothing short of genius. If you've ever been to a campaign training seminar, the first rule you may have heard is this: "Campaigns have three finite resources: Volunteers, money, and time. How you manage these three resources will be the difference between winning and losing."
Well, by taking the issue of money off the table in one fell swoop, Buchanan freed up herself and her campaign to focus on the other two resources.
Buchanan had an army of volunteers who worked for her just a few short months ago, and many of them are enthusiastically on board for this run as well. Added to that is a phalanx of paid canvassers (her FEC report showed that she was paying 30 staffers as of June 30). So it shouldn't really come as that much of a surprise that Buchanan's campaign had knocked on 20,000 doors by July 1.
But what is stunning is that the Buchanan campaign has continued to ramp up its canvassing program. Last week, they blew past the milestone of 55,000 doors knocked. On the Saturday before last, with temperatures hovering over 100, Buchanan had 54 canvassers out going door to door.
Yesterday, DailyKos diarist Fenric posted a diary about his/her encounter with a Joan Buchanan canvasser who showed up at the front door. The crux of the diary was that when Fenric questioned the canvasser about how Buchanan intended to vote on the California budget, the canvasser brightly assured him/her that Buchanan intended to support the atrocity that's been wrought by the Big 5. Fenric then declared his/her intention to never vote for Buchanan ever, ever again. All well and good.
That is, until Garamendi staffer SPD waded into the comment thread to gratuitously trash Garamendi's opponents, Mark DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, on unrelated issues. And without identifying himself as a Garamendi staffer.
Of course, what makes it really funny (or maybe just pathetic) is that this staffer mocked a reference to Buchanan's "grassroots campaign" as he was astroturfing the netroots on Garamendi's behalf.
So the FEC reports came out last week, and political junkies of all stripes spent hours sifting through them. If you've never done it before, it's a little like searching through your Great-Aunt Lois's basement trying to piece together the untold stories of her life. Now, I'd assume that most readers here have already seen the bare numbers, but just to be complete, I'll include them.
Candidate
Contributions
Distributions
Cash on Hand
Debt
Joan Buchanan
$63,865
$134,419
$179,289
$307,659
Mark DeSaulnier
$209,779
$72,769
$136,510
$77,131
John Garamendi
$300,463
$40,319
$260,144
$54,762
But as usual, it's the stuff inside the report that's most interesting: who's contributing and how the money's being spent. On the flip...
It turns out that a fellow by the name of Jason Bezis must be on the same wavelength as Progressive Sundae. On the same day last week that this blog questioned the legality of Ellen Tauscher's endorsement of Mark DeSaulnier, Bezis, a lawyer from Lafayette, filed a 17-page complaint with the State Department vis-à-vis that endorsement. Citing much of the same material as the PS post (the State Department cable banning political endorsements by presidential appointees, the prominent Tauscher endorsement on DeSaulnier's website, and the campaign brochure that features Tauscher on three of its four pages), Bezis requested the following remedy:
I believe that the State Department Legal Adviser, State Department Inspector General and/or another responsible entity (e.g., Office of Special Counsel division that enforces the Hatch Act) should require Undersecretary Tauscher to repudiate her endorsements of all candidates for partisan political office, especially in election races that are now underway. Her statement should specifically state, "I neither endorse nor oppose any candidate in the special elections of September 1, 2009 and November 3, 2009 for California's 10th Congressional District, notwithstanding any of my previous statements. I instruct all candidates for those elections to cease and desist from use of my name and likeness in campaign advertisements, broadcasts, campaign literature, and similar media where they state or imply that I have endorsed or opposed their candidacies."
When the news broke last March that Ellen Tauscher was going to be nominated to a position in the State Department, the jockeying to replace her began immediately. In those early days, back before John Garamendi even quite knew where CA-10 was located, Mark DeSaulnier was considered the prohibitive favorite. (Remember, this was when folks were speculating about whether Joe Canciamilla would enter the race.)
"The reality is that this primary is coming down to who the Big Four support -- [Rep.] George Miller, Ellen Tauscher, Torlakson and labor," said California Democratic consultant John Shallman, who is working for DeSaulnier. "And I'm extremely confident they're all going to be behind Mark."
And that's been the DeSaulnier message in a nutshell: "Leaders we trust, trust Mark DeSaulnier." But there are some serious problems with that message... on the flip.
We've all heard the old saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" -- to wit, when someone gives you a gift, don't question its value; instead, just accept it and be grateful.
But the reality is a little bit different. In our world today, if someone offers you a gift horse, you'd better check it out carefully. Looking at a horse's mouth will tell you a lot about its age and overall health. And with the expense of keeping a horse pushing well over $1,000/month locally, a little bit of caution at the outset (e.g.; looking that gift horse in the mouth) could help you avoid being burdened with a costly liability.
And so it's been in CA-10 with Mark DeSaulnier and his endorsement by Ellen Tauscher. I'm guessing that when Tauscher's endorsement was offered, it never occurred to Mark DeSaulnier to question such a gift and weigh the overall costs associated with receiving the seal of approval of an incumbent who is widely disliked by the progressive base of the Democratic Party. He just accepted the endorsement gift and dismissed its potential downside.
But the expenses associated with Ellen Tauscher's endorsement have mounted, with precious little indication that there's any real upside to having received her imprimatur.
The special election to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10 is taking an ugly turn. The CDP has announced that its endorsement caucus will take place on August 1, and I'm already having flashbacks to Migden-Leno and the 2008 CDP convention.
You see, even though major flaws in the endorsement process were exposed over a year ago, nothing has changed; nor is there, at least to date, any apparent desire on the part of the CDP to address a situation where powerful outsiders are invited to skew the outcome of endorsements in local races.
I want to amplify a little bit on the post by ajsuited yesterday because the more I find out about the Garamendi poll that he wrote about, the worse it smells.
The press release about this poll from the Garamendi campaign gave out limited information as to how the poll was conducted, which raised a number of questions. However, Peter Charles left a comment at Calitics where he shared more information about the details of the poll. Those details exposed three glaring errors that jumped out from the information that was provided to the poll's participants.
When the participants were given bios of the three Democratic candidates, here's what they heard about Mark DeSaulnier, Joan Buchanan, and John Garamendi:
3a. Democrat State Senator Mark Desaulnier has served in the state legislature since 2004. Before that he served on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors from 1996 to 2004. His top priority issues will be rebuilding the country's economy, implementing clean energy programs, and regulating Wall Street banks. He is endorsed by Congress members Ellen Tauscher and George Miller, local firefighters, teachers, police and environmental groups.
3b. Democrat State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan was elected to the State Assembly last November. Before that she served for 10 years on the San Ramon (ruh-MOAN) Valley school board. Her top priority issues will be more jobs and improving the economy, increasing renewable energy programs, and reforming public education. She will likely be endorsed by local elected leaders, school board members, teachers, and civil rights and womens groups.
3c. Democrat John Garamendi is California's Lieutenant Governor. He has lived in the Sacramento portion of Congressional District 10 for 30 years. He previously served as Deputy Secretary of the Interior for Bill Clinton. He is running for Congress to continue reforming health care, rebuild our economy around clean energy, and reform bank and credit card laws. He will be endorsed by local nurses, firefighters, teachers, police officers as well as former President Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
The problem here is that the pollster misrepresented all three candidates, and he did it in a way that predictably favored the candidate who hired him.
You have to ask yourself this question. If a pollster will lie about both his own candidate's and the opposing candidates' biographies, what else will he lie about?
And those aren't the only problems. To get into the really wonkerific world of why Garamendi's polling sample is all wrong, flip it...
I had a discussion with a colleague about the recent poll touted by the Garamendi campaign. After her analysis and my own this is what came to mind:
In the movie '16 Candles' Anthony Michael Hall's character got Molly Ringwald's underwear to prove that he got some. But in reality Ringwald's character gave it to Michael-Hall so he could pretend to have some cred amongst his underclassman brethren.
That is the day that Ellen Tauscher announced that she would be accepting the job as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. For all intents & purposes, that is also the day the campaign for California's 10th district got under way.
First there was Adriel Hampton, and then Mark DeSaulnier, soon after Joan Buchanan jumped into the fray, and then Anthony Woods, and most recently, after abandoning his flailing gubernatorial campaign, John Garmendi decided he would run in the 10th as well.
So how are their respective campaigns going so far?
So even though I'm getting a little bored talking about John Garamendi, I just can't help myself today. A couple hours ago, Garamendi posted his very first diary at Daily Kos.
Apparently, Garamendi's been stung by criticism that he doesn't understand local problems that concern the voters in CA-10, like traffic. So to show that he's down with the hot-button issues in the district, Garamendi went to the Metropolitan Traffic Commission website, and read up on their regional 25-year transportation plan for the Bay Area, Transportation 2035. Every five years, the MTC updates and reprioritizes the previous 25-year plan so that there is an ongoing vision for handling the future demands of the nine-county Bay Area.
So in his diary, Garamendi basically gave a broad outline of the findings in the latest plan, which in many ways aren't that different from the Transportation 2030 plan released in 2005. There's a heavy emphasis on the use of public policy tools to encourage smart growth near transit hubs, which in turn leads to increased use of public transportation, as well as a willingness to look toward HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, the proceeds of which would be used to fund highway maintenance and transportation programs for the elderly, poor, and disabled.
While I commend Garamendi for studying up on the MTC proposals and presenting his findings to Daily Kos readers, I'm a little surprised that he apparently missed the irony of his posting. You see, his opponent in the CA-10 race, Mark DeSaulnier... well, as a long-time member of the MTC, DeSaulnier sat through the series of public workshops, studied the results of public surveys, and worked with MTC staff to draft their long-term plans, both Transportation 2030 and the early stages of Transportation 2035. So in an effort to establish his own bona fides, Garamendi basically just tried to lay claim to the transportion plan that DeSaulnier helped to create.
The differences between the candidates in CA-10 could not have been more sharply drawn than they were at last night's Contra Costa Democratic Central Committee meeting. While there are real, substantive differences between Mark DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, those were not on display last night. Instead, DeSaulnier and Buchanan were talking gala versus pippin apples relative to John Garamendi's mandarin oranges. There are probably two reasons for the disparity in their presentations: 1) Garamendi has no familiarity with the district or its issues; and 2) Garamendi hasn't participated in any legislative activities for almost two decades.
Capitol Weekly reported this morning that it looks like Lt. Gov. John Garamendi will enter the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10.
We hear that John Garamendi is getting ready to jump into the Congressional race against Mark DeSaulnier for Ellen Tauscher's vacant, East Bay Congressional seat. Garamendi has name ID in a race that will likely feature low turn-out, and has to be seen as a front-runner (this from a column that has not seen a lick of polling in the race). So, let's go to the dominos, shall we? Of course, it's bad news for DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, who both wanted to run for the seat. Of course, everyone's got a free run at it, so there's nothing to stop DeSaulnier or Buchanan from plunging into the race. DeSaulnier already has some top endorsements, and is unlikely to back down now.
Apparently, they're hearing the same kinds of reports that I'm hearing. Last night at the Oakland Meetup, Shara Perkins, the campaign manager for Mark DeSaulnier, showed up to make phone calls to CDP delegates on behalf of Hilary Crosby, who is running for Controller of the CDP and has been endorsed by DeSaulnier. DeSaulnier was unable to attend the Meetup himself because he was at the endorsement meeting of the Contra Costa Central Labor Council (he got their endorsement by a unanimous vote).
Speaking at the Meetup, Perkins indicated that the DeSaulnier campaign had been hearing all day that Garamendi is definitely jumping into the CA-10 race.
Yesterday, DailyKos 
But the reality is a little bit different. In our world today, if someone offers you a gift horse, you'd better check it out carefully. Looking at a horse's mouth will tell you a lot about its age and overall health. And with the expense of keeping a horse pushing well over $1,000/month locally, a little bit of caution at the outset (e.g.; looking that gift horse in the mouth) could help you avoid being burdened with a costly liability.
