Google Ads


Site Stats

CA-Gov: Brown Leads Primary Field

by: Crisitunity

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM EDT


Tulchin Research (3/31-4/2, likely voters, no trendlines):

Jerry Brown (D): 31
Gavin Newsom (D): 16
Antonio Villaraigosa (D): 12
John Garamendi (D): 11
Jack O'Connell (D): 6
Other: 4
(MoE: 4.5%)

The rehabilitation of AG and former governor Jerry Brown continues apace; a new-ish poll from Tulchin Research gives Brown a 15-point lead over his nearest competition, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. (I've never heard of Tulchin before, so although this has the trappings of a public poll, I'm wondering where it originated.) This is a slightly better showing for Brown than other recent polls of this race; two previous polls from February of Dianne Feinstein-free trials runs on the Dem primary gave Brown leads of 4 and 7 (from Field and Lake, respectively).

The poll has some interesting geographical and age crosstabs. The Bay Area and Central Valley are the only areas where Newson is competitive with Brown (Brown leads Newsom 30-26 in the SF market). You might expect LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to be competitive with Brown in the Los Angeles area, but he doesn't seem too popular on his own turf (Brown leads him 36-19 there), which explains his low numbers overall.

Also, as other polls have noted, this is all about age, and who remembers Brown from his first go-round. The youthful Newsom is kicking ass among the 18-39 crowd, beating Brown 29-16 (with Villaraigosa in second at 19). But Brown wins this on the backs of the 65+ demographic, where Brown beats Newson 38-8 (with John Garamendi at 16 and Villaraigosa at 13). With Garamendi's apparent withdrawal from the race, his relative strength among seniors suggests that his votes may migrate disproportionately to Brown too.

Crisitunity :: CA-Gov: Brown Leads Primary Field
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I get the sense
that California Democrats are far from sold on anyone in the primary field.  That said, most election pundits are putting CA-Gov in the lean-Dem category at least, and I agree.

Seven dwarfs
Newsom and Villaraigosa are unpopular in their localities.

In no sense is this a rehabilitation of Brown.  It's a ecognition of the abject lack of talent in the statewide Democratic pool.

California Gov should be a slam dunk, but lean Republican is the only logical placement.  They have two decent candidates, and group suck.  Brown is by far, really, by far, the best of the bunch in terms of electability, but facing either of the relatively moderate opponents would be tough for him.  (He could be a wingnut easily though.)


[ Parent ]
He could beat a wingnut easily
and "our group sucks".

This group even dumbs down my typing fingers.


[ Parent ]
uhhhh
The only polls I've seen place Brown dominating in the general.

It'd be really cool to see him back in office, I really like him. Plus it'd be the first time someone has won another term as governor 28 years after they first left office.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus


[ Parent ]
The problem with our candidates
is the closer you look, the worse they look.  

Brown is vulnerable to ads depicting his craziest moments in his career.  But, yes, with Brown as nominee, we are favored.  With either of the the two mayors, I'd say we are not against an R who ran an adequate campaign.


[ Parent ]
those crazy moments were a long
long time ago and they weren't that crazy, he was stuill very popular for two terms and was competitive in a 1982 Senate race back in a much more conservative California.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Cecil Underwood--West Virginia
Your comment may be correct in California, but Cecil Underwood was Governor of West Virginia from 1957-1961, and then came back 36 years later and was governor from 1997-2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...


40, male, Democrat, NC-04


[ Parent ]
Leans R?
That's a snark.... right?

[ Parent ]
Obviously not
Republicans have won the last two elections for Gov, and rather easily too.  The two mayors are worse candidates than Angelides, which would seem imposible but is not.  The Reps have three decent, moderate-sounding possible candidates, while we have Moonbeam and some unpopular, unelectable mediocrities.

"Lean R" comes stictly from the the two mayors "hacking" Brown to death in the primary, and either damaging him or somehow getting the nomination themself.

If Brown survives, it's lean D.  If the odious DiFi gets in, its a likely D.  But right now the chances are a bit more than 50% that the Reps will nominate a good candidate, and we will nominate either a very poor one, or a damaged one.  (Of course, if somehow a sane outsider like Mike Thompson runs, he'd win easily in the general.)


[ Parent ]
Oh please
They had a guy who won solely off of celebrity and personality.  They don't have another Arnold lined up.

[ Parent ]
Nonsense
Gray Davis was recalled because he sucked, not because of Arnold.  LOL

Likewise, Arnold beat Cruz Bestatnothing because Cruz sucked.

In 2006, Arnold beat Angelides because he was a horrible, horrible candidate.

Arnold's celebrity helped him sure, but even a remedial knowledge of California politics shows we lost those elections because their candidate didn't drool in public, and ours was completely horrible.

Before he imploded in 2006, westley was favored against Arnold, but then he shot himself in the brain and lost to Angelides, who had no chance.

California is a blue state, but moderate Republicans can and do beat shitty Dems.  The mayors could beat McClintock if they were found in bed, together, with a sheep and a pound of cocaine, but after a primary they would lose to anyone of those three Republicans (assuming Meg doesn't have a hidden scandal).

California has a blackhole of statewide talent, and we have lost Gov election basically since Brown because of it.  A good candidate, like most people thought Gray Davis was in '98, will absolutely crush and Republican.  But the problem is... sadly, we do not have a "good" candidate.


[ Parent ]
We actually have three good candidates.
And the Republicans have none. Whitman or Poizner? Please.

[ Parent ]
Oh please
We have three "good" candidates???  Both mayors are disliked by progressives rather intensely in their cities.  And, more to the point, they are poster children for ngative campaign ads that would work.

Campbell, Whitman or Poizner are all within the mainstream of california politics that will vote for a Repblican (like Arnold) when the Democratic is godawful (like Angelides).  The mayors may be a bit better than Angelides, but they are terrible candidates.  

Somebody like Thompson, Sam Farr or Brad Sherman could win by 20 points, but sadly state politics are still way behind the times.


[ Parent ]
Keep in mind...
California was much more Republican in the 80s and even into the 90s in spite of Clinton winning, and there was of course the Democratic disaster year of 1994. Going into the 2000 elections, Democrats held only 27 of 52 House seats, barely a majority.

As was mentioned in a previous comment, McCain v.2000, who even I liked, had a chance of being competitive in California when it looked like he would win the primaries. However, only in the aftermath of that general election with Gore and Bush did California really became solidly Democratic. The only statewide winners since 2000 were Arnold and Poizner. Arnold won the recall since it was a free-for-all. While it was true that Arnold and Democrat Bustamante were the top vote-getters, this was not a traditional election. And Arnold largely recovered his popularity enough to win in 2006 due to acting like a Democrat on environmental and social issues, and even a few economic issues such as minimum wage. It also helped that he had the media on his side.

Poizner can attribute his win to a very horrible candidate in Bustamante, though the main reason why Bustamante was horrible was because he lost a lot of Democratic support after he decided to run in the recall. Considering that the "yes" vote to recall Davis was only about 55% and Bustamante got about a third of the vote, it is possible that had he not been on the ballot, the recall may not have succeeded. Why no stronger Dem challenged Bustamante in the primary in 2006 I have no idea; maybe because they saw the InsComm office, which has been an elected position only since 1990, as insignificant relative to the other statewide offices. Newsom, Villaraigosa, Brown, et. al. are no Cruz Bustamantes.

And with the dramatic decrease in GOP registration numbers and the according increase in Dem and DTS numbers, it seems less likely that Republicans can win barring a complete implosion of the Democratic candidate. With a smaller pool of Republican voters and a larger pool of Democratic/unaffiliated voters, a Republican candidate will need a heckuvalotta cross-over votes, even more than what Arnold and Poizner got. In a later diary, I plan to list the statewide registration numbers going as far back as 1990 (the earliest data the Secretary of State's site has). I think we all will be surprised at the changes that have occurred in the past 20 years.

Wow, four paragraphs done and I hadn't even mentioned a word about the demographic changes over the last 20 years, probably because those have been discussed in detail many times over on this site. Summed up in one sentence, the demographic changes in California have brought us many more Hispanic voters, many fewer white voters, slightly fewer black voters, and slightly more Asian voters. Bush was able to pull over 40% in California due to his being perceived as friendly to Hispanics. After the xenophobic wing of the GOP became more visible, Hispanics fled the party in droves, even with McCain, the most immigrant-friendly of the GOP candidates in 2008, as the nominee. And Republicans are even losing ground on Vietnamese voters, as there are many more younger Vietnamese, who are not as strongly anti-Communism/Republican as the Vietnamese that came here after the war.

So summed up, the California of 2010 will be considerably different than the California of 1980, 1990, and even 2000. With the pool of possible Republican voters shrinking, both registration-ally and demographically, and the pool of possible Democratic voters growing, it seems more and more likely that just about any Democrat will be able to beat just about any Republican statewide.

And this all comes from somebody who has spent many hours over many months poring over California election and registration data going all the way back to statehood.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
And due to their hardline stances on immigration...
I cant imagine how Romney or Huckabee would have done had they been the nominee. McCain was the most popular Republican in the Latino community and even he got crushed.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think
you can take the Schwarzenegger elections to mean anything as far as the overall strength of the California GOP.

[ Parent ]
I agree with Chad and skaje.
Arnold's wins in 03 and 06 are not indicators of California Republican Party strength. And when a term-limited governor's approvals are in the 20s or lower, it is very unlikely that a candidate of the same party will win. See Taft, Bob, and Blackwell, Ken. Frank Murkowski doesn't count because he lost in the primary.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
I think the real evidence
is McCain's performance in Cali.  McCain was considered more or less a moderate conservative, and I think he would have had an outside chance to win Cali in 2000 had he been the nominee.  McCain got smoked.  I can't see Meg Whitman that much more attractive than McCain.

[ Parent ]
Basically
And even with his genrally pro-immigrant positions McCain still got slaughtered in the California Hispanic vote.  

[ Parent ]
She won't be running against Obama
2008 has no valuable lesson.  A good Dem, like Obama, can easily beat any Republican.  But there are no very good Dems running.  Brown is adequate, and should win if he isn't mortally wounded in the primary, but the mayors are... well, they ain't Obama.

[ Parent ]
What happened to Villaraigosa?
I remember when he defeated Hahn he looked like one of our brightest progressive stars.  I know about the whole marital affair issue, but that's usually not enough to destroy a politician.  Has he just been a bad mayor?

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

I've thought the same thing
Maybe with the mess California is in right now, no one is going to look good in a major executive position.

[ Parent ]
Villaraigosa hasn't been a bad mayor.
He's had ups and downs. He initially wasted energy trying to control the school system and made a mess of it. On the other hand, he's been a tireless advocate for mass transit and has made incredible headway on it. L. A. will look back someday on its well functioning subway and light rail system and thank Tom Bradley for thinking it up and Antonio Villaraigosa for making it happen.

The problem with Villaraigosa, I believe, is that he's a back room operator, not a charismatic leader. Recently, for example, he refused to participate in any debates when he easily won reelection. He has not bonded with the people. I think it's as simple as that. He's the opposite of LaGuardia. In the lives of most Angelenos, he's a vacuum.

As governor, he would probably do a good job of putting the minority Republicans in their place. He knows how to use power. Like Brown and Newsom, he'd govern from the center-left. So I'm uncertain at this point whom to support. The wisened up old guy, Brown? The charismatic, handsome, business-friendly Newsom? Or Villaraigosa, the guy without much likability or presence who knows how to make things happen? I think the jury is still out--hence the Field Poll results.


[ Parent ]
Makes me feel better.
I've had high hopes for both Newsom and Villaraigosa.  If he's looking at the polls right now, Villaraigosa might sit this one out.  It'd be great if he'd run for Senate in 2012 if Feinstein retires.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
Senate Demographics
-1 for Jews and Women
+1 for Catholics and Hispanics.

Works for me, helps keep our caucus diverse and we get someone who might end up being more progressive than Feinstein.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26


[ Parent ]
What a wrong way to think about this.


[ Parent ]
Not entirely.
Shouldn't be the whole focus, I'd agree, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to make the Country Club more diverse and certainly nothing wrong with wanting someone more progressive than Feinstein in it.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
I believe you meant "extramarital affair"
Marital affairs usually aren't an issue :-).

More seriously, I don't know if it made any difference (I'm not all that informed about LA politics), but I imagine it'd look worse if that affair was being had with a journalist covering your career.


[ Parent ]
I'd prefer Villaragoisa
then Brown.  I'd prefer anyone but the corporate hack Newsom.  

[ Parent ]
I'd like to see a poll without Garamendi
Y'know, with the whole not running thing.

I kinda feel like Brown is riding on having the widest name ID, especially if his support is coming from the elderly, while the youth is not paying attention so much, what with the whole not being as likely to declare party allegiance.

Overall though, I do favor Gavin Newsom for some reason, both from the standpoint of who I would like to see win and who I think will win. And no, there's no reason why, just he seems the most telegenic and "real" of the candidates, including how he has not held statewide office before.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26


If the older guys favour Brown
then he'll likely win; they're far more reliable voters.

Especially since Newsom's strength amongst the youth may be a mirage
Newsom's been good on gay rights, but terrible on business issues. I tend to think that once the entire field makes clear that they're in favour of gay marriage, then start hitting Newsom over his positions on economics, he'll fall back amongst the 18-39 demographic.

[ Parent ]
Question is whether the youth
give a care about the business issues when Newsom looks like a hero on gay marriage.

I really dislike Newsom, and I think he has effectively used his leadership on gay marriage to turn back legitimate progressive concerns about him on economic issues (which are the most important ones today.)


[ Parent ]
And even more bogus
Newsom is now trying to tie himself as another Obama candidate, after trashing him basically the entire campaign.

[ Parent ]
Could you expand on how he's been terrible?
[ Parent ]
As mayor of SF
he has sided with corporate interests on basically every major issue against labor, consumers, tenants, etc.

[ Parent ]
Again...
can you provide specific examples? Links perhaps?

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
Here are a few from his first race back in 03.
Newsom's race then was financed largely by the state Democratic Party and by corporate interests. Newsom was also accused of being "pro development and anti-handout". Most of the city's progressive movement coalesced behind Newsom's opponent in the runoff, Matt Gonzalez.

Newsom may be a booster of gay rights (like all the major candidates), a reformer of laws affecting single-room-occupancy hotels (like down-with-the-peeps Supervisor Chris Daly) and even a supporter of the minimum-wage bill (proposed by lefter-than-thou opponent Matt Gonzalez), but on homelessness and housing development, he differs sharply from his rivals, prompting both admiration and ire among observers.

Carol Lloyd was a prophet.

Newsom says criticisms that this proposal wouldn't help residents who earn modest income residents are inaccurate. "My opponents will criticize my plan as only helping wealthy people, but what plans have they put forward beyond socialist rhetoric?" he wrote.

Yes you heard that right. Newsom using "socialist" as if it was a bad word!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

Newsom, who was running unopposed for supervisor, was endorsed by local Republicans, as was a ballot measure he supported that set customer service standards for city workers, said Jim Ross, his campaign manager.


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
The only reason why I would
support Newsom in the general election is redistricting.  Getting 6-8 additional Democrats in the House is the most issue in the 2010 Governor's election.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I like Brown
it'd be nice to see Governor Moonbeam make a comeback after spending the late 80s in a Bhuddist monestary.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

I guess it is one thing that we agree on
I might slightly prefer Villaragoisa, but I like Brown too.  I really hate Newsom, and prefer nearly any other Dem to him.

[ Parent ]
I don't like any of them.
I miss Garamendi already...

[ Parent ]
Ugh
Please not Brown again.  He's moved back and forth on the political spectrum so often who knows what is latest reincarnation will be.

I'm rooting for Brown
although I'm in minority viewpoint of the young voter demagraphic, I still think he has the best chance to pull of a victory

Male 21 Dem Ca's 1st  


Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox