.
.
.
"Since we're here at a City Council meeting, I'd like to tell a friend of mine in the back of the room what I'm independent expenditures I'm arranging in support my campaign. Everyone else, be polite and cover your ears!"
This was a very interesting day in politics — not only nationally (with the Romneybot requiring serious repair after malfunctioning badly in South Carolina), but to a lesser extent locally. (Warning: yes, this is another story about local electoral politics. You probably already know if you’re not the sort of person who ought to read it.)
We had two stories coming out of AD-69: results of the pre-endorsement meeting (which are not quite as crisp as you may have read) and the continuing saga of Michele Martinez’s possibly having talked herself to (political) death in front of a reporter when bragging of working with an Indian tribe on Independent expenditures, which are arrangements a candidate is not supposed to make. (This needs a catchier title: in homage to Hitchcock, I’m tentatively going with “Arrangers on a Train.”) You’ve heard about Gingrich already (and, if not, thanks for checking here first!), so let’s limit ourselves to local events.
Before getting to the results in the Democratic Party endorsements, I have a question: has anyone asked Michele who it was she was talking to while on the train? If there’s a dispute about what she said, don’t we want to hear from her conversation partner? That person may or may not tell the truth, but if they’re inclined to lie, I think we should make them have to lie about it.
Our less polyglot competitors over at Liberal OC have been frolicking around with this story like puppies in clover, today noting Martinez’s angry attack on the reporter who eavesdropped on her conversation (which the reporter subsequently explained were happening in public — and loudly) and then, in an article that was almost painful to read, on how the Pala Band of Mission Indians was distancing itself from Martinez at lightning speed. This led to a quibble with The Register’s Andrew Galvin, who reasonably noted that candidates are not barred from noting that independent expenditures on their behalf are taking place, but only from arranging them. (“Arrangers on a Train,” get it? OK, whatever.)
The Lib OC guys responded that she said that she was “working with” an agent of the Pala Band, which does sound sort of “arrange-y” — but a scandal predicated on the degree of precision in Martinez’s boastful depiction of her exploits may have feet of clay. (Speaking of feet of clay and other morphological problems, I call upon Lib OC and all other blogs not to use the most unappealing photo of a candidate that they have. Vern and I will, of course, be exempted from this request.) Regardless, Martinez did not, at best, give comfort to her supporters that she was the sort of deft and professional candidate upon which one might want to spend dough.
But would it hurt her? Well, among the 20-to-22 members of the State Democratic Central Committee (better known as “convention delegates”) voting on an endorsement in AD-69, something certainly did.
Here I must take some issue with my Lib OC vicious competitors. They reported the results of the endorsement caucus in a way that did not make a lot of sense and left out the most significant information. So, I’m going to address that. (Those of you who don’t like understanding party rules, skip the next two paragraphs, which as a warning I’ll put in Democratic blue.)
The first thing you have to know is that if no one gets more than 50% of the vote at these pre-endorsement meetings — as you’ll see, I’ve highlighted that “more than” for a good reason — there will be no official party endorsement in the primary for that race. If one exceeds 70% of the votes, they will receive the endorsement outright. It is in that middle ground between 50.00001% and 69.99999% that things get most interesting.
DSCC members in the district caucus and vote. Incumbents need to receive only 50.01% of the vote to get the (tentative) endorsement; non-incumbents need 60%. If they don’t get at least 2/3 of the vote, a petition by 300 DSCC members can force a vote by the whole membership on the convention floor. If above 2/3 of the vote, the pre-primary endorsement review committee can still pull it and send it to the floor — where the same “50.01%/60% thresholds apply. Got it?
Now, in AD-69, 21 votes were counted. Lib OC gave the tally as 11 for Perez, 3 for Daly, and 1 for Martinez — all of which is correct, but incomplete, as their appending “(52%)” to Perez’s total — which 11/15 is not. Why the discrepancy? Well, 6 people also voted for “no endorsement,” which as reported here previously was the tactic favored by Sen. Lou Correa and Asmb. Jose Solorio — although in this “El Pollo” district it seems a bit like “la caca del pollo.” (It’s not like the Democrats don’t often endorse in competitive races.) So that gives Perez 11 votes out of 21, which is barely a majority.
Or is it?
It turns out that one of the delegate supporting Perez was accused of having questionable credentials. Take that one away and Perez has only 50% of the vote, missing an endorsement. But even if you take that away, another Perez-supporting delegate arrived late, claiming to have been misinformed as to the timing of the vote. Count that vote — as Sacramento bigwigs were being asked to do — and Perez goes back up to 11 for 21. Count them both and Perez has 12 for 22, which is a cushion with no effect. Knock out any other non-Perez delegate, and Perez wins anyway.
And what does he win? Again: not the endorsement itself, but the chance to pursue an endorsement next month at the convention in San Diego. Still, it’s awfully nice to be able to call oneself the party-endorsed candidate.
The larger story, of course (as, to be fair, Lib OC apparently presumed) is that in the first test of relative strength between the candidates, Perez got 11 votes to (in effect) somewhere between 3 and 9 for Daly. Martinez got somewhere between 1 and 7; my guess is that we’re closer to the “9” and “1” of the above, but maybe not all of the way there. (8 and 2? 7 and 3? All 6 “no endorsement” voters actually wanting to support Francisco Barragan, who was too late to be included on the ballot?) That’s an “uh-oh” for Daly and a “oh no!” for Martinez. If fundraising figures show Martinez well behind her competitors, it will be hard for her to stay competitive.
One other race had something interesting happen: in AD-72, Joe Dovinh was the only candidate on the ballot, but still did not reach the 70% level, ending up with only 66%. (I don’t know how many voted.) One possible reason was a lack of union support; another was that people still think that a Democrat should never endorse John McCain for President — even if you’re Vietnamese and running for office from Little Saigon, where he is venerated as a sort of secular saint. Dovinh can try again at the convention. In his case, the endorsement may be more important than in AD-69, because his only chance of making the runoff against at least three well-heeled Republicans (two of them also Vietnamese) is to turn out the Democratic vote — if there is one there to be had!
Here is a link to the photo of the vote tally:
http://www.theliberaloc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Results_7813w.jpg
From the party endorsement guide:
Should a candidate receive the required 70% or more of the vote, s/he will be a recommended candidate for endorsement. Recommendations will go on the Consent Calendar to be ratified at the State Convention on Sunday, February
12, 2012, in San Diego.
If no candidate receives more that the required 50% of the vote, the conference shall have taken the position of “no consensus” for endorsement.
If one candidate receives more than 50% but less than 70% of the vote for a district, the race will go to the caucuses held during the February Convention.
If the non-incumbant candidate gets 60% of the vote in the convention caucus, then a recommendation goes to the convention flore for ratification.
Hope that clears things up.
Greg, as I understand the accusation of “questionable credentials” was clarified as a state party error. The delegate had moved back into the district, after the new lines excluded her, and the state party had not notified the region of the change. The state party was informed of the delegate’s status by the December 8th deadline.
Last I checked, 11 out of 21 votes is 52.38% Based on party rules the endorsement question in the 69th moves to a caucus of delegates at the state convention. If Perez is able to get 60% there, then he will get the endorsement.
Chris,
My recollection from when I checked your story is that it didn’t have the “no endorsement” row (with 6 votes) in the table, nor the photo. I did not take a screenshot and I could be wrong in my memory of what I saw, but that’s what I remember and that was why I said that I thought that Lib OC has left out part of the story. (What was the “71%” under Dovinh in the vote tally, anyway? Was this supposed to be 70%?)
I’m happy if the question was resolved. From what I was told when I was told, though, it hadn’t been. Challenges are possible through, if I recall correctly, Jan. 31.
Your math checks out.
The 71% for Dovinh, and the 96% for Kang are inclusive of “Provisional Ballots.”
And no you’re not forgetting things, the picture of the ballot tally went up when I corrected the ommission of the “no endorsement” line for the 69th. 🙂
Thanks for pointing out that I hadn’t included the “no endorsement” part in my initial report.
I had set the post up before I left for the meeting and forgot to include that line in my draft. So, when I filled in the blanks, I didn’t have a blank for “no endorsement” to fill in. I was also posting from my phone, which is somewhat difficult to manage.
No offense taken or intended. I just wanted to explain why this article took the form it did. I commit worse atrocities pretty much every time I post.
FWIW, Julio (for understandable reasons) is reporting the results the same way — “11 to 3 to 1.” It’s not untrue, but it misses what the opposing tactic was. Anyone who really thinks that Julio currently has 73% of the Democratic support is fooling themselves. On the other hand, his winning a majority is itself a sign of serious power.
The tragic story of the exercise from yesterday is that five elected state offices will not have Democrats running in Orange County. That is a sad commentary for our DPOC.
These blog comments do not even mention this sad state of affairs.
Who is in charge?
Not really true. Many offices (including AD-65 up north) will not have Democrats who even tried to obtain a pre-primary endorsement — and that’s a disappointment. But the filing deadline doesn’t end until March 9 (as I recall), and I know of at least one seat where a Dem is likely to run and another where an Occupy person who is DTS but Dem-Friendly is likely to run. We do need to either fill other slots or decide that it’s OK to abandon them.
I do think that the size of the filing fees dissuaded some people. $250, $350, and $500 for Assembly/Congress/State Senate!
As for “who is in charge?” — well, that question can be answered in various ways….
Sorry Dude,
I cannot accept your simplistic response “not really.” If there is one open race without a Democrat then we have not done our work as a Party. You disenfranchise Democrats from voting for that seat.
And people who have stepped up to run in the past had to pay in the thousands to get on the ballot with a voter statement. The party used to pay for the registration fee, but now with the new primary voting system that has stopped.
And with all due respect it is not OK to abandon any seat as you suggest. We have now just given the game away with no one running and comments like yours will prove to the other party we have abandoned our County and our will to bring our values forward.
Yours is a poor commentary. God bless us all.
With a ballot statement, you’re adding about $5000 to the above. The state party still generally pays where a sole Democrat is running in a Republican district. As we both know, the county party couldn’t pay for a shoe shine.
You said that five elected state offices will not have Democrats running in Orange County. That’s a factual assertion. It’s wrong — and there’s nothing simplistic about saying so. You can’t say that it’s true based on this weekend’s events. You can just say that in that many races, no Democrat filed for a party endorsement. There’s still time to file (and get the endorsement automatically if one finishes in the top two), let alone to enter as a write-in.
There’s an argument to be made that no seat should be abandoned. That is what I think is simplistic. I don’t think that voters really care whether they have someone to vote for in a race where one party is deeply in the minority. Democrats will be out to vote for President, Senate, and initiatives. In AD-74, for example, we’re arguably better off if no Democrat makes the runoff, because (1) that just generates bad will within the GOP all the way through November and (2) it also sucks up GOP money and volunteers to fire at each other (something that Dems will likely experience in both AD-69 and CD-38.) That’s money and volunteer effort that won’t go into other races — and will keep people both working on other GOP races out of the same work room.
I’m sorry that you think my commentary was “poor”; if you want to recruit a candidate in a red district, I’ll very likely support them. (I don’t like the idea of people running unopposed, for example.) But there is such a thing as triage — and it exists for a reason.
Say what you will, I am not one, and I know of others, that will not abandon as you suggest a seat to the other side.
Have you ever run for office, have you had to fund raise? It is more work than you can ever believe, especially in a district where you are out numbered. But Democrats have done it in the past and I only hope no one takes your suggestions seriously. A fight is a fight and right now, in our County if we don’t fight we will lose even more ground. Think about that, and yes
:”Where is the leadership?”
Yes, I’ve been involved in fundraising and running campaigns, up to full-time.
You don’t seem to get is how the Top 2 system changes things. It is possible that we’ll have an R vs. D race in AD-74 in November, but we could as easily have an R vs. R runoff. Where no one is running against a Republican — see CA-48, SD-37, AD-73 — then yes, absolutely, I want to see a Democrat run, because I’d rather the runoff not be “R vs. Neo-Nazi” or whoever runs instead.
There are other ways to win, though, and one is to let the opponent bleed themselves dry. AD-74 is a perfect place to do so. I still would want someone running in the mostly overlapping Congressional races, to get people out. But I’m also happy to see Republicans have a terrible intraparty fight all the way into November, which means less money to put into local races and less success with volunteers because the volunteers continue to hate each other within the primary.
Presenting this as “abandoning the district” is overdramatic. But if you disagree, then by all means push for someone — probably, at this point, someone without any money — to run there. Maybe they’ll eke out a spot in the runoff and can get creamed by Mansoor, Daigle, or Carlson — which helps the party to some extent. But I think that, say, Mansoor and Carlson fighting each other to the death through Election Day helps us even more.
We can agree to disagree — or not. I expect that it will be discussed at Central Committee tonight, where I’ve asked us to review Committee activity, with a special focus on candidate recruitment (i.e., “the leadership.”) By the way; I’ve been busy with candidate recruitment for months. How are things out your way?
I can’t tell how many times people have been asked to run to “take one for the party.” I am done with you.
I’ll talk to you tonight. I have news for you.
Ooh – drama! Intrigue!
Between two of my best friends!
I’m assuming that the person I’m speaking to is intending to remain confidential, so I’m honoring that. “See you tonight” isn’t very specific, especially since this is clearly about Democratic politics. (I hope that “one of your friends” doesn’t narrow it down too much either, Chief!)