California Senate 2024 - Schiff (D) vs Garvey (R)

[Oryxslayer]

I don't think anyone in the Congressional delegation runs against Feinstein, quite honestly.

I would look at current and recent statewide downballot officeholders as the likely Feinstein opponents in 2024. So, Kounlakis, possibly Becerra if he decides to leave the Cabinet, also probably Ma and Yee seem like plausible candidates in 2024.

Kounalakis and Feinstein are both NorCal machine politicians. Eleni wouldn't jump in the primary because she wants Feinstein's donors in the case of an open governor election (which is what she is planning to go for at any rate). It's also been long rumored that Khanna would rather be governor than Senator, and he would be unlikely to primary Feinstein for similar reasons to Eleni.

Porter and Schiff, on the other hand, have nothing to lose and will probably jump into this race no matter what. I personally don't think Feinstein ultimately runs. Things like debates and cutting commercials will embarass and doom her campaign. She's got like dementia and s***

In the likely event Feinstein doesn't run, I expect London Breed to make a vain, quixotic, identity politics and white liberal grievance campaign with Bloomberg money. There's an opening for another NorCal politician, but I dk who. Barbara Lee is too old. Nobody else really has the profile

I think the most prominent Bay Area politician who isn't serving in Sacramento at this point, and is not on the retirement list themselves (looking at you congressional delegation) is San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener. He however is aligned with the change/progressive wing and would almost certainly step aside for Porter.

My shortlist right now for the potential clowncar is honestly mostly outer SoCal politicos, which is unusual but understandable since most of the Bay Area is currently represented by 90s era politicians, and a bunch of Los Angeles politicians just got entangled by the city council scandals. Barragan, Porter, Schiff, Sanchez, and Khanna are the congressional reps who seem to have interest around them, but Swalwell certainly has ambition as seem by 2020. Then there is the statewide row officers, mayors and ex-mayors, and others without an office but egos and money found in Silicon Valley.

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

Three minor nitpicks:

1) You are looking at an outdated district (I think the old SF one based on demos?). Lee currently represents the 12th, which is 35% White, 21% Hispanic, 18% AA, 25% Asian by VAP. But her electoral strength here isn't really relevant because she hasn't faced any serious challenges, and if she did, she easily wins between Berkeley and AA's having a higher CVAP percentage than VAP.

2) Porter's path is the suburban wine mom path, same as many other successful Dems in recent times. Us armchair analysts kinda have a blindspot to this group - which is gaining strength in Dem primaries - since we rush to group things ideologically, demographically, or geographically.  I think this is why people right now think of Porter as the Bay candidate even though she isn't from the Bay Area and Lee is: Porter harmonizes better with the electorate. Anecdotally of course, I know a handful of people (demographically diverse) who fall into this track stereotypes and they are all for Porter, several have even donated and one is gonna join her SF campaign team.

3) Don't expect Khanna to endorse anyone. Expect him to get in lol. His combination of consistently peculiar positions, attraction to the limelight, and silicon valley backers will make the possibility too tempting to resist - even though not many people actually like him.

[Oryxslayer]

I think this is why people right now think of Porter as the Bay candidate even though she isn't from the Bay Area and Lee is: Porter harmonizes better with the electorate.

Nobody here has yet said this, but it would be really stupid if they did. This only makes sense if you make up a fictional Bay Area that is a white homeland. It has no relationship to the actual Bay Area electorate.

In the actually existing Bay Area, these were the 2020 Democratic primary results:

Sanders 32.7%
Biden 26.9%
Warren 16.6%
Bloomberg 13.6%
Buttigieg 4.3%
Klobuchar 2.5%

Warren finishing with a sixth of the vote does not exactly suggest that real-life Bay Area voters flocked to her, as opposed to voters in the make-believe Bay Area that people like to imagine where the population is 80% white liberals.

Where in my post did I say anything about Whites? Go ahead, read it back. In fact I specifically tried to go out of the way to mention in my grain of salt that the people I knew who were already for Porter were different demographically when it comes to ethnicity and background. You assumed I meant White, even though I never mentioned it. I specifically pushed back on said demographic analysis, since I am from the Bay Area, what matters here is worldview, perspective and more importantly, personal economic stability.

That all said, the 9-county Bay Area is like 12% Whiter by CVAP than Population and probably a bit more in primary composition. Lots of Young families who got jobs and now settled down. Lots more foreigners who came for the jobs. Demographically these phenomenon are most represented in the Census Asian population. Then there is also the universal Hispanic CVAP reduction. So while the White Bay Area may have vanished two decades ago, there are reasons why candidates who align with a worldview that is stereotypically associated with Whites keep winning, even though they may not and their coalitions are multiracial.

Also, quoting the 2020 primary results is a nice bit of historical revisionism. Buttigieg was out and Warren was both Warren and Klobuchar were collapsing. To vote for them on election day was essentially an act of protest. So all 3 getting about a third of the vote almost purely via the mail seems like a point in my statements favor, not opposition.

I think this is why people right now think of Porter as the Bay candidate even though she isn't from the Bay Area and Lee is: Porter harmonizes better with the electorate.

Don't expect Khanna to endorse anyone. Expect him to get in lol. His combination of consistently peculiar positions, attraction to the limelight, and silicon valley backers will make the possibility to tempting to resist - even though not many people actually like him.

This would make sense if not for anything that's happened since last November. Khanna has been directly quoted as saying that "my biggest factor will be looking at what Barbara Lee does." The obvious conclusion is the he plans to support Barbara Lee.

Do you really trust Khanna? I don't believe anything he does until he does it. The dude is to paradoxically quixotic. I mean this is the guy with this internet meme that seemingly keeps appearing every time he opens his mouth:

 

[Oryxslayer]

Does anyone have a sense or prediction for which Republicans will run?

There has not been a serious Republican campaign for Senate in California since 2010. When I say "serious" I don't just mean that there hasn't been a candidate with any chance to win since then, although that's true; I mean that 2010 was the last time that a Republican whom anyone would have heard of at all decided to mount a campaign. Chuck DeVore, the assemblyman from Orange County who finished in third place in the 2010 Republican primary, was far more credible a candidate than any Republican to have run since.

I have not heard any indication that there will be anything but the same gadflies as usual. Maybe there'll be a guy who was in the state legislature fifteen years ago.

I agree with everything here, just will add one thing. With three big-name current representatives running on the D side, all who have created decent tv or social media presence over the past few years, there is a decent chance a Conservative 'influencer' hops in cause they see the opportunity to 'own the Libs' from their perspective. Obviously this would not be a serious play for the office, but more a campaign designed to boost their own non-electoral profile while simply scoring perceived gotcha's on the 'liberal darlings.' Which is to say that everything you expressed it correct, but national GOP grassroots might still end up setting money on fire.

[Oryxslayer]

Newsom pledged to appoint a Black woman, but Barbara Lee won't get the nod because she's currently in the Senate race, so who would that leave?

-London Breed
-Malia Cohen
-Sydney Kamlager-Dove
-Karen Bass
-Kamala Harris
-Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
-Shirley Weber

I imagine it won’t be Karen Bass. She was only elected Mayor in 2022, and she left Washington to take that post. I don’t think she’d leave so early in her term to accept what will likely only be an interim appointment (she already endorsed Barbara Lee for the full term).

Shirley Weber makes the most sense by far. She (ironically) succeeded Padilla as Secretary of State and is old enough to definitely not run again. She would probably happily be a senator for a year and a half as the end to her career.

The same could also be said of Maxine Waters. Both people who you would think are fine with a capstone and retirement.

[Oryxslayer]

If his goal is a placeholder, I don't see how it could be anyone besides Weber.

I have also seen the name of Bay Area Transit Board member Lateefah Simon mentioned as a possibility. Simon is currently the frontrunner for the CA-12 House seat held by Barbara Lee. It would be weird to have a sitting senator running for a house seat but there is nothing stopping her from from being a senate placeholder while continuing to run for the house. 

There's also chatter about Maxine Waters. Weber is obvious given Newsoms past behavior,  but she might say no. Weber just got elected and could serve until 2026 or even 2030 if she so desired despite her age, compared to a little over a year in the senate and then nothing.  The argument goes that if Weber doesn't see the senate as a capstone,  Waters the long-term congressional representative would.

[Oryxslayer]

It's incredibly unprecedented for the third-place candidate and her surrogates to repeatedly demand the seat be given to them in the middle of an ongoing race. Bizarre.

I almost hope Newsom goes ahead and taps Schiff as the party choice at this point.

If Newsom breaks his pledge it would probably be the African American part (cause all his options said no?) rather than the placeholder part at this point.

[Oryxslayer]

It's incredibly unprecedented for the third-place candidate and her surrogates to repeatedly demand the seat be given to them in the middle of an ongoing race. Bizarre.

I almost hope Newsom goes ahead and taps Schiff as the party choice at this point.

If Newsom breaks his pledge it would probably be the African American part (cause all his options said no?) rather than the placeholder part at this point.

I mean, he couldn’t appoint Lee even if he wanted to at this point, right?  It’d make him look really weak for being bullied into submission by the Twitter tantrum of some random congresswoman who can’t even crack double-digits in a statewide primary

Yes, but also it appears as though the Black political establishment is also applying pressure on him. Thus far every notable Black female politician has said they won’t take a caretaker appt and many have said he should give it to Lee. So, if he doesn’t appoint her there is a good chance he will just bolster her argument that he’s looking to appoint a token Black person to advance his own interests and not to help Black ppl.

Gavin Newsom has turned a moment of potential strength into a lose-lose situation.

It doesn't have to be a African American woman to service Newsom's interests. If none of the obvious choices we are throwing around want to do 15 months in the Senate, then he'll start looking elsewhere.

Which is how I found myself googling Willie Brown's name this morning.

[Oryxslayer]

Also, I don’t believe Lee would be in office in 2034.

That's also the subtext here. Lee was reaching the expected retirement point for the house anyways. It's not hard to shake the impression that her campaign is just a fancy retirement option. From that perspective,  it makes prefect sense for her to want to be a placeholder.  But she already committed to the run and all that entails,  so the placeholder option that would make sense in isolation becomes an impossibility.

[Oryxslayer]

If Lee actually were appointed, do people think she would win the primary? It seems to me like CA voters are pretty sick of having an octogenarian senator. And appointed Senators lose primaries all the time.

There's the one option that hasn't been discussed, perhaps because it doesn't make sense with the public info: Lee gets appointed but also ends her campaign.  Seems unlikely yes? But would make sense if you view the campaign of an 80-year-old to be born more from the desire for retirement than advancement.  And if Lee herself views things this way, of course she would fight for the appointment,  cause she doesn't consider winning to be an absolute necessity like those seeking advancement.  And because she's fighting for it, her allies will, cause they assume advancement as the primary motivation.

[Oryxslayer]

So like in 2022, there will actually be two senate elections in California in November 2024? The regular one and a special election for the lame duck period? That's actually kind of obscure. Technically the actual winner, if he or she wins both the special and regular, would again seniority over their freshman colleagues that are scheduled to take office on January 3, 2025. It would actually be hilarious in a Democrat vs. Democrat election with a split outcome. So one elected for two months and the other for a full term.

Technically the question is on the ballot four times, since the jungle primary for both questions will have multiple and usually a lot of the same candidates.

[Oryxslayer]

Well, I think the real question now is if she tries to run for the open seat - filing deadline still has not passed. Newsom's statement earlier seemed to suggest it could theoretically be an option. Though IMO the statement was just about absolving Newsom of picking a 'token' candidate, and make it seem like it would be the appointees choice to run for a full term, though it would have been worked out ahead of time.

I'm sure tomorrow she'll make it clear about her plans. And if she does run, one would imagine all three of the congressional reps lose support to her, for varying reasons and to varying degrees. But she would only have 5 months to inform millions of people why their reaction to hearing her name should not be "who?"

[Oryxslayer]

I will say, if I was in her shoes, I wouldn't run in the general election.  Mostly cause California is one of if not the most expensive state in the nation when campaigning statewide. She is unknown to 95% of residents, and somehow you need to both introduce and convince several million to choose you over the other Dems. And the other Dems have sizable war chests and built in brands.

And you have a immediatly established residency issue. It's the hot new thing, every Senate seat needs someone running from out of state now. Carpetbagging matters less in the Southwest than in the Midwest, one sees significantly more arrivals from out of state than the other. But when your name recognition is zilch, immediately entering a race with such an issue seems suicidal.  That's just asking the established candidate with millions in their warchests to make the one thing people know about you is that you are not a real Californian and don't understand Californian issues.

Obviously,  all this could be solved with a LOT of money. But Emily's List should and does have bigger and established priorities in competitive districts. Flushing a large chunk of their warchest in safe D California when 2/3 potential successors are also women seems unwise. Far more sounder to use the new position to increase intake and outflow to the necessary candidates,  a number of whom are in SoCal swing seats.




But I'm me and Butler's herself.  She can do what she thinks to be her prerogative. Maybe she "runs" but actually doesn't run and just uses the campaign for fundraising.  We'll all know in 18 hours max.

But her running would knock Lee out of viability. She would divide at best, or claim in its entirely at worst, the support of African American voters outside of the East Bay. That would remove one of the few legs of Lee's coalition, in a race where any support is necessary versus hypothetically 3 other rivals.  She would take support from Porter and Schiff as well, but they are in a better position to survive such losses, according to polling. Would be more likely if Newsom had a history of being publically spiteful.

[Oryxslayer]

How anybody thought Barbara Lee ever had a viable path to the Senate is something that ought be studied by scientists. Her biggest issues since February are low name recognition compared to the normie dem darlings that are Adam Schiff and Katie Porter, her being out-funded compared to Porter and Schiff ($1,000,000 BL, $10,000,000 KP, $29,000,000 AS), and of course her ripe young of 77 (soon to be 78 in 2024, and would be 84 in 2030), she would’ve beaten out Peter Welch as the oldest freshman in the history of the Senate, which after Feinstein’s death isn’t a title anyone should want

Like I have said earlier in the thread, her campaign gives the vibes (at least personally) of someone for whom winning would just be a surprising bonus. No offense to anyone voting for her, in fact, keep voting for her. That's your call. The point to me though seems to be retirement with dignity. Which itself is not an uncommon motivator. As long as a losing candidate doesn't get blown out, they still have the time and money to make their appeal. That raises awareness to one's issues, and could change the narrative on certain things the winning candidates have to follow. It also will build a contact list for those who follow in your footsteps.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/meridak/status/1709212656136081841?t=PwsRJFMyNTk1JtupLMhqwg&...

This tells me that she is not running,  and Newsom picked a DC insider to do a DC job for a few months. This is because filing deadlines are fast approaching for the March primary.  She is a hypothetical candidate with no name recognition, already-uncovered potential election weaknesses,  and all opponents have lots of money in a expensive state where millions of voters need to be in your corner to win. If she was running, it would have to start now, and hard. Delay in this situation is the same as no.

[Oryxslayer]

Butler is being sworn in to finish the term.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/OregonMapGuy/status/1709349781196157117

He gets single digits, comes in like fifth, and has an embarrassing end to his career? Not that interesting of a scenario.

No other relevant Republican is going to bother entering the race so he'd definitely get at least 20% in the primary and into the final two. Not that it matters of course given the chance of winning the runoff is nil.

There are several Republicans already in the race, but the point is still true. He can consolidate enough to to make the primary de facto into the general. It would be an embarrassing defeat to finish his career, cause his prominence probably leads to further underperformance.

The only, and I repeat only, reason this might happen is cause McCarty is good at fundraising. And running as a senate candidate allows him to get more money and then funnel in to the 7 frontline CA Republicans.

[Oryxslayer]

https://rollcall.com/2023/10/08/lee-porter-schiff-face-off-in-california-senate-forum/

All of the candidates support legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 hourly rate to $17 by 2028.

But is that high enough, especially in a high-cost state such as California? All three candidates said no.

Schiff said his father earned $18,000 a year as a traveling salesman and that was enough for the family to afford a home. “I want people to be able to afford good, safe housing, and we’re not going to get it at a minimum wage,” he said. “What we need is really a livable wage that will vary from place to place. So states should have flexibility but there ought to be a minimum and for health care workers, I support more than $25.”

Lee said $20 per hour should be the floor. Anything less is “unacceptable anywhere in the United States, especially in California.” Later, when pressed to provide a specific number, Lee said the minimum wage should be $50 per hour.

Porter noted that corporate profits have ballooned in recent years. “We have a Washington that is consistently putting the interests of big corporations ahead of the interests of workers and families,” she said. Porter said she backs a $20 per hour federal minimum wage, and $25 in California, and would tie future rate increases to inflation.

All these guys are justifying throwing these numbers around cause of the housing crisis.  But it hypothetically won't increase supply, just demand and therefore expenses since more people would be in the competition for purchasing. If a candidate really wants to win the youth vote,  just promise to support any measure that would facilitate the ease of upzoning and construction.  If there is a legitimate way Lee catches fire, it's promising to fix the supply side, since the other two candidates likely can't afford to alienate NIMBY suburbanites until the general.

[Oryxslayer]

I think Garvey getting in helps Schiff. He has been leading the primary but losing the general to Porter.

Garvey has the best chance of uniting the GOP to get to the general. Chance of GOP victory is of course nill.

In theory, this checks out.

In practice,  he right now is just another GOP name next to other GOP names.  The absurdly hypothetical McCarthy run wouldn't have this issue cause people in an electorate of millions already know him. People barely remember Garvey at best. Any Republican needs money or exposure to actually unite the GOP base. The former is probably not going to come in the numbers necessary,  given the present Democratic warchests, ad reservations, and how much campaign time remains. But the later could, especially via FOX, talk radio, and the far-right echo chamber.  That's how Larry Elder kept his lead though he had national backing.

[Oryxslayer]

No endorsement, no surprise.

Was 50+1% needed?

Otherwise, it seems Lee gets the lead, which once again puts the National Apparatus against the State, just like 2018 when Feinstein effectively got Lieberman'd, and just like Lieberman, didn't take a hint and got bailed out by the mainstream cowards.

One thing's for sure, it's going to be quite surreal if Porter of all people still comes out on top.

I believe 60% was needed (someone from CA can correct me if I'm wrong). Nobody got close.

I disagree about Porter, while I view Schiff as the frontrunner Porter is far more likely to make the top 2 than Lee IMO.

Yes, you needed 60%+1 for the endorsement. AKA it goes to basically the races where there is one official Dem candidate and a bunch of other nobodies.

Here's the other thing, the convention is the furthest thing from a representative sample of the electorate. This is almost always the case anywhere, no matter the party, but it bears repeating.

 In the case of California, the Democratic convention is not entirely dominated by the activists, but they do have a very oversized presence. Look no further than De Leon winning more than 50% in 2018 at the convention, but not the necessary 60%+1.

The other group at the convention is party insiders. AKA, the type of people who would respect the two congressional Reps with decades of tenure. So we basically have a group of politicos most primed for Lee and she underperformed, at least according to the people who were watching this thing. Meanwhile, Schiff overperformed. Which suggests there was a strong north/south divide that counteracted the activist one. Porter performed roughly what the insiders were expecting from this event, maybe a bit better - again suggesting a North/South activist split.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/CaliforniaLabor/status/1732164196295639379?t=D-JnoOblS5PZ_9Y...

I'm posting this here cause it came up in my feed, and I found it hilarious how useless this endorsement and statement is. Saying nothing may have legit been more productive.

[Oryxslayer]

Schiff is getting free publicity today from participating in the rose bowl parade and tournament. He doesn't represent much of Pasadena,  but I'm sure he put his thumb on the scale to get in position for the national press.

[Oryxslayer]

For all the talk about a D v R race, LaTimes/UCBerkeley today found a D v D contest between Schiff and Porter to be to outcome,  and not that close given the divisions of the vote.

So as we approach the votingperiod, it seems to be a tossup between D v D vs D v R, not just the potential tossup between Porter and Schiff if it's D  v D.

[Oryxslayer]

Something else on the Republican vote is if we get Schiff vs Porter, is geographic familiarity. A good chunk of them are sub or ex-urbanites to the South and east of Los Angeles City. When you have to choose between two bad options, familiarity and the idea that someone is from or "knows our community" can often be a decider. I know it's going to be the case with some of the Republicans in my extended OC family, cause they have said as much.  

[Oryxslayer]

Is it too late for Porter to just switch to running for her House seat again? This looks like a serious miscalculation for her.

Filing deadlines are way behind us.