CA-Sen: California Quake

[hopper]

Moderates have a party, it's called the "Democratic Party." Most independents are just teabagger Republicans who don't want to identify as such.

I am sort of a Rockefeller Republican and I could never be a Democrat. With that said I am not a registered Republican either. I just feel like the Democrats are too liberal or me and the Republicans are too Bible Belt/Deep South to identify with.

[hopper]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.

Sorry for typo (corrected), but on all other points i stick to my opinion. I gave enough examples where business Democrats and relatively moderate Republicans REALLY won.

Why should Republicans and Independents have any say in who Democrats nominate?  Why should Democrats and Independents have any say in who Republicans nominate?  What you're essentially arguing is that because you prefer "business Democrats" and Rockefeller Republicans, they should be forced upon districts where a more liberal or conservative candidate better represents the area's political views.  I realize you probably don't see it that way, but that is basically what you are supporting.  Actually, top-two is even worse because it can force same-party general elections which can deprive voters of a meaningful ideological choice.  I'd oppose it just as much were it implemented in a state where Democrats would benefited more from it than Republicans.  Top-two elections, changing the rules for how states allocate electoral votes, voter ID, the destruction of campaign finance reform laws, the dismantlement of the VRA, etc are all basically efforts to rig the electoral system for a particular party and/or ideology and it is pretty disgusting.   Trying to rig elections for economically conservative Democrats or socially moderate Republicans is just as bad as trying to rig them for a particular party!

Meaningful idealogical choice? That means more Ted Cruz's. No thank you. I realized he got elected in a top 2 tier primary but you catch my drift.

Lets go further into your post-

Changing Rules on EV's are allocated-No Republican State Led Government has done that yet. To quote a Walter Mondale ad "Where's The Beef?"

Voter ID-I agree you shouldn't make it hard to vote but you have to show ID even to buy a beer.

Dismantling of VRA-Why should a particular ethnic group get packed into Congressional District because of some law? Its kind of crazy. Besides most congressional districts are made to tailor for incumbent protection or to block one the two parties from gaining particular traction in a particular area. That's not any better than VRA.

[hopper]

If there is any person who can lose this senate race for the Democrats, it is Steyer. He will win the bay area but he will collapse in the central valley among hispanics (water and jobs issue) and quite possibly could in southern california as well. Rich, white liberals are not the swing vote in California, it is moderate to conservative minorities. A generic democrat wins that vote easily in this environment but things get interesting if it is an out of touch billionaire vs a moderate like Kashkari or Swearingen. In any case, California is more likely to vote in a Republican governor before a senator barring unusual circumstances.

It's California in a presidential year. There's no scenario outside of an R vs. R race that Democrats lose.

If your the Republicans let the Democrat win. Its basically a watch and learn race for the Republicans since I don't think a Republican can win here and may not even have a candidate in the top 2 final.

]