CA-SUSA: Harris ahead of Sanchez by 4

[Ebsy]

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4114a2c6-213f-4447-8c7b-eb137d8c3312

Harris(D): 26
Sanchez(D): 22
Del Becarro(R): 8
Wyman(R): 8
Sundheim(R): 5
Other: 7
Undecided: 24

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Cue endless laughing at the california republican party.

[Хahar 🤔]

There is no reason for the Republican Party to put up a serious candidate here, since no Republican can win. If, as expected, the general election is between Harris and Sanchez, Sanchez will win by getting more or less the entirety of the Republican vote. Of course I hope dearly that Sanchez finishes in third place.

[Gass3268]

The jungle primary needs to die.

[Mr. Smith]

There is no reason for the Republican Party to put up a serious candidate here, since no Republican can win. If, as expected, the general election is between Harris and Sanchez, Sanchez will win by getting more or less the entirety of the Republican vote. Of course I hope dearly that Sanchez finishes in third place.

Firstly, this expects the GOP vote to be significant enough to give it to Sanchez. But given how Sanchez is still a Democrat and still fairly liberal, turnout could be seriously depressed. Meanwhile, the Establishment will obviously shill for Harris.

Second, a chunk of the GOP could very well crossover to Harris instead because of either better name recognition, or because of Sanchez' gaffe record.

[Virginiá]

The jungle primary needs to die.

I think I agree with this. If a state is heavily tilted towards one party, then it helps ensure that the minority party almost never gets to even run a candidate in the GE. One of the only exceptions here that I can see is if the majority party has so many candidates that it splits the primary vote enough for the minority party to win a spot, or if the minority party fields a candidate so tilted towards the majority ideology that they might as well be, say, a Democrat.

IMO the minority party deserves a chance to challenge the majority party in the general election, and this impedes that ability.

[Heisenberg]

The jungle primary needs to die.

I think I agree with this. If a state is heavily tilted towards one party, then it helps ensure that the minority party almost never gets to even run a candidate in the GE. One of the only exceptions here that I can see is if the majority party has so many candidates that it splits the primary vote enough for the minority party to win a spot, or if the minority party fields a candidate so tilted towards the majority ideology that they might as well be, say, a Democrat.

IMO the minority party deserves a chance to challenge the majority party in the general election, and this impedes that ability.

I totally agree.  It looks like this will end up being a D vs D race, and I hope that this could lead to the end of the jungle primary.  Both parties deserve a chance in the GE.  Depending on how many Democrats decide to run in Louisiana, they may have an R vs R race, and that's not good either.  In both of those cases, the more moderate (or less extreme) candidate would likely win.

[Derpist]

Wouldn't a D v. D race or an R. v. R. be a good thing in California/Louisiana? It's almost as if its a bad idea to have the most ideological voters of the majority party pick the ruling politician in every single election.

[This account no longer in use.]

This is true, but jungle primaries are what gave us David Duke.

[IceSpear]

Remember back when Boxer first announced her retirement, and Republicans were hopeful that a clown car of Democrats would run with only 2 strong Republicans to potentially make it an R vs. R race?

Hard to see how that plan went awry...

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Remember back when Boxer first announced her retirement, and Republicans were hopeful that a clown car of Democrats would run with only 2 strong Republicans to potentially make it an R vs. R race?

Hard to see how that plan went awry...

The CA Dem party deserves a lot of credit for keeping the field small. Wikipedia listed around 30 potential candidates, it COULD have been a bloodbath and made an R vs. R race, but it just turned out not to be.

[Nyvin]

Wouldn't a D v. D race or an R. v. R. be a good thing in California/Louisiana? It's almost as if its a bad idea to have the most ideological voters of the majority party pick the ruling politician in every single election.

The unseen positive effect of a D v D or R v R race is that it would at least allow the minority party to more or less pick the candidate closer to their ideology, since the majority party will be split most likely.  

Of course in the case of Sanchez and Harris both are pretty liberal, so Republicans might not like this particular example.

[BuckeyeNut]

The system still usually puts two candidates from different parties forward. Heck, Mary Landrieu was still able to make it to the general given Louisiana's deep Republican lean. Granted, she had the power of incumbency, but in looking to California, isn't it better for the Republicans there? California hasn't elected a Republican to the Senate since 1988. This way, Republicans can choose to vote for the candidate they most agree with.

[Boston Bread]

Ugh, I wanted a Harris vs R race so a more liberal dem wins.
But at the same time I can hope a D vs D race can lower GOP turnout and help with House/local races.

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL, that jungle primary system is a hoax. Looks like we’re gonna have a Dem versus Dem race. How boring! I want Harris to run (and win) against a GOPer.