2018's Blue Wave: The House, Part 2 California
Part 2: The House of Representatives, California's multi-million dollar races.
*Foreword*
Sources for ballot info, funds, polls and predictions unless otherwise noted come from ballotpedia.org opensecrets.org, realclearpolitics.com and thecrosstab.com, respectively. Mainstream sources have been attempted to be avoided, due to clear party biases and continued discrediting of authenticity of reports (Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc.). Bias is an incredibly powerful factor in a large part of all media, and no one is immune to it unfortunately. The sources used are (to my knowledge) as unbiased as possible.
(Original Post from my blog: http://adifferentangle.blog/2018/04/18/2018s-blue-wave-the-house )
In the last article, the case for a blue wave in 2018 was put forth. The two major Republican Senate seats that have a decent chance to flip Democratic (Arizona and Tennessee), as well as Al Franken's (D, Minnesota) endangered seat were examined by the poll numbers. Two major reasons those were mentioned and Orrin Hatch and Thad Cochran's (both Republican) seats were excluded are they are expected to remain completely under Republican control and it will only take three seats to flip the Senate should everything else stay static.
The House is a different story on a whole other level. The House of Representatives currently sits at 237 total Republicans and 193 Democrats, with five seats currently sitting unoccupied due to four immediate resignations and one death. Coming to a total of 435 seats in all for the current 115th Congress, the balance of power is in heavy favor of Republicans with what is called a "Super Majority". Meaning; should they be able to rally 218 votes (a simple majority), an easy feat under those conditions, they can effectively pass anything they want to the Senate. Whether you applaud or despise this current fact is your own decision, but the majority of Americans are wanting to change that according to polls and predictions.
As with any given election, the reasons for changes are as numerous as there are candidates running across the country, and each voter who turns out for them. At the time of this article's initial draft TheCrossTab.com (an in depth political data analysis blog) forecast the 2018 elections at an outcome of 221 Democrat to the 214 Republicans seats won (04-11-2018). Since then it has changed to 225 Democrats and 210 Republicans. This year is unique in the account that one can point to numerous factors leading to these predictions, each branching off into its own set of reasons and consequences. Being chief among them is the nearly record amount of Republicans leaving office or seeking higher offices. To date that number stands at 40 Republican House Representatives, more than enough to sway the House. Of course, not all of those seats will be won by Democrats. Far from it, many should stay red. Around twelve of those could be blue seats by the end of the year though. Some of the bigger races to watch that could be flipping will be broken down state by state in the next few articles, starting with California who has money pouring in from all sides for five of the twelve seats.
California's 49th district is one of those seats that are projected to flip in November. California's 49th Congressional District was already on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's (DCCC) initial battle ground list in 2017 before Darrell Issa announced he would be declining to seek re-election on January 10th, 2018. Despite the well established Republican candidates running in the primaries such as Rocky Chavez, Democrats have their own roster and Issa only beat his opponent Douglas Applegate in 2016 by 0.6%, who just so happens to be running again. Democrats have a predicted lead of 11% in the district now, giving them a 12 point increase and some breathing room. The possibility Applegate wins in the primaries though is being questioned.
Applegate is being challenged by strong Democratic challengers that have the establishments leaned toward favor, who have been weary of Applegate as of late. Mark Levin, a Democratic environmental attorney, and Sara Jacobs, granddaughter of Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs, are bringing their power to bear as well as their money. Jacobs comes to the race with $1.1 million loaded to bear, while Levin checks in at roughly half that, $515,000. Applegate has only $235,000 in his chest, which is what the Democrats and the California elections at large are all about; "the Money Lebowski". The reason being for Applegate's lagging funds likely is Applegate is a Justice Democrat. Rather than being a determent though, it is a powerful boon. Justice Democrats take no corporate PAC money in the fight to get money out of politics, who are some of the biggest contributors to politician's election campaigns alongside the pharmaceutical industry and lobbyists. In light of this; corporate Democrats, not found of their newly minted Justice cousins cutting into their bottom lines, are having a hard time picking a candidate to endorse, making the in-fighting a mess for the party and leaving the door open to Chavez if they can't rally.
The 39th District seems, on the surface, to be a larger swing of 25 points (-14 to +11) and an easier grab for the Democrats. The waters are turbulent underneath that calm surface however, to be generous to the Democrats. Another key target for the DCCC after Edward Royce (R) announced his joining of the ranks of the departing Republicans, Democrats have been off to a rocky start so far with two of the major Democratic challengers having dropped from the race. Jay Chen and Phil Janowicz along with two others. Both Chen and Janowicz had support among voters and a minority of the DCCC, but dropped out of the race citing the amount of money in the race and the effect it would have on the Democrats in California's unique primary called a "Top-Two". Four of the six remaining Democratic candidates have done a lot of fundraising and have chunks of change to throw at the campaign. Mai Khanh Tran, Gil Cisneros and Andy Thorburn have all raised a combined total of over $6.2 million (according to OpenSecrets.org) to toss into their campaigns money vacuums. The two closest Republican fundraisers are Young Kim with $600,000 and Shawn Nelson with just under $400,000. In California's primary its everything or nothing, putting all the candidates into a single vote with the top two grossing, be it Republican, Democrat or two of either, going to the general election.
"The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, which took effect January 1, 2011, requires that all candidates for a voter-nominated office be listed on the same ballot. Previously known as partisan offices, voter-nominated offices are state legislative offices, U.S. congressional offices, and state constitutional offices. Only the two candidates receiving the most votes—regardless of party preference—move on to the general election regardless of vote totals."
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/no-party-preference/#top-two-candidates
Currently the only three states to participate in this form of primaries are Washington who started it in 2004 and California who followed in 2011. Nebraska has a Top-Two system for state legislative elections due to Nebraska's state legislature being non-partisan and partisan labels not being listed alongside state legislative candidates in elections. Louisiana is sometimes labeled a Top-Two, but that is because in the general election all candidates run regardless of affiliation. Should a single candidate receive an outright majority of the vote, the election is called for them and they win. Otherwise, the two candidates who received the most votes move on to a runoff election to be held shortly thereafter. Interestingly enough, and possibly a symptom of the two party system we have, the majority of elections still come down to a Democrat versus a Republican.
Why is this so important? Democrats like their money. Specifically, they like how much a candidate can raise for their party or spend to assist it. Republicans are rather fond of it also for similar reasons, and both seem to think the amount of money you can dump into an election determines your chances of winning. It's the "politicians poll". People poll how favorable a candidate is off their ideological or moral beliefs for the most part. Politicians poll on how much money can be made or spent, and the 39th District is a current fan favorite of politicians. Having fund raised over $8.8 million over both parties some politicians say it is the biggest bankrolled congressional district race they have ever seen. District 49 isn't far behind with over $7.2 million on its own as well. This, combined with the Top-Two primary system, makes California a "put your money where your mouth is" election state.
Other Districts where money is being pumped to are spots in California Democrats theoretically have good chances of flipping. Five key districts are in the Democrats sights, 39 & 49 included, and both parties are throwing the green paper into the rings in bundles. District 10's current count as of 3/31/18 was $5.2 million, with the top five Democrats having amassed over $2.5 million of that. $2.65 million of 10's raised money is Republican Incumbent Jeff Denham, who faces a field of all Democrats and a single Independent in his primary. Even with the $.15 million head room for Denham, it will be tough to keep his seat. Having been re-elected in 2016 by only 3 points, his support has fallen far since his initial 2010 election numbers of 64.5% of the vote over Loraine Goodwin (35.1%) with a 29.4 point gap that has dwindled dramatically since. Meanwhile, his now three term major challenger, Michael Eggman, has had the opposite effect. His numbers, though slowly, have gradually risen each election. He feels confident enough challenging Denham this time around he has even released a poll showing him actually 4 points behind in a head-to-head match up. With 13% undecided in said poll, he knows he has plenty of time to make up any perceived lost ground. It might help bolster his confidence also that that same poll showed him ahead of one of the top Democratic candidates for District 10, though they declined to name whom.
The 25th District of California is yet another big spender in the race of the wealthy, with another Justice Democrat threatening the establishment's status quo for the race. Netting to date a $3.7 million fundraising bill from both parties the race is centered around four major raisers; only one being Republican, the Incumbent Steve Knight with $1.25 million raised. The other three are Katie Hill ($1.12 million), Bryan Caforio (The Justice Democrat and return challenger, $977,000) and Jess Phoenix ($401,000). Bryan Caforio ran against Knight in 2016, and it required $5.2 million dollars of outside spending ("Dark money", out-of-state non-profit organizations paying for canvassing, and GOP Super PACs money) for Knight to hold his seat by only 6 points in a 53-47% decision. Going by just what the two candidates raised on their own in 2016 (Knight - $1.7 million, Caforio - $1.675 million) Caforio has one of the strongest chances among the Justice Democrats to not only secure a House seat, but flip one. Caforio, excluding extraneous circumstances, is the predicted challenger to Knight standing at a 2:1 favor over the other Democratic candidates showing the power progressive candidates have mustered in the last few years.
As we turn to CA-21, it is quite compared to the other boisterous and money flashing races elsewhere in California but no less important. It may even be the most important for one fact alone. This race holds only two candidates, with a third having dropped out. Incumbent Republican David Valadao and Democrat TJ Cox, with a nod to withdrawn Democrat Emilio Huerta. Cox switched from CA-10 after Huerta dropped out, seeing a district ripe for the picking. 21 sits in a Democrat heavy region stretching along the valley from north of Fresno into an oddly drawn tail south of Bakersfield (an example of gerrymandering if looked at possibly). Valadao has won elections three times running in this deep blue section of the state, begging some to wonder; how? Huerta came close in 2016 but fell short by 13 points and struggled to raise money for a 2018 rematch. Cox is a self funded entrepreneur and raised about $200,000 in donations while also boosting his campaign with an equal personal loan. By the end of 2017 it was reported Cox had roughly $280,000 on hand ready to go... against Valadao's $980,000. Without the funding, Cox faces a tough road to victory in November even with polls and predictions saying the Democrats will make up a 23 point gap and win by double digits (74% chance predicted).
Following the rest of the patterns laid out so far, District 21 seems a shoe in for Republicans so why do Democrats have such a strong prediction in this particular district? A closer look at Valadao's top donators might shed a bit of light on this mystery. As of 03/31/18 Valadao had raised about $1,850,000. Of this tidy chunk of change only $54,681 has been accumulated out of small individual donations (under $200) which equals out to 3.08%. Not the most resounding trumpet of support from the people whom he will require voting for him come November. He did come up with all that money from somewhere though, namely PAC contributions. $921,569 or 51.85% to be precise, on top of $550,440 (30.97%) in large individual contributions and $250,522 (14.1%) simply sourced as Other in "contributions". Taking THESE numbers, which are more relevant to certain elections than polls, we can then see that Cox with $200,000 has about 3:1 support from the voters... or just about 74%. Cox has more voter support and enthusiasm among the voters despite being a cookie cutter politician. How did he gain the support? By joining and being endorsed by one of the biggest movements quickly gaining momentum among the nation. End Citizens United, with more than 1,100 grassroots members in CA-21, is another movement rooted in the idea to get money out of politics. Seeing a pattern yet?
CA-21 is a perfect district to highlight one of the major issues with our political system. "The Money Lebowski". In an article about polls and predictions, the majority of the information became about the amount of money the individual politicians could put forward to fund their campaigns. If money truly is the "politicians poll", people have begun to catch wind of this (where much of the monetary information in this article comes from) and feel cheated out of their democracy for it. Most people don't have a million dollars to throw into an election campaign in the hopes to change things, and therefore are barred and discouraged from running for offices or even donating to candidates. The Justice Democrats are large contributors to the shift happening as is End Citizens United and lesser known Wolf-Pac.com. The fact of the matter in the current state of affairs though is that money-is-power. Money-IS-polling, simply a different form, especially in states such as California where it takes big bucks to even be considered. Given that Justice Democrats as well as the ECU Democrats do not take corporate PAC money, we can extrapolate the amount of actual voter support for these candidates vs the amount of corporate and super PAC support for other establishment candidates in a landscape where money is King, and the King dictates just who gets to attempt the run for power.