A Progressive Alamedan
Various writings from a resident of Alameda regarding the political scene. The local perspective of local, state and national politics and a few other odds and ends of local concern. May not be particularly interesting to people outside of the Alameda area.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
Countdown clocks considered harmful
I remember this kind of thing when George W. Bush was in his first term. Everybody was so looking forward to the end of Bush's term and his replacement with somebody better that I would see bumper stickers, signs, and digital media heralding either Election Day 2004 or Inauguration Day 2005.
And then, Bush stayed for another term.
So please, let's not make any assumptions that Trump will be easy to topple in four years. No matter how much we want him gone, there are plenty of voters, corporations, 1%ers, and electoral college members who will be more than happy to sign him up for even more. Especially once our new UnPrecident continues to "game" the system that got him elected in the first place.
In order to beat Trump, the Democrats have to do something very different from what they did in the 2015-2016 campaign.
Albert Einstein is generally credited with defining insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
And yet, there are forces — powerful forces, the predominant forces — in the Democratic Party who are hoping to do just that. Just keep on with the game they have been playing, sucking up to big donors (the 1%, big pharma, big oil, etc.) and while they talk a good talk, there are so many voters who see through all the phoniness and choose the wise-cracking "Tony Stark" maverick they somehow identify with.
Imagine 2020, the Democratic Party proffering another candidate, a corporate-sponsored individual who speaks platitudes that sound great, while unashamedly behaving almost like a Republican at the same time; somebody as universally unpopular as Hillary Clinton was. He or she wouldn't have a chance.
That's what is going to happen if the Democratic Party keeps telling itself lies about who it is. From the leadership in the national (DNC) and state (like California Democratic Party) levels on down to the regional (like our county central committees) and grassroots activists like you and me.
Part of the change that we at the bottom can perform is to insist that the leadership in the Democratic Party be replaced in a big way.
At the national level, Keith Ellison is running for chair of the DNC. He's the candidate who will get rid of the system that has been failing us for years — even while we had a Democrat in the White House, the rest of the country went red in a big way. How about checking out Keith?
In California, we delegates have the ability to choose the leader of our state's party. The front-runner is the old-model, big-money style candidate that we can't afford to keep having. Eric Bauman worked hard to defeat Proposition 61, which would have slashed prescription drug prices, after receiving $12,500 per month from Big Pharma. That's why I'm strongly supporting Kimberly Ellis for the state chair. She's all about turning that upside-down.
We can keep going the way things have always been done in the Democratic Party, or we can choose to get active and change the paradigm.
The time until Trump leaves office depends on what we do about it. There is no countdown.
Sunday, January 08, 2017
Victory in yesterday's election!
I wanted to thank everybody who was able to come out to the election meeting yesterday. Thank you SO much. Friends and neighbors that I see all the time, and friends I’ve made in my recent political activity, and friends I only see once in a while seemed to all be there. And also thank you to everybody who wasn’t able to make it, either last-minute or being otherwise engaged — or even, arrived there but unable to vote due to the long lines — but still supported me. I am honored and humbled. It was so amazing to see so many people who came out to support me and what I — we — believe in.
It was especially amazing to have a couple of newly-turned-eighteen-year-olders come out, get registered to vote, and vote for us as their first election.
And it wasn’t a small sacrifice to be there! The union hall that they picked to hold this was embarrassingly small. You would think that they were expecting at most 200 people, and relying on good weather as well. I heard there were over 800 ballots cast! The last-minute changes to the schedule they performed also meant that people had to wait around in a unnavigably crowded auditorium or wait in long lines around the building, outside, in the (thankfully light) rain. (Past venues for this kind of election have been in much larger spaces with a good foyer area where people could get indoors quickly and get checked in without so much hassle.)
Politically, this victory sends an important message — that the voters are not confident with the “business as usual” approach, that has failed so miserably, put forth by our leaders.
And what’s really amazing is that I’ve seen the results from across the state — elections like ours were held either yesterday or will be held today — and yesterday’s results brought progressive sweeps or near-sweeps into a vast majority of the districts. I’m predicting something similar for today’s districts as well.
One of the big issues that our slate has been behind is to get fresh leadership in the California Democratic Party, and that is by supporting Kimberly Ellis to be chair of the party. She is the underdog, but with these big victories I think she has an increasing chance.
If you are interested, Kimberly Ellis will be presenting her vision of the California Democratic Party at the next meeting of the Alameda Democratic Club this coming Wednesday, January 11, at 7 PM at the Alameda Hospital. You don’t need to be a member of the club to attend; I am predicting that since this is going to one of Ellis's first local appearances since this sweep, there will be a lot of people interested in hearing her talk, so arrive early if you want to come. (Kudos to Slate-mate Gaby Dolphin for arranging for her to come present in Alameda!)
Here are the results of the AD 18 election, highest votes at the top.
Eleanor “Ellie” Casson
Gabrielle “Gaby” Dolphin
Sean Dugar — also elected to Executive Board
I'm looking forward to working with these people, including councilmember Malia Vella who also garnered a spot.
I will be posting update to this blog about my involvement as a delegate. Stay tuned!
Thursday, January 05, 2017
Starting up this blog again!
After the aftermath of the primary election essentially stolen from Sanders, and the embarrassing loss of Clinton in a race between the two most unliked candidates in history, and with a unthinkable Trump presidency about to start, I decided to dig in — again. To run for delegate to the California Democratic Party. I had been delegate for three 2-year terms before (2005-2010), and so I figured it was time to try it again. I and the progressives I worked with had quite a bit of success last time, so it's time to do it again.
Like you I’m devastated that Trump will be President soon, but I’m furious that the leadership of the Democratic Party (like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) seem to be waving the white flag, denying that the party needs a new direction. They want to keep the same losing strategy, sucking up to corporate donors and denying the progressive values that most Americans actually hold dear. In order to change the Democratic Party, we need new leadership — like Keith Ellison, running to head the DNC, and Kimberly Ellis, running to head the party in California — but that’s not enough. As Bernie said, change always happens from the bottom up, so we need a groundswell of real progressives like me to be the change we want to see.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Come See the Amazing Delaine Eastin this Wednesday Night
Back in November, I saw Delaine Eastin, former California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, speak at the E-board meeting of the California Democratic Party.
She absolutely brought down the house. Just an amazing, dynamic, inspiring speaker.
Through my suggestion, she will be coming to this month's meeting of the Alameda Democratic Club. I am really looking forward to hearing her.
She will be speaking about education and California politics. I can't recommend her enough. Please come!
The meeting is THIS WEDNESDAY EVENING at the Alameda Hospital, 2070 Clinton Ave @ Willow in Alameda. Start time: 7 PM. Everybody is welcome, no admission is charged.
(Photo Credit: Tom Torlakson (Yes, him!)
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Bernie Sanders, Independent, Addresses California Democrats
This was the first year in a while when I haven't been a delegate to the California Democratic Convention. I'm actually kind of relieved that I didn't go this year, between my workload and my growing unease with the two-party system.
So I found it ironic that the big speech event of last weekend's convention was when Bernie Sanders, an "independent," rocked the convention with his speech. It's worthwhile to watch.
Friday, April 29, 2011
I guess there are other people with my name out there
Unfortunately, there is no way to really confirm identity on the blogosphere.
But I just wanted readers of this blog to be aware that things may not be what they seem, especially if it seems that the person using that name is either spewing nonsense, or engaging in online activities that aren't characteristic of the real me.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
MSNBC - Banksters & Government Exposed FINALLY by Mainstream News!
Sunday, March 06, 2011
We Are All Wisconsonites
From Michael Moore's Page
Saturday, January 08, 2011
The results are in....
Why I'm Running for Delegate Today
6 Women: Nwamaka AGBO, Pamela DRAKE, Susan HARMAN, Jessamyn SABBAG, Margaret SCHULTZ, Esperanza TERVALON-DAUMONT
6 Men: Sean DUGAR
* = additional candidates recommended by the slate
I am also running for the position of EXECUTIVE BOARD. One person from the twelve winning delegates is eligible to become the E-Board representative for our district. As one of the most inveterate delegates in our district, I feel that I'm qualified to step up to this additional level of responsibility. Thus, there will be a second ballot; please write my full name on that additional ballot and turn that in.
But the main reason I'm writing this is to talk about why I'm running. It's very easy to get caught up in the calling, emailing, team-building, endorsement-collecting aspect of running a campaign ... whether it's a big campaign or a tiny campaign like mine. But more important than that is the original reason that a candidate is running in the first place. For me, there are so many reasons to run for delegate, to do what I can to make the California Democratic Party become more progressive.
I am running because the Party should not be helping out those Democrats-In-Name-Only who are just Republicans in disguise, just because they are the incumbents. Democrats stand for something, and when there is a "Democrat" in office who does not stand for something, they should be shown the door. I'm looking at Congresswoman Jane Harman, and at Senator Diane Feinstein, for instance.
I am running because as delegates, we have the ability to vote on which candidates for primary elections get the endorsement of the party. We got to have great candidates like Dave Jones, Kamala Harris, and Debra Bowen on our November ballots due largely to their backing by the Democratic Party in the corresponding June elections.
I am running because, when enough progressives get together and build up a Party Resolution, it's possible for the state party to get a message out that is not being given attention at the national level. For example, the Party's message just over a year ago was a resolution called End the U.S. Occupation & Air War in Afghanistan. This would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
I am running because we all need to put a stop to rampant corporate control of our media, of our politicians, of our government, and of us - including our children.
I am running because we need to put a stop to the powerful, out-of-control military forces. Our entire current military operations are based upon lies. I'm in the middle of an amazing book about the presidency of JFK, and how hard he had to fight against his military advisors' constant pressure upon him to go with a military solution. (It's astonishing that JFK was able to keep us from nuclear annihilation!) Fast forward 50 years of rampant military-industrial-complex growth, and I can imagine that it must be nearly impossible for even the most liberal President to have any control over this. Wikileaks' recent disclosures have shown how horrible things are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there doesn't seem to be any end in site.
(What can we do as mere delegates to the party about this? Only a little at a time, but it's better to try than to throw up our hands!) We have to do something to put an end to our Naqoyqatsi.
I am running because we need to do something about our economy, which is in shambles, and perched on the edge of a precipice. The State of California is close to bankrupt, mostly thanks to Proposition 13, which has protected corporations from paying their fair share of taxes. And thanks to our latest propositions from the November ballot, the legislature has no way to raise new revenues without getting held hostage by the Republicans (who would prefer to see the state budget go down in flames). And things are even worse at the Federal level. Our country is deep in debt; our dollars would be worth nothing if they weren't the international standard — and this artificial support could crumble any time — and there is no end in sight to the hemorrhaging by the military on our budget.
I am running because our health care system is still in a horrible state. The well-publicized, heavily debated congressional reform ended up being just another giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.
I am running because we need to put pressure on our President to do actually implement some of the things he promised. [Broken Promises] We still have the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. We still have corporate give-aways. We still have torture. We still have the USA PATRIOT act. (You know, it feels like we still have George W. Bush!)
And I am running for so many other reasons. We're running out of time, in our economy, in our climate, in our oil supplies (the other inconvenient truth), in our constitutional freedoms. I want our kids to have a future.
A single delegate who cares about these issues can only do so much. A swarm, however, can be pretty effective. Let's hope that we get a swarm of progressive elected across the state today.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
I'm again running for Delegate to the CA Democratic Party
The only way I can actually win is if enough of my neighbors who are registered Democrats come to an event in Oakland (at Laney College) at about 2 PM on Saturday, January 8, and vote for me, in person.
If you are a reader of this blog, living in the 16th Assembly District (represented by Sandré Swanson — Alameda, Piedmont, and about half of Oakland), I hope I can count on your support. [Not sure what your district is?] If you can definitely or maybe come to vote for me, please Email me your RSVP so I will know to expect you.
This is my candidacy statement:
I have been a delegate for the last six years, and I wish to continue in bringing a progressive voice to the California Democratic Party. I will resume my membership of the Progressive Caucus and also the very progressive Women's Caucus. I've been active in a number of campaigns, and organizations like DFA and the CADC. I have contributed resolutions and additions to the CDP's platform document to make sure that the party has a strong message. We must hold Democrats accountable to these principles, and support progressive candidates, even if that means challenging incumbent Democrats who have slithered too far to the right. I am passionate about a number of issues including election integrity, reining in out- of-control corporations, exposing corporate-owned media censorship, and ending our country's state of warfare based on lies. Also, we need to bring in more funding for the Democratic Party from small donors, so it's not beholden to PACs and rich contributors. (That's why I'm a proud member of the DEM2012 program!) Since communication with the people I represent is important, I use my 300-person email list and my blog at http://progala.blogspot.com to get the word out.
Every Vote Counts! Two years ago when the election meeting was at Alameda Hospital, I was probably overconfident in my chances of winning, and I wound up tieing for the last slot, and then I lost the coin flip! (Our district was the most competitive district in the entire state!) So if you want to see the California Democratic Party head in a progressive direction, please don't assume that I have this "in the bag" like some of my friends did last time around! :-)
If you are willing to invest an hour or so, about 2-3 PM, on Saturday January 8th, please mark your calendar, and be sure to email me your RSVP.
This is a very small campaign, but all that means is that every single vote counts in a BIG way. I really hope you can come out to help, and ideally even drag along a spouse, neighbor, or friend who shares your progressive values to come vote as well — and to share the ride and thus help the environment :-)
Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts, in the comments or by emailing me.
May you have a Happy New Year!
[Note: this is a temporary email address]
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
California Democratic E-Board Rundown
The general session, as you would expect, was extremely up-beat. While nationally, Democrats suffered, the Red Invasion didn't make it here. If the current trend continues, with Kamala Harris with a growing lead over Republican Steve Cooley, it will be a Democratic Party sweep of the statewide offices. In spite of being outrageously outspent (to the tune of $265 million) by the Republicans, Brown and Boxer held their own. Not only did California hold back the Republicans, several new seats turned blue, such as the effervescent Dr. Richard Pan, who will be the new assemblymember in my parents' district.
One of the highlights of the debrief was the results of the DEM2010 program that Hilary Crosby created. D.E.M. stands for "Donate Every Month" and the idea is that it's a way to fund the party from a large number of small, monthly donations from ordinary people like you and me, rather than big donations from PACs and CEOs. Because of DEM2010, the party was able to get door-hangers (long-requested, and never quite available in years past) created and distributed across the state, to help Democrats figure out the party's endorsements. (Yes, it's obvious when there is a "D" next to a person's name, but the non-partisan, Democrat-endorsed Tom Torlakson cruised into victory as well.)
(I joined DEM2010 shortly after it started, because I would rather have the party be fueled by the grassroots rather than big donors. It's just about to transition to "DEM2012" but the goals will be the same as we approach the 2012 elections. Maybe I can convince you to contribute a few bucks a month, to help toward the goal of making the Democratic Party's biggest contributor be the grassroots?)
I was also pleased to hear that the staff of the state party going to be trying to start a new program, during the times between election cycles, of getting the message out about what it means to be a Democrat. If they can actually do this right — get some advice from George Lakoff, for instance — this could have some real long-term benefits.
Part of a convention or E-board weekend entails going to caucus meetings. I've tried a few different groups over six years that I've been a delegate, and at this point I've found two that are a good match for me.
The first one, perhaps surprisingly, is the Women's Caucus. No, it's not just for women! I helped my friend Karen Weinstein run for chair of that caucus two years ago, and she turned what had been described as a dreadful, low-key group into an active, progressive group. This meeting featured a panel discussion by recent female candidates for office from around the state; the highlight was Oakland's mayor-elect Jean Quan. She gave some fascinating insights on running a campaign with the Ranked-Choice Voting system. (See sidebar.)
We also got to hear a presentation by Deliane Eastin, the former California State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Wow, this is one progressive, impressive lady. Though she was glad to see the Democratic do well in this election, she did not pull any punches when it came to pointing out flaws and problems in our country and in the Democratic Party. She is somebody that I (and several others, it turns out) would like to see become chairperson of the California Democrats!
The Progressive Caucus was, not surprisingly, the political highlight of the weekend. It was also a fresh (albeit somewhat depressing) antidote to the giddy victory dance of the general session. We were reminded that with the passage of Proposition 25, the state legislature can now pass a budget with a simple majority, no longer subject to being held hostage by the Republican minority. However, a two-thirds vote is required to raise taxes, and with the passage of Proposition 26, the same thing goes for fees. So now we have a $25 Billion hole in an $80 Billion budget. And, not to mention, a new governor who promised no tax increases without a "vote of the people," so even if the legislature was likely to somehow come up with new sources of revenues, he'd likely veto it.
California is in deep.
We also heard some analysis of the Democratic Party doldrums around the country, and I think I agree with what I heard. Political activist Norman Solomon pointed out the ways that Obama is doing damage to the Democratic Party (and to the country) — he focused on the "deficit commission" that Obama created to essentially dismantle the New Deal. He also spoke about the "warfare state" that the country has become.
It was certainly an interesting and energizing weekend. Perhaps too energizing — There are so many things that need to be done and I feel like I'm being pulled in multiple directions. Well, I'll start out by running for the Delegate position again, and bring along as many progressive activists as I can in the process. The caucus meeting for this will be in early January, probably in Oakland, and I will be asking you (if you are registered Democrat living in the 16h Assembly district, represented by Sandré Swanson) to come out and vote for me!
Friday, November 05, 2010
The Impact of Ranked Choice Voting
This is a huge deal, and it took me a while to wrap my head around how it came about.
Up until now, I have thought of RCV as a way to let people avoid "throwing away" their vote in a race with long-shot participants. For instance, let's say that you are a Green at heart, so you would vote the for Green candidate (such as Ralph Nader in 2000) but put the Democrat as your second choice. Then, once the Green Party votes (and other minority votes) are transferred away, the combined first and second choice votes might affect the race. In 2000, that might have allowed Al Gore to win, for example.
But the impact in Oakland is even more stunning. It allowed the race to have plenty of candidates, and people could vote for the top three candidates that they would prefer. If their top choice didn't make it, then their vote would count toward their second, and possibly even their third choice.
It appeared that a lot of people who voted for Kaplan, who was in third place initially and also after the other candidates were eliminated, chose Quan as their next choice over Perata by a three to one factor. That meant that when Kaplan was eliminated in the tenth round, this put Quan over the top, giving her the majority.
This is way different from the Ralph Nader scenario I mentioned earlier. Is this some kind of sham? Didn't more people choose Perata? How does Quan get to win when Perata got more votes?
The ranked choice method is, literally, a run-off election. Remember, Perata didn't get a majority. So the instant run-off allows voters to choose between the top two vote-getters. More Oaklanders chose Quan than Perata, so she will be the winner.
We are surrounded by cities with RCV in their municipal elections, so maybe it's time for us to get on board too. Our Mayor-Elect was not elected with a majority, causing some people to gripe about it, but that is the way it currently works. What if our elections functioned similarly? The results we have now might not be the same.
For instance, let's take a hypothetical case with the city council. We had a crowded race this year. We had several great candidates, but there were certainly those who chose to vote "strategically" and not risk "throwing their vote away" on a candidate that they didn't think would likely win. For instance, John Knox White avoided any "honorable mentions" in his endorsements as Lauren Do and I did, because he didn't want to reduce the number of votes for the front-runner candidates on the "Democratic" side of the race.
If we had RCV, this wouldn't have been necessary. Somebody could have chosen, say, Jeff Mitchell as their first choice, with Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft as their second choice, and Rob Bonta as their third choice, and even if their first two choices didn't make it, their vote would help Bonta rather than be eliminated (bringing somebody like Jean Sweeney closer to being elected).
It also might have helped other candidates do better and even affect the final outcome. I actually tried running a hypothetical scenario starting with numbers that are similar to the current totals, and imagined elimination based on the dynamics of the election.
Again, this is all hypothetical, but here is a possible scenario I played with, using familiar names and imaginary rankings, coming in after all but the top four are eliminated. Bonta and Tam might be leading with 9800 votes and 8900 votes respectively, sharing most of the transfer from Jensen and Ezzy Ashcraft. Johnson and Sweeney would come in next with 6900 and 6700 votes respectively. But then, with Sweeney eliminated, I would guess about half of her votes would transfer to Johnson and the other half would be "exhausted" as they say — in other words, no second choice. That would bring Johnson into the top two right alongside Bonta. That would definitively eliminate Tam, and while we could imagine a lot of her votes transferring to the other candidates, it wouldn't really matter since it's the top two we need.
So from my scenario, Bonta and Johnson would be the definitive winners in the election, with Johnson getting her solid second place (as opposed to the razor-thin lead over Tam in the real world results) due to cross-over from the Sweeney voters.
|Top 6||Elim Jensen||Top 5||Elim Ezzy||Top 4||Elim Sweeney||Top 3|
Of course, things could be different as well. I can imagine a scenario where Tam got more second- and third-choice votes to make her the highest or second-highest vote-getter. But then Sweeney's elimination would bring Johnson into first or second place, so she would end up on the council.
It's interesting that all of the scenarios that I run, we still end up with Johnson on the council.
The other insight I've gotten is that, for better or for worse, RCV (or at least its specific variation, Instant run-off voting, used in Alameda County — there are other approaches) seems to do well at clustering what I will call "teams" for lack of a better term. If you have two strong and separate ideologies in a race, you will probably end up with one representative in the final pick in the top two when the rest of the candidates have been eliminated.
That's how in Oakland, Quan and Kaplan essentially were part of the "Not Don Perata" team, and when you added their votes together, their winning team representative beat out The Don. In Alameda, a city council race with RCV might have given somebody from the Johnson/Sweeney mindset a seat, and somebody from the Tam/Bonta mindset a seat as well. Having RCV might actually affect campaign strategies; I heard that Kaplan and Quan were encouraging their supporters to choose their counterpart on the "Not Don" team as second choice. A combination of a slate and a competition!
The Mayoral race in Alameda would have have been interesting, and could have turned out different, too. It's hard to tell. The elimination of votes for Kahn and Daysog could have transferred any way, perhaps divided equally. A lot of DeHaan's votes might have transferred to Matarrese, making him the winner (just like Kaplan did to put Quan over the top). Then again, DeHaan and Matarrese were very close, and if Matarrese were eliminated by being in third place, he might transfer enough votes to Gilmore to make her the winner. Or maybe not.
Clearly, there is no way to know what might have happened with this election — this was for entertainment purposes only. However, I think it would be a good idea to consider having Alameda switch to this system for the future. I think that it would make the elections more representative (in spite of perhaps not electing my favorite candidates), but more importantly, I think it would attract more qualified candidates, and encourage people to vote for their favorite candidates while still being able to vote for "back-up" candidates in case their top choice didn't make it.
What do you think?
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Lessons from the Election
I have never seen such a divisive local campaign season in the dozen years I've lived in Alameda. So much mud-slinging from some candidates and their supporters, outside interference from disgraced corporations, and accusations of corruption.
Yet somehow, the candidates who focused on the positive managed to do pretty well. I am very pleased that Marie Gilmore will be our next mayor, by quite a large margin over Matarrese and DeHaan. I think she will do very well. It won't be hard to improve upon the do-nothing reign of Beverly Johnson, who unfortunately managed to come in second (at least, as of this writing while we wait for the last mail-in ballots to be counted) with her high name recognition overpowering her lack of a serious campaign. Rob Bonta ran a positive and energetic campaign, and got the highest vote count, so he will be our new Vice-Mayor for the next two years.
I'm happy to see that Lena Tam will be returning for another appointed half-term; hopefully the mist will have cleared by the time she is ready for her 2012 council campaign if she is interested in continuing. I only wish that Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, who is extremely qualified for city council, will try for the "third time's a charm" approach and throw her hat in the ring early in the 2012 season so she can rack up some well-deserved endorsements from the groups (e.g. unions, Democratic clubs) that gave Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam such a boost.
Of course, there are those in Alameda who are unsatisfied, and who are convinced that SunCal has won this election. A commenter on Lauren Do's blog summed it up well: "Gilmore, Bonta and Tam will have to work very hard to prove they owe SunCal nothing, and as we know, proving a negative is almost impossible." For those in Alameda who have shown that they believe in "Guilty until proven innocent," it will be hard to erase those expectations.
The other big news locally is Robert Raburn's huge victory over incumbent Carole Ward Allen. I had a good feeling that Alamedans would be voting for Robert in high numbers, but it's clear that his campaign and his message resonated throughout the district. Robert stopped by the tally-watching/victory party last night in Alameda, where almost all of the local winning candidates eventually found themselves, entering the room to a thunderous round of applause.
(Note: My son, Alameda's youngest political wonk, gathered up these folks for a group photo and took the above picture...)
On the other hand, I wasn't too pleased with the state propositions. At least we managed to defeat Proposition 23, the worst of them. However, the progressive Proposition 19 didn't make it — no surprise considering there was no institutional support behind it. And the passage of 26 is going to be bad news for California. Hopefully we can figure out a way out of it.
On the other hand, Democrats did great in the California offices. Values defeated dollars when we kept Barbara Boxer and elected Brown, despite the millions spent by Fiorina and Whitman. The rest of the state officeholders did well, too. I'm crossing my fingers that Kamala Harris (pictured) manages to stay ahead of her challenger when the last of the votes are finally counted over the next few days. She'll be a dynamite Attorney General.
Nationally, a Disaster
On the other hand... (channeling Fiddler on the Roof here...)
I think Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, summed it up best:
The biggest lesson from last night is actually pretty simple. For Democrats to win in the future, they need to fight for the people they represent and stop cutting deals to water down reform with the same corporate interests who will turn around and spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Democrats year after year.
One possible bright spot is that our neighboring congressman Jerry McNerney appears to have defeated his challenger. But only by 121 votes. There will probably be recounts and late additions to the count, so this is a nail-biter.