Did The Anti-Red Wave Falter In Orange County-- Or Are Voters Wise To What A Blue Dog Is?

Harry Truman has a warning for today's Democratic establishment: "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

Yesterday was election day in a huge swathe of inland Orange County, the 3rd supervisorial district. And the big question has been-- is the big anti-red/anti-Trump wave the swept Orange County clean of Republicans in Congress still in effect? With counting still proceeding this morning, the question remains unanswered.. 6 Republicans and 1 Blue Dog Democrat, former Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, competed for the seat. As of this morning, Irvine Mayor Don Wagner, the establishment Republican pick, is leading in what turned out to be an extraordinarily low turn-out election.

• Donald Wagner (R)- 28,902 (41.9%)
• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog)- 25,489 (37.0%)
• Kristine Murray (R)- 5,130 (7.4%)
• Larry Bales (R)- 3,830 (5.6%)
• Deborah Pauly (R)- 3,720 (5.4%)
• Kim-Thy "Katie" Hoang Bayliss (R)- 1,314 (1.9%)
• Katherine Daigle (R)- 584 (0.8%)

Sanchez, the 59 year old Blue Dog won an Orange County House seat in 1996-- when she switched parties from Republican to Democrat-- by ever so narrowly beating GOP crackpot B-1 Bob Dornan-- becoming the first Democrat to represent Orange County in Congress within living memory. She didn't run for her seat in 2016, instead running, unsuccessfully, for the U.S. Senate against Kamala Harris, losing everywhere, including Orange County. She may yet pull this out of the hat as counting goes on-- but it doesn't look likely.

The district includes a big chunk of central Orange County--Anaheim, Tustin, Irvine, Yorba Linda, Villa Park, Anaheim Hills and Orange as well as unincorporated communities like North Tustin and the canyons. The seat became open in November when Supervisor Todd Spitzer (R) was elected OC district attorney. These areas flipped blue in the November congressional elections, ousting Mimi Walters and replacing her with Katie Porter, an outright progressive.

If only a real Democrat had run instead of a GOP-lite Blue Dog, we would have won," an OC activist from Irvine told me. Candidates like Loretta don't excite anyone to even bother to get out and vote. She's barely a Democrat and people know it... if the party nominates Joe Biden-- you call him Status Quo Joe on your blog-- it'll be the same thing... As much as people hate Trump, there will be many who just don't want another more-of-the-same corporate creep like Biden. A Democrat would have beaten Wagner today. I hope the Democratic Party learned a lesson, though I sincerely doubt they did.

The only Democrat on the board is Doug Chaffee, who just won election in the 4th district in November-- part of the Blue Wave that devastated Orange County's Republican Party and swept many Democrats into office. Sanchez's race was supposed to be a test case for the wave's staying power. A Republican-lite candidate, despite what the paid-off Democratic Establishment always insists, is absolutely the wrong way to go.

There was a small Republican ballot registration advantage and of the 235,714 vote-by-mail ballots issued by the OC Registrar of Voters, 81,069 went to Republicans, 74,614 went to Democrats and 71,003 went to independents. Democrats had to win over the bulk of independents to have duplicated what Katie Porter did in ousting Mimi Walters 4 months ago. "Ex"-Republican Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez was hardly the candidate to accomplish that.

In an essay at Truthout earlier today, "Speaking Truth to Power" Is No Substitute for Taking Power, Norman Solomon was probably referring to presidential candidates with this closing statement: "Right now, ending GOP rule is necessary-- and also insufficient. Being 'better than Republicans' is a low bar that most Democratic candidates clear with ease. But quests for social justice, human rights, environmental protection, civil liberties and peace will require high standards that only grassroots power can achieve." But this is equally true up and down the ballot-- as Democrats in Orange County experienced yesterday.

California's Democrat vs Democrat Conundrum

-by Samuel Hagar

How to cross party lines for votes without abandoning your ethnicity-- The first thing a pollster tells you when you ask “how do you win a Democrat on Democrat” general election (a phenomenon we're finding more and more frequently on the West Coast due to the somewhat dysfunctional jungle primary system) is:

You need to create a coalition. Democrats, Decline to States, and Republicans must be patched together to create a coalition across demographics...

This may seem simple and not worthy of the thousands of dollars in consulting and pollster fees, however it is true. To win a Democrat on Democrat race, a candidate must build out from his or her natural constituency (race, gender, region, ideology etc) to attract the necessary support in order to earn 50+1 percent of the vote.

The glaring example of this type of race is the United States Senate race to replace Barbara Boxer this year in California. This race pits California Attorney General Kamala Harris (an African American statewide elected official and Establishment fave from the Bay Area) against Orange County Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (a Latina Blue Dog congresswoman, somewhat reknowned for being the dumber of two congressional sisters). The nature of the race (and the candidates in it) is that Loretta (having only received 18% of the vote in the primary) faces a general election in which she must get a ton of votes (compared to Kamala) that are outside of her geographic territory (where she picked up most of her votes in the primary)-- let’s face it, a Congressmember in a state as large as California has a minuscule base of support (speaking in geographic terms) as compared to a candidate who’s name has appeared on a statewide ballot before.

Loretta is a Blue Dog Democrat, a conservaDem who frequently votes with the GOP against the best interests of working families, so there was no way that the progressive/liberal community in California (a lot of votes!) would rally around her, leaving the remaining winnable votes for Loretta in the following constituencies: Latinos and Republicans.

Now, given her voting record, Loretta can make (and has made) a play for Republican votes. Her courting of an endorsement from Congressman Darrell Issa, not just a Republican but one of the best-known and most hated Republicans in the state, is the prime example of this strategy. But let’s remember, California is a deep blue state with far more Democratic votes than Republican votes, so the Republican vote alone cannot get Loretta Sanchez across the finish line (even after adding that to her Orange County name identification base).

So, as a Latina, Loretta must win a significant number of latino votes and add those to her base and iffy Republican support. While that may seem simple (such as 1+1 = 2), it is not.

Latinos have faced a year and a half of absolute brutal, vitriolic language from the Republican nominee. Polling indicates that the latino vote identifies Republicans as espousing the Donald Trump view points. And, it is no secret that Issa, who has a stridently anti-immigrant record, is one of Trump's most devoted followers in the state.

Unless Loretta thinks she can win every latino who agrees that “we must build a beautiful beautiful wall” along the Mexican border (and assumes that that plus her Republican vote is enough) then her strategy points to the exact problem facing so-called Democrats in these intra party races: to cross party lines for votes often involves stabbing your natural constituency directly in the back.

Today Christopher Cadelago reported for the Sacramento Bee that as part of her campaign to entice Republican voters, Sanchez has one of her SuperPACs running a radio spot blasting Kamala Harris as "another Barbara Boxer," something most California voters hope is true but that Republicans, of course, fear. Two Republican Party operatives, Stu Mollrich (California’s New Frontier PAC) and Dave Gilliard (Jobs, Opportunity & Freedom PAC) are running SuperPACs smearing against Harris for Sanchez.

Sanchez's latest ad from the PAC she is illegally coordinating with features a mock discussion between two Republican voters about the fact that the Senate race-- for the first time-- is between two Democrats. When one of the Republicans says she may not vote, she is instructed to cast her ballot for Sanchez-- described in the ad as an "anti-establishment Orange County moderate" with a "reputation for working across the aisle to solve problems."

There is another race in California (in which shockingly almost as much money has been spent as in the statewide U.S. Senate race) that points to this exact problem: the race for Assembly District 47, pitting so-called "moderate" Democratic incumbent, Cheryl Brown, a blatantly corrupt conservaDem, against her challenger, progressive reformer and attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes.

First, let’s look at the District. Assembly District 47 is set in San Bernardino County (one of the poorest counties in America) and home to a majority latino population. Analysts agree that nearly 54% of the General Election Vote (could be higher due to Donald Trump) will be latino, 10% will be black, and the rest will be white, Asian, etc… This is a minority majority district.

Now let’s look at the candidates. The incumbent legislator is Cheryl Brown, an African American former newspaper owner who proudly calls herself a “moderate Democrat” and has voted 100% of the time with the oil interests in California. Her largest contributor is Chevron and public polling has consistently shown her hovering between 40% and 44% of the general election vote. The challenger is Eloise Gomez Reyes, a labor attorney and community activist who proudly tells voters how she picked onions and grapes in this district as a little girl to pay for her school clothes. Her largest contributors come from the labor community.

Thus far OVER $4.6 MILLION DOLLARS has been spent in this contest. That is broken down as follows:

Brown Campaign - $800,000
Reyes Campaign - $500,000
Brown Independent Expenditures - $2,100,000
Reyes Independent Expenditures - $1,200,000

In a district this compact (no wider than 20 miles in any direction such an incredible amount of spending (already the costliest state legislative race IN THE COUNTRY) has a significant diminishing return to scale. This phenomenon makes this race a perfect example of a Democrat on Democrat race because it takes the financial advantage largely out of the equation.

Maybe Loretta can win Republicans and Latinos to bring her across the 50% mark, however it will take a hell of a lot more money than Loretta currently has, in order to do so.

So, in District 47 (where the last report, as of the Tuesday after Labor Day showed the race at 42-38, Brown) how does the African American incumbent get across the finish line? 2 scenarios:

1- Convince enough latinos to vote for her (she would need to win 50% of the latino vote for this to be the case) or 2- Convince a super majority of Republicans and Republican leaning Decline to State voters to vote for her, while retaining a super majority (not just majority) of the Black vote.

This is exactly why Chevron (the largest contributor to the Brown I.E., independent expenditures using Dark Money) has run ads that one would find a Republican running against a Democrat (Brown believes in lower taxes while that liberal Reyes wants to raise yours, they claim ominously-- and untruthfully). It’s of no surprise that Chevron would run these types of ads, given the fact that Chevron is run by Republicans and has benefitted for years from Republican relationships both in California and nation-wide.

There is a problem for Brown here (much like in the Sanchez scenario) in that Brown’s natural constituency-- African Americans-- have benefitted from years of Democratic policies that influential donors from say, Chevron, have worked diligently to abolish. Can Brown go win her Republican votes while convincing enough blacks that the only thing they have in common with her is their skin tone? That remains to be seen.

This race is a toss up and the one to watch. Blue America, of course, has endorsed Eloise Reyes and you can contribute to her progressive, grassroots campaign here.

There's No Real Republican In The California Senate Race-- But Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez Is Close Enough

Very weak dab from Sanchez, a very weak candidate

Perhaps you read yesterday that Trump was apologizing to the corpse of war criminal Slobodan Milošević for the U.S./NATO bombing to stop the ethnic cleansing (genocide) of Muslims who had lived there when the Drumpf family was still raising pigs in Karlstadt. Perhaps Trump was trying to please Serbian fascist leader Vojislav Šešelj, founder and head of the neo-Nazi Serbian Radical Party. According to Trump's Russian allies at Sputnik News, Trump is the apple of fascist eyes in Serbia. Same in Russia, where Putin ally, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Vice Chair of the Duma and leader of the neo-Nazi Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, also endorsed him. But you know who hasn't endorsed him? American newspapers. Even the ones who hate Hillary have been urging their readers to vote against Trump. Not even the most right-wing newspaper in California, the Bakersfield Californian has endorsed Trump... yet.

But the endorsement season is still young and they're just getting going. A couple of weeks ago, they urged their readers to vote for a Democrat-- sort of-- in the California Senate race. The Bakersfield Californian doesn't usually endorse Democrats and the one they endorsed isn't really one anyway. Republicans find it harder and harder to get on statewide ballots now that California has adopted the jungle primary. The Senate general election is between two Democrats, the Democratic establishment's Kamala Harris and a none-too-bright Blue Dog from Orange County, Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez is the stand-in for the GOP in the Senate race, and the Bakersfield Californian recognized her as such and endorsed her.

California’s U.S. Senate race is a classic example of an “unintended consequence.”

When California voters passed the 2010 ballot measure that established the state’s “top-two” primary system, they were promised the chance to elect moderate Republican and Democratic candidates.

The theory was that regardless of their political party affiliations, to get enough votes to land in one of the “top-two” primary spots and progress to the general election, candidates must appeal to all California voters, not just their parties’ hard-core bases. The “top-two” system’s goal was to shed the extremes in favor of the middle.

While that might be happening, what also has occurred is that two candidates from the same party have ended up competing against each other in some really nasty general election local races. The November campaign to fill retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat is the first time one of these intraparty battles is being waged in a statewide race.

The “unintended consequence” is that party bosses, rather than California voters, may decide the outcome of the Senate race.

Democrat Kamala Harris, the current state attorney general and former San Francisco district attorney, faces veteran Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of Orange County.

In February, Democratic Party bosses voted to endorse Harris. That has meant that the state party is throwing its money and considerable resources to Harris, leaving Sanchez empty-handed.

But don’t count Sanchez out. She has spunk and guts. Recall her scrappy 1996 campaign to unseated long-time flame-throwing conservative Congressman “B-1” Bob Dornan. And during her nearly 20 years in Congress, she has bucked the liberal wing of her party with her business-friendly, moderate votes. As a member of the “Blue Dog Coalition,” she often has reached across the aisle to work with Republicans.

While these are qualities voters might find appealing, they no doubt are why the Democratic Party elite are shunning her and trying to ensure the election of the more “progressive” Harris. In response, Sanchez is trying to cobble together a coalition of moderate and conservative Latino voters, and Republicans.

Although Sanchez has been endorsed by Republican North San Diego County Congressman Darrell Issa, former Congressman Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, former Republican Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, and her libertarian-leaning hometown newspaper, the Orange County Register, Republican lawmakers generally are sitting out the race-- pouting because their party has no candidate competing.

But many of her Republican congressional colleagues concede she is the better candidate. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, recently told the Los Angeles Times that Sanchez would be “infinitely easier” for Republicans to work with. He said her views about agriculture and water access demonstrate she understands rural issues.

In an attempt to rile up Democrats and Latinos by tying Sanchez to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Harris’ campaign calls these lukewarm supporters “Trump-esque” Republicans.

But Trump, who brags about contributing to politicians in exchange for favorable treatment, also is tainting Harris’ campaign. He contributed to Harris’ past attorney general campaigns. And Sanchez is quick to note that Attorney General Harris’ response to consumer fraud complaints involving Trump University was lacking.

Meanwhile, voters seem to have been left on the sidelines of this intraparty fight, with party leaders expecting them to just go along with their hand-picked choice for Senate.

The Californian hopes they won’t. California’s next senator should have political courage. She should be willing to work with people in both political parties. She should have a business-friendly, moderate voting record. And she should have demonstrated that she gives a hoot about the entire state, including rural counties, like Kern.

She should be Loretta Sanchez.

Sanchez has been trying to cobble together an ad hoc coalition of right-wing Democrats, low-info Latinos and Republicans. It isn't working. Harris has led her in every single poll and the RealClarPolitics average shows Sanchez with just 18.3% support-- and Harris 22 points ahead of her. But, who knows... maybe the deplorables will show up to vote in November and look at the ballot and pick her as the more deplorable candidate. Which she is. As for Harris... I don't know. I don't trust the California Democratic Party at all and when they get behind someone it's cause for skepticism. I have't made up my mind if I'll vote for a 3rd party candidate or vote for Harris. Elizabeth Warren is backing her and that means something... although Elizabeth Warren-- while not backing the actual sworn enemies of working families like Patrick Murphy (FL), Evan Bayh (IN) and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)-- is backing some pretty crummy candidates I'd never vote for-- lesser of two evils types like Katie McGinty (PA), Ted Strickland (OH) and Maggie Hassan (NH). Today, though, I got an encouraging e-mail from the Harris campaign:

From working with Elizabeth Warren to challenging the Big Banks and bringing back almost $20 billion to California consumers during the house crisis to providing a path for unaccompanied minors coming through Mexico to receive our protection and support.

And from fighting for California’s climate change laws-- some of the toughest in the country-- to fighting for criminal justice reform and creating models of what can be done in our nation.

I have a track record that has proven what we can accomplish when a leader actually acts like a leader and shows up for the people.

Decent pitch. I want to see late polling before I decide. If there's any chance Sanchez could win, I'd vote for Harris for sure. Otherwise...

Sanchez prepares for the dab

In A Race Between Two Really Awful Senate Candidates, The Only Good Move Is To Refuse To Participate

Chuck Schumer has managed-- along with Montana sock puppet Jon Tester-- to set up a series of lesser-of-two-evils contests that will determine which party controls Congress. Ted Strickland and Katie McGinty are obviously unqualified to be U.S. senators and nothing would ever get me to vote for either. But then look at the garbage each one is running against: respectively Rob Portman and Pat Toomey. Portman is worse than Strickland and Toomey is worse than McGinty, but that doesn't make either Strickland or McGinty any more fit for office. Schumer planted a series of discredited lies about Alan Grayson to guarantee his (and Wall Street's and Saudi Arabia's) choice for the Florida Democratic nomination, "ex"-Republican Patrick Murphy. A Murphy/Rubio race would surely force Florida voters to pick the lesser evil but this is a far tougher race than the ones in Ohio and Pennsylvania which it isn't clear which one is the lesser evil. Again, I'd never vote for either, but who do you even root for in a contest like this? Mothra? Godzilla?



Worse yet, in California, where the jungle primary has puked up two crappy Democrats to run against each other in a blue state saddled with a corrupt party establishment, conservative Blue Dog-- and dumbbell-- Loretta Sanchez faces off against corporate nothing and woman of mystery, Kamala Harris, neither of which is worth a vote. And what's a Republican to do. Well, the editors of the Redding Record Searchlight are Republicans and they're backing the moron Blue Dog. "For Republicans who can stomach the idea of voting for the more centrist of two Democrats," they wrote this week, "Sanchez is a clear choice."

Perhaps foremost on her list of qualifications for that role are endorsements — those that have gone to her opponent, California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Harris has been endorsed by the Sierra Club, for example, which cited its discomfort with statements Sanchez has made indicating that the discussion of water solutions for California must start with everything on the table-- including (gasp) the Endangered Species Act. Sanchez paints that as a pragmatic way to begin negotiating, and insists it's not fair to say she wants to alter the ESA, but her willingness even to talk about it causes environmentalists to shudder.

Folks who feel the current administration has America on the wrong track may also take note of Harris's endorsement by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Their interference in a two-Democrat race riled Sanchez, but it may prompt some Republicans to give her a second glance.

On the campaign trail, Sanchez emphasizes her experience with national security. She has served on the House Armed Services Committee throughout her time in Congress, where she says she "works on avoiding the conflicts of the future. If I'm doing my job right, you're never going to hear the names of the countries" where problems might break out.

Sanchez, a member of the House Blue Dog Coalition, spoke most carefully answering Second Amendment questions.

"The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment," she said. "If you're one of the people who wants to melt down all guns... there's a process to change the Constitution. I'm going to agree with the fact that people have a right to have a gun."

Still, she indicated that she favors background check restrictions and her campaign website lambastes Senate Republicans for blocking "responsible action on gun violence."

...In a two-way race, voters who look closely may my find Sanchez too liberal, but ultimately less problematic than Harris.

No, the Democrats aren't as bad as this GOP Senate candidate in Louisiana, but that's too low a bar for me. I'm done with lesser-of-two evils voting. In most of these races, the smart move is to not vote and tell the DSCC to eat their own shit because you're not that hungry.

Why Is President Obama Lying About Patrick Murphy's Record?

The TV spot targeting African-American voters in Tallahassee and Jacksonville that Obama cut for Patrick Murphy's drowning Senate primary campaign puts the president's credibility dangerously on the line. Murphy's record in the House is unquestionably one of the most reactionary and blatantly anti-progressive of any Democrat serving in the House. He has been an unabashed advocate for cutting Social Security and Medicare, an unflinching ally of Wall Street and payday loan predators and a consistent backer of Republican initiatives against the environment and, in fact, against the Obama administration itself. Murphy was one of just 4 Democrats still in the House to have voted with the GOP to establish the anti-Hillary Clinton witch hunt they called Benghazi and he was one of the only Keystone XL Pipeline supporters among the Democrats who actually voted to unconstitutionally remove Obama himself from the decision-making process. He even voted with the Republicans for oil drilling off Florida's pristine beaches!

"Patrick," lied Obama in the TV ad, "is a strong progressive." Obama is entitled to back whichever reactionary, corporate whore whose parents are bribing him with a donation for his presidential library he wants to, but to call Murphy "a progressive," is just monstrous and makes one wonder what else is Obama lying to the public about. He claims, falsely, that Murphy has "fought special interests on behalf of working families and won." Wall Street has given more money to Murphy than to any non-incumbent running for the Senate this cycle-- $1,413,950-- which is also more money the banksters gave any Member of the House other than Speaker Paul Ryan and Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. There is no other Democrat in even in the top 10! Obama knows better than most that isn't to reward him for standing up to special interests-- exactly the opposite in fact.



Obama cut similar spots to influence African Americans to vote for fracking lobbyist Katie McGinty in the Pennsylvania primary (and against Joe Sestak and John Fetterman) and has campaigned in Miami for Debbie Wasserman Schultz with the same distortions he's using to help Murphy. This week, he came out explicitly in the California primary race for murky, unproven Democrat Kamala Harris in her Senate race against fellow Democrat, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. (To my eye neither is remotely qualified for the Senate, Harris being merely mediocre and Sanchez nearly as bad and almost as reactionary as Patrick Murphy.)

Sanchez-- mindful not to offend low-info Obama supporters-- struck back tepidly. "I am disappointed," she wrote in response to the Obama-Biden endorsement, "that President Obama chose to endorse in an historic Senate race between two Democrats. I would think the leader of the Democratic Party would be focused on defeating Donald Trump and supporting Democratic Senate candidates against Republicans. I believe that California voters are deeply concerned about the entrenched political establishment which has failed to work for them. Yet, it has been clear for some time that the same political establishment would rather have a coronation instead of an election for California's next U.S. Senator. California's Senate seat does not belong to the political establishment-- it belongs to the People of California, and I believe California voters will make their own independent choice for U.S. Senate in November."

Neither Harris, Sanchez, McGinty nor, especially, Patrick Murphy, belongs anywhere near the U.S. Senate. Obama is wrong and he's making himself less credible by endorsing blatantly unqualified candidates, especially in primary elections. It's what you'd expect from a lifelong party hack like Biden-- a member of whose staff confided in us several months ago that Obama is trolling for presidential library money. The reason this is especially grievous in Florida is because by pushing the incompetent Murphy forward, Obama is diminishing one of the most iconic and accomplished progressives in Congress, Alan Grayson, and is making it far easier for Marco Rubio to win in November, since the unaccomplished and fatally flawed Murphy would be a complete push-over for an experienced politician like Rubio.

Please consider helping Alan Grayson win this one by contributing what you can to his campaign at the thermometer below. The Florida Democratic Party Senate nomination isn't the property of Beltway insiders like Schumer, Reid and Obama/Biden. Only Florida Democratic voters can decide this issue. Grayson has earned their trust and devotion; Patrick Murphy certainly hasn't.

UPDATE

A very progressive and well-loved Member of Congress just e-mailed me her worries about Obama losing credibility just when the Democrats need him most in the battle against Trump. "What he says about all of the candidates he endorses is completely untethered from reality," she wrote. "He just says whatever he thinks will sound good. It’s very revealing about his own mental processes."

Corrupt Republican Buck McKeon Says He'd Vote For Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez If He Still Lived In California

Buck, Loretta and... friend

Just over a week ago, we noted that Orange County Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez is, in effect, the Republican in this year's California Senate race. The dysfunctional jungle primary has, technically, thrown up two Democrats, Kamala Harris, a garden variety "liberal" corporate Dem, and the dull-minded, conservative Sanchez. In the primary last month the unexciting establishment-backed Harris won more votes (2,582,591) than Sanchez (943,002) combined with the 4 top Republican vote-getters (1,027,697). Sanchez's unlikely path to victory is to win over Republicans and galvanize Hispanic voters behind her, quite a task to do simultaneously... especially with the hated Trump as the face of the Republican Party. Today's Washington Post looked at her chances of doing so, pointing out that former L.A. mayor, Richard Riordan, a Republican, has already endorsed her.

Sanchez’s chief strategist, Bill Carrick, told The Post that she will not change her "values or ideology" in an effort to appeal to Republican voters, pointing out that his dumbbell client (too stupid to be trusted to do an L.A. Times interview, is clearly left of center on certain issues such as abortion rights and that "many things about her are progressive... It would be ridiculous for her to all of a sudden start sounding like a Republican," he said. "That’s not going to happen." She doesn't have to change a thing and she's far from progressive. To appeal to Republicans she can just wave her voting record around-- long a moderate Republican or Republican-lite voting record. She's mainstream on most social issues and conservative on fiscal issues. In 1996, when she first beat far right Republican Bob Dornan for the Orange County congressional seat she now holds, it was believed one had to be pretty conservative to be elected and re-elected. She was. But the district, like California, has changed dramatically since then. By 2008 Obama beat McCain 59-39% and 4 years later, he gutted Romney in the formerly red district, 61-36%. The once lily-white is now 67.4% Latino and 11.3% Asian. Only 18% of the population is white. Democrats don't need a conservative porto-republican to win seats like CA-46 anymore.

Carrick, though, attempted to fool the easily fooled Post reporter. "She comes from Orange County, and overall the county is Republican," he twisted and turned. Sanchez isn't from that [rapidly dwindling] part of Orange County. In 2012, Romney was pulverized in northern Orange County but overall he managed to beat Obama county-wide, 541,592 (53%) to 457,077 (45%). But those Republican voters don't embrace Sanchez as one of their own. To them, she's just a Democrat-- and a Hispanic. These are Darrell Issa voters, who won his part of southern Orange County with 66% of the vote, and Dana Rohrabacher voters who won his wealthy coastal enclaves with 61%.

Republicans make up 27 percent of California voters. In a Field Poll survey a week before the primary, Republicans were split when asked which Democrat they would vote for in November-- 26 percent Harris and 25 percent said Sanchez. Thirty percent of GOP voters volunteered that they would vote for neither. The poll showed Harris leading Sanchez 40 percent to 26 percent overall in a general-election contest.

Both women are aiming to make history and are attracting national attention: Harris, who is Asian American and black, could become the only African American female senator. Sanchez, who is the daughter of Mexican immigrants, could be one of the first Latinas in the Senate. (Another Latina, Catherine Cortez Masto, is running for the retiring Harry Reid’s Senate seat in Nevada).

Sanchez, 56, is seen as something of the underdog, fighting to mobilize the state’s Latino population after upsetting then-Rep. Bob Dornan (R-Calif.) in 1996 in a vastly changing district.

She starts the general election with less name recognition and organizational support than her opponent, who has won two statewide contests. Sanchez has the support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s BOLD PAC and some California labor groups, but she will not have the organizational support of a major political party or the state’s big labor unions. Harris has the backing of the California Democratic Party and labor giants such as the Service Employees International Union.

Sanchez also has struggled to raise money. According to campaign finance reports filed three weeks before the primary, Sanchez had $1.3 million on hand out of $3.5 million raised during the past year. Harris had $4.7 million left over from $11 million raised for the primary.

“Fundraising was a challenge, and we have to double down and work harder and do a better job in California and outside of California raising money,” Carrick said.

...“Loretta knows how to work with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. She is the leader we need in the U.S. Senate,” Riordan said last week in his endorsement statement.

Sanchez might find an opening with independents, who make up 23 percent of registered voters in the Golden State. While the Field Poll showed them favoring Harris 40  to 26 percent in a general election, 28 percent said they were undecided.

...Harris’s pollster, in a conference call with reporters the day after the primary, questioned the strategy of a winning coalition made up of Latinos and Republicans supporting presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.

“In all my years of doing California politics, I’ve never seen a coalition of Republicans and Latinos come together to support a candidate,” David Binder said. “And given this GOP nominee, with his insults toward Mexican Americans, it’s very difficult to see Latinos support candidates supported by Republicans going into November.”

Luis Alvarado, a Republican strategist who also is Hispanic, said he is not supporting Trump, but he plans to vote for Sanchez in the general election.

“Republicans will find Loretta to be the most conservative of the choices and most open to work with Republican leaders in the state,” Alvarado said this week. “Where AG Kamala Harris is seen to be an extension of the liberal movement in San Francisco, Loretta has proven to be an independent thinker who stands by her policy positions independently.”

Kaitlyn MacGregor, spokeswoman for the California Republican Party, said she had “no comment on Republicans who choose to engage” in the Senate race, adding it was not a priority for the state or the national party. No Republican has been elected to statewide office since 2006.

The campaign office for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did not respond to a request for comment on the Senate race.

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, a Republican who left the House last year after more than 20 years representing parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, said he had “a great working relationship” with Sanchez.

McKeon chaired the Armed Services Committee. “I’d watch her during votes, and she’d come over and be working our side on some issues,” he said. “She didn’t just come and sit down-- she’s moving all the time, so I respect that.”

He said that he hasn’t followed the Senate race closely but that “people have told me her opponent is left of Boxer, and that would be enough for me.”

“If I lived in California, I’d be voting for Loretta,” said McKeon, who now resides in Arlington, Va.

McKeon, who was long one of the most crooked conservatives in Congress while he served as the Rep. from the Santa Clarita Valley, is widely despised by California Democrats, who remember him as a racist as well as a self-serving careerist. (He cashed in on his work on the House Armed Services Committee and is now an unscrupulous arms lobbyist.) Loretta will have a tough time keeping that kind of foul stench from Republicans like McKeon from making her toxic to whatever Democratic supporters she may have.

You'd Think California Is A Blue Enough State That They Could Elect Someone Of The Calibre Of Elizabeth Warren Or Bernie Sanders-- But You'd Be Wrong

The Sanchez sisters-- Loretta, the brainless one running for Senate, is wearing red

6,883,458 people voted in the California presidential primary-- 4,763,930 in the Democratic primary and 2,119,528 in the Republican. The big vote-getters:

• Hillary- 2,582,591
• Bernie- 2,138,284
• Trumpy the Clown- 1,583,319
• John Kasich- 242,208
• Ted Cruz- 201,574

Over a million people abstained when it came to the state's U.S. Senate vote. Only 5,082,928 people voted in the jungle primary that yielded up two Democrats for the November election. The top vote-getters (candidates with over 2% of the vote and over 100,000 votes) in the open primary were:

• Kamala Harris (D)- 2,051,048
• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog)- 943,002
• Duf Sundheim (R)- 406,964
• Phil Wyman (R)- 246,623
• Thomas Del Beccaro (R)- 213,946
• Greg Conlon (R)- 160,164
• Steve Stokes (D)- 105,568

I voted for Stokes, the largely unheralded Berniecrat in the race. There were 27 other candidates, Democrats, Republicans, a Green, a couple of Libertarians and lots and lots of independents. Unfortunately there was not a column for "None of the Above." Most of the spending was from just a few candidates. This is what the top candidates spent through May 18:

• Kamala Harris- $6,344,212
• Loretta Sanchez- $2,169,364
• Duf Sundheim- $599,400
• Tom Del Beccaro- $297,670

Stokes raised $9,379.

In November, with no Republican in the race, the two candidates with be establishment corporate liberal Kamala Harris and one of Congress' stupidest members, reactionary Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez, trying to play several cards, primarily that she's Hispanic but also that she's the natural place for Republicans to go, which she is, having voted with them enough to have earned a big fat "D" from ProgressivePunch. A few days ago, Alex Roarty, writing for Roll Call, reported that she's already angling for conservative support.

Business leaders who generally favor the Republican Party in California say they are considering backing Sanchez over Harris, convinced that the “Blue Dog” Democrat Sanchez would be a better ally in the Senate than the more liberal Harris, the state's attorney general.

Their support would be a major help to Sanchez, whose campaign has spent months searching for a base of support. The Democratic Party, including many progressive activists and groups like EMILY’s List, have almost uniformly lined up behind Harris.

“There’s an understanding that Loretta has a stronger understanding of how to grow jobs in California,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable.

...“She’s a social progressive, but she’s a Blue Dog Democrat that looks at fiscal programs to see if they are paid for,” said Luis Vizcaino, spokesman for Sanchez’s campaign. “And I think that appeals to many Californians, who want somebody aligned with their social views but at the same time is fiscally moderate.”

...A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released this week found Harris leading Sanchez 47 percent to 22 percent. The survey also found that 64 percent of Republicans said they would not cast a ballot for either candidate in November.

...Money and support from Republicans and business donors might also come with an electoral price, Democratic strategists say. If Sanchez were trying to court Democrats and Hispanic voters at the same time as she accepts big money from the GOP, those groups might rebel.

“You’re handing Kamala an easy thing to say, ‘Look the same people who fund Loretta Sanchez are funding Donald Trump,'" Trujillo said. “Once you do that, you hand Kamala Harris an even bigger instrument to use with Latino voters.”

Former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan, a Republican, has already announced his endorsement of Sanchez, calling her "an independent thinker and a proven leader," although she is neither. Members of Congress who work with her all say that all the brains in that family went to her sister Linda Sanchez and that Loretta has trouble grasping simple concepts and has no place in public service. "She's as thick as a brick," one of her colleagues told me, requesting anonymity. "She could switch parties tomorrow and she wouldn't have to change much in her approach."

34 Candidates And The Biggest Reaction To The California Senate Race Is A Well-Deserved Yawn

Blue America is backing several candidates in California's dysfunctional jungle primaries today. On the congressional side, we have endorsed one incumbent, Mike Honda (CA-17) and 4 challengers: Bill Ostrander (CA-24), Lou Vince (CA-25), Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Bao Nguyen (CA-46). I wound also recommend NO votes against 5 Democratic incumbents who have not earned reelection: Ami Bera (CA-07), Jim Costa (CA-16), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Pete Aguilar (D-31) and Scott Peters (CA-52). But you may have noticed that neither the Blue America PAC nor DWT has had anything to say about the race to replace Barbara Boxer in the Senate, other than that we're happy to see see Boxer finally leave and would be even happier to see Feinstein follow her, the sooner the better.

The primary pits 34 candidates against each other for the 2 places in the November election-- 7 Democrats, a dozen Republicans, a Green, 2 Libertarians, and a slew of independents. It is widely expected that the two top vote-getters will be the establishment pick Attorney General Kamala Harris and not-too-bright reactionary Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez, who hopes to cobble together a coalition of conservatives-- there will be no Republican in the race in November-- and Hispanics voting strictly on ethnic identity. I voted for Bernie-oriented, anti-Establishment Democrat Steve Stokes, who i got to know when he ran for Congress in my district against then-Blue Dog Adam Schiff.

The newest poll on the California Senate race indicates that the Republican brand is even more in the toilet than usual, in great part due to Señor Trump's unabashed racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Kamala Harris is the front runner with 28%, followed by the Blue Dog Sanchez with 20% and even if you could magically combine all the Republicans running (and even throw in all the independents and Libertarians and even the Green, that doesn't even equal the second-place Democrat! The top-drawing Republicans, Tom Del Beccaro and George Sundheim are at 6% each, a sad state of affairs for the state's Republican Party, which looks likely to lose up and down the ballot this cycle. The most in jeopardy Republicans in November are Jeff Denham, David Valadao and Steve Knight, whose only possible path to salvation an incompetent DCCC, with longshot upsets looming for Darrell Issa and Ed Royce, again, each likely to be saved strictly because of the gross incompetence of Pelosi's DCCC. (It would take a compete DCCC chair-- say Mark Pocan or Keith Ellison-- one or two cycles to reduce the Republicans in the California congressional delegation from 13 out of 53 to 6 or 7, a more accurate reflection of how Republicans are viewed by Golden State voters.

Interest in the Senate primary is very minimal, not just drowned out by the hot presidential primary but also by the extremely low level of candidates, none of whom are inspiring outside of the realm of identity politics-- "look at me, I'm a Latina" or "look at me I'm a woman who is also (fill in the ethnic blank depending on who Harris is talking to)." It's a Senate seat from the biggest state in the union, probably a lifetime career and no one cares much. What do the front runners stand for? Nothing at all-- one is slightly (REALLY slightly) left of center and the other is excruciatingly right of center. The most positive thing anyone says about Harris is that she's better than Sanchez. And the most positive thing anyone says about Sanchez is that although she votes like a Republican, it's time for a Latina in the Senate, even a dummy like her. One bit of irony is that although Sanchez is a Blue Dog that opposes almost every policy Bernie supports, 52% of people who identify themselves as Bernie backers, say they're going to vote for her.

Harris' piss-poor campaign is policy-free-- in the hope of not offending anyone-- so she hasn't even bothered to let voters know that Sanchez is a Blue Dog and a New Dem and often votes with the Republicans against President Obama. Harris has raised $11,066,550 (wasted $6,344,212 on a completely ineffective establishment campaign from yesteryear) but feels she will crush Sanchez with money. Sanchez has raised $3,475,392 and has spent most of it, not especially well, although better than Harris' campaign has. Measured by contributions, neither has generated any grassroots affinity. Only 1% of Sanchez's contributions come from small donors and just 13% of Harris' come from small donors. Both campaigns have taken big money from lobbyists, Harris $77,687 and Sanchez $40,150. It's unbelievable that a progressive didn't bother jumping into the race in the face of these two weak, even pathetic, candidates, neither of whom has anything to offer to the Senate or to the citizens of California.

The NY Times helped sum up the pointlessness of the contest

For much of the race, Ms. Harris has largely ignored the rest of the field. She relies on the phrase “smart on crime” to convey her views on criminal justice and uses the label “fearless” in campaign advertisements. While her experience as the state’s top law enforcement official is her most important credential, she has never taken a position on a 2014 voter-approved measure to release thousands of inmates and reduce sentences for nonviolent offenders.

Ms. Sanchez, who is running her first statewide campaign, points to her work in Congress to portray herself as the candidate most prepared to deal with national security. She has promoted her support from colleagues in the House, campaigning with several of them in recent appearances. Representative Filemon Vela, Democrat of Texas [and on the extreme right of the congressional Democrats], released a statement late last month calling the California Democratic Party’s support for Ms. Harris “insulting to Latinos all across this country.”

“Not one single Democratic Latina has ever been in the United States Senate,” Mr. Vela said in the statement, adding that the party’s position is "a disrespectful example of wayward institutional leadership, which on the one hand ‘wants our vote’ but on the other hand wants to ‘spit us out.’”

This race is the poster child for a potential referendum forcing "none of the above" onto all ballots. This is the Blue America Senate page this cycle-- no room for sieves like Harris or Sanchez:

Pete Sessions-- A Useful Idiot Against Blue Dogs Like Loretta Sanchez?

The Sanchez Sisters; the good one (Linda) is on the right

Though the Blue Dogs are threatening to join the Republicans in obstructing final passage of President Obama's Stimulus package-- arch-reactionary Blue Dog leaders Jim Cooper (TN), Gene Taylor (MS), Collin Peterson (MN) and Heath Shuler (NC) were behind the 11 backstabbers who crossed the aisle on the first House vote on the Stimulus Package and Cooper has been plotting with Hoyer about how to use the difficult situation to undermine Speaker Pelosi-- I have no doubt that Obama will forgive and forget when this is all over. But will grassroots Democrats?

Grassroots organizations like Blue America, Accountability Now, and even (or especially) the SEIU are threatening to get tough with treacherous Democrats who habitually cross the aisle on core Democratic issues and vote with Republicans. In the House there are currently 11 right-wing Democrats who vote more frequently with the GOP than with the Democrats on substantive matters that divide the parties. From bad to worse:

Gabby Giffords (AZ- 49.32)
Zack Space (OH- 47.51)
Gene Taylor (MS- 47.37)
Harry Mitchell (AZ- 46.15)
Dan Boren (OK- 45.47)
Chris Carney (PA- 40.72)
Jason Altmire (PA- 38.46)
Heath Shuler (NC- 38.46)
Travis Childers (MS- 36.11)
Brad Ellsworth (IN- 35.75)
Joe Donnelly (IN- 33.94)

This past November we encouraged an independent run by Democratic legislator Michael Jackson in Baton Rouge, which split the vote and caused the defeat of the most reactionary Democrat in the House, Don Cazayoux, who had gotten into office pledging to be a champion of working families and immediately took his seat and voted with the Republicans on everything. Jackson, a respected African American community leader siphoned off 12% of the general election vote and enabled Bill Cassidy to edge out Cazayoux by 8%. In the 2010 cycle there will be plenty of primaries against far right Democrats and other strategies to hold them accountable for participating in the right's jihad against working families. Now it looks like state Senate Democratic Leader Al Lawson will challenge slimy Blue Dog Allen Boyd next year.

While it may be harder to primary Blue Dogs in hard core Republican districts, Blue Dogs in Democratic districts are much easier targets, as Jane Harman and John Barrow learned in recent cycles. This year Obama took 60% of the vote in increasingly Democratic CA-47, an Orange County stronghold that used to elect wingnuts (think B-1 Bob Dornan) and is now represented by Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez. (Northeast of her OC district is CA-39, which is represented by her uber-progressive sister Linda, basically tied with Barbara Lee and Hilda Solis as the best members of Congress from the Golden State.)

If you've heard anything about lame Texas wingnut Pete Sessions, new head of the dysfunctional NRCC, it's how he compared House Republicans to the Taliban, the fanatic religious extremists in Afghanistan allied with al-Qaeda. But that isn't the only nonsense Sessions is talking-- even above and beyond his role as a hard core obstructionist. He's talking about retaking the majority in the House and going after Democratic incumbents in Blue districts. (In the last two cycles, Republicans have been swept out of blue districts and purple districts and are fighting frequently unsuccessful last stands in red districts.) Except in the case of the fluke election in New Orleans where everyone just wanted to get rid of corrupt congressman William Jefferson and an ex-Democrat/now Republican, Anh Cao nosed in (for what is likely to be one term), the Republicans haven't flipped a Democratic seat since 2002-- while the Democrats flipped 46 red seats, even winning in ID-01 (R+19) at the same time McCain was winning against Obama there 62-36.

According to today's CongressDaily the clueless Sessions thinks he has a shot of displacing Sanchez with a state Assemblyman, Van Tran. Maybe they'll run Vietnamese-Americans all over the country, since it's the only thing that's worked for them! Meanwhile, as we pointed out last week, new polling data shows that even though Americans disapprove of Congress, they approve of congressional Democrats by 49% (while only 26% approve of the Republicans). And that's before the party embarked on its current orgy of obstructionism.

Progressives, however, are watching Sanchez closely to see how much she conspires with congressional Republicans against President Obama's programs. If she steps over the line-- or across the aisle-- too much and betrays working families on a regular basis Assemblyman Tran's challenge could get added weight from a popular Hispanic officeholder willing to help displace her. Sanchez is one of two dozen reactionary Democrats being closely watched by progressive groups and activists.

Below is a video montage of irresponsible Senate Republicans saying "let's slow down," "there is no hurry" and "take a time out" as unemployment skyrockets (Republican policies these guys all voted for have given us the worst employment stats in 34 years) and the economy gets pushed closer and closer to the precipice. The Obstructionist Caucus leaders in the video could just as easily have been Blue Dog "Democrats" like Heath Shuler (NC), Gene Taylor (MS), and Jim Cooper (TN). These people really are the conscious enemies of this nation.