Come to our monthly meetings.
We support Chino, Chino Hills, and South Ontario in Assembly Districts 52 and 55!
Our Facebook for Chino Valley Democrats LINK
SIGN UP HERE BY CLICKING ON THE LINK AND/OR DROP US A LINE AT firstname.lastname@example.org for the February 10 session to be held in San Bernardino! Featured speakers will be a rep from Sacramento FPPC and a local City Clerk who will explain the regulations and Fair Political Practices requirements when running for office! Donations of $25 are welcome.
Models, of course, disagree on how grim the forecast is for the Republicans, so any given model should not be taken as the last word. But Seth Masket at Mischiefs of Faction cites a midterm model that illustrates how difficult the situation is for them. The model is a simple one that relies on just Presidential approval and growth in real per capita disposable income (RDI). What it says is this:
[The model] predicts Democrats will pick up 45 to 50 House seats this fall, and take over 15 to 20 state legislative chambers. A loss of just 24 House seats would flip House control to the Democrats….Most years, this model works fairly well. It predicted Democrats losing 46 House seats in 2010 (they lost 63), and it predicted Republicans losing 40 House seats in 2006 (they lost 31).
You can see in the chart above how this works, with Trump’s approval running a little over 40 percent and RDI growth around 1 percent in the last year. It’s apparent that moving Trump’s approval rating around a little bit at a given level of economic growth does not change the forecast much. Plus Trump’s approval rating have been bouncing around between 37 and 42 percent since early last April so it’s hard to see the kind of mega-spike that might really change things.
A huge increase in RDI growth seems unlikely also though, of course, anything is possible. But as Masket observes:
Even if RDI growth jumped to 3 percent…the model would still predict Republicans to lose 37 House seats, more than enough to lose control of the chamber, and 14 state legislative chambers.
So the fundamentals don’t look good for Team Red. But it’s just one model so should be treated with caution. After all, there are lots of other factors like the various structural advantages Republicans take into an election like this. But even those have been declining as Nate Cohn has pointed out, knocking a couple of points off of the GOP’s “thumb on the scales”. This includes the effects of anti-gerrymandering court decisions, Democratic fundraising and candidate recruitment and Republican retirements.
It’s a long time ’til election day. But the basic story continues to be a positive one for Democrats, as these data and the results of recent special elections suggest.
Many think the issue of sexual harassment — embodied in the #MeToo movement — will work to the advantage of Democrats in upcoming elections. A mid-December NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey gave the party a three to one advantage over Republicans on the matter. But it is hardly guaranteed to do so.
Views of sexual harassment and of gender issues generally differ sharply by age, sex and partisan allegiance — all of which create substantial unpredictability. The issue has the potential to accelerate the growing discontent among well-educated white women with the Republican Party. But it could also intensify hostility to the liberal agenda among conservatives, particularly white men, many of whom view women’s complaints of discrimination as “an attempt to gain advantage” in the workplace.
This complex dynamic is illuminated, for example, in the work of Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, a psychologist at Tufts, who recently reported a growing divergence on gender issues between male and female voters under the age of 30.
In her paper, “How Gender Mattered to Millennials in the 2016 Election and Beyond,” Kawashima-Ginsberg found that in an election in which allegations of harassment and abuse against Donald Trump were central, support for the Democratic nominee dropped by 15 points from 2008 to 2016 among all young men between the ages of 18 to 29 (from 62 to 47 percent) and by 6 points among all women (from 69 to 63 percent). At the same time, turnout among young white men, many of whom supported Trump, shot up significantly.
“2016 saw the greatest number of votes cast by young white men in the past 12 years — markedly higher than their female counterparts,” Kawashima-Ginsberg wrote.
Text of this bipartisan approved bill here at this link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1
The recall against our State Senator SD29 is unwarranted considering the following. In fact, he promoted a Constitutional amendment to assure the monies allocated would be spent on only the road repair projects.
This act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
Credits: Boxing glove by Swetha Kannan
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a so-called “sanctuary state” bill that will limit cooperation between local officials and federal immigration enforcement. The measure is one of the most high-profile ways that Democrats in the state have sought to push back against the Republican agenda, as President Donald Trump has taken a hard line on immigration and other issues that are significant to Golden State lawmakers.
“These are uncertain times for undocumented Californians and their families, and this bill strikes a balance that will protect public safety, while bringing a measure of comfort to those families who are now living in fear every day,” Brown said in statement, according to the Associated Press.
Brown’s decision to sign the bill will almost certainly draw the ire of the President, who has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities — a move that inspired several jurisdictions in California to sue his administration. Though there is not a set definition of what makes any place a “sanctuary” for immigrants, laws described that typically aim to limit the deportation of undocumented residents.
While other states have passed laws that shore up protections for immigrants, the California bill, formally known as SB54, has been described as the most comprehensive in the country. Measures range from treating schools, courthouses and hospitals as “safe zones” to restricting the ability of local police to detain people on behalf of federal immigration agents. The law does nothing to curtail the ability of federal agents to come into the state and deport people or carry out raids, but it does make such actions more difficult for agencies with limited resources.
An estimated 10 million immigrants live in California, more than the entire population of states such as Michigan, and about 25% of them are thought to be undocumented. The author of the bill, state Senate Leader Kevin de Leon, has positioned it as a safety measure to ensure undocumented residents are unafraid to report crimes to the police or send their kids to school. De Leon said at a press conference that the new law “will put a large kink in Trump’s perverse and inhumane deportation machine,” according to the AP.
The main criticisms of SB54 have also been about safety, as organizations such as the California State Sheriffs’ Association have argued that dangerous criminals might slip through the cracks if local authorities are limited in their ability to interact with federal officials. Before signing the bill, Gov. Brown negotiated changes meant to assuage some of those concerns, such as allowing for cooperation in cases that involve particular crimes.
Though Trump could attempt to deny federal funding to California over the bill, he would face legal hurdles in doing so and such an action would very likely lead to a lawsuit. As the new President took office, lawmakers in the state retained former Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm to help advise them on the legal limits of resistance. And the state has already sued the federal government over issues ranging from energy efficiency standards to the decision to end DACA, a program that has shielded young immigrants from deportation.
|Candidate Filing Deadline||Primary Election||General Election|
California’s 39th District was listed as one of the DCCC‘s initial targets in 2018.
The campaign opposing the recall of California Sen. Josh Newman unveiled a lawsuit Thursday calling on a judge to stop the effort from moving forward.
The suit, filed in Sacramento County by three Newman supporters, alleges that the petition to remove the freshman Democrat from office violates California election law with false statements about the Legislature’s $52 billion transportation deal and a sanctuary state bill Newman supported. The lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Alex Padilla and proponents of the recall effort, also alleges that the recall campaign falsely claims the petition will stop the gas tax.
A lawyer working for Newman supporters said the violations serve as grounds for the court to stop the petition from continuing to circulate among voters and halt the recall process.
“This suit is about nothing less than the integrity of our election process; a recall election simply should not be certified when signatures were gathered based on lies to voters,” said James Harrison, an attorney with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, in a statement. “To allow voters to be duped, as the California Republican Party has attempted in (Senate District) 29, is a clear violation of the public interest.”
Newman said the suit appears to be a necessary response to the GOP’s attempt to underhandedly game the system.
“Using out-of-district money to hire paid signature gatherers, who will do or say whatever it takes to earn their commissions, in order to trigger a special election under false pretenses isn’t exactly what Hiram Johnson had in mind in 1911 when he proposed the recall process,” Newman said.
The lawsuit is the latest action in a contentious recall battle in Senate District 29.
Carl DeMaio, a Republican talk radio host, initiated the recall against Newman, D-Fullerton, shortly after the Legislature passed the sweeping transportation bill. At the time, DeMaio said he was prompted to launch the recall effort over Newman’s gas tax vote and to eliminate Democrats’ super majority control of the state Senate. Newman won the historically Republican Senate District by fewer than 2,500 votes in November.