Odds Increase that Only Two Democrats Will be on California’s November Ballot for U.S. Senate in 2018

CNN is reporting that California State Senator Kevin de Leon will run for U.S. Senate next year. He is leader of the State Senate, and a Democrat. See this story. Because incumbent U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein is running for re-election next year, and because no well-known Republican has announced for this seat, if the CNN story is true, it is likely that California’s top-two system will again produce a general election ballot for U.S. Senate with only two Democrats. Write-ins are not allowed, so just as in 2016, voters who don’t wish to vote for a Democrat in 2018 will not be able to vote for that office at all. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.


Comments

Odds Increase that Only Two Democrats Will be on California’s November Ballot for U.S. Senate in 2018 — 20 Comments

  1. Great, so no actual leftist choice. Again. Gotta love these elections that force you to either vote for two people from the same party or not vote at all. I’m really seeing the pros of Top Two. Wow.

  2. Since CA is now a 60 plus percent Soviet Socialist Republic [see ex-USSR] —

    any R or minor party or independent candidate has ZERO chance.

    Abolish the gerrymander minority rule USA Senate – in which CA voters are the worst victims.

    PR and Appv

  3. California is not even close to “Soviet”. Feinstein is utterly a moderate liberal or centrist, with heavy support for unconstitutional spying on Americans and heavy support of the military industrial complex, as well as being utterly against marijuana legalization, which at this point in time is basically an asinine position for a candidate on the supposed left to hold. The voters in California can be as leftist as they want (I have never been convinced on the truth of that claim), but the Democratic machine in California is not supportive of socialism. However, you and me see to use completely different world-views when it comes to political definitions, so I have no doubt it’s a pointless discussion to maintain.

  4. It is super-easy to be a raving Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Brown commie (esp. in sunny CA) with the $$$ income and $$$ assets of OTHER folks.

    Anybody see the Stalin series on cable TV ???

    — esp. part 1 regarding the commie takeover of Russia in 1917-1918

    — esp. the Bolshevik minority takeover of the Duma [Russia legislative body] in Jan 1918 after the *free* election on Nov 25, 1917 — 168 Bolsheviks, 400 Socialists.

    — and the Lenin terror [via Cheka = secret police) and the mass murders by all sides in the resulting horrific 1918-1921 Russian Civil War and the later 1922-1991 USSR regime of terror [via NKVD, etc. = secret police] – esp. the Stalin terror regime in 1929-1953.

  5. Both current US Senators have shown an incredible disdain for at least some, if not all, of the Bill of Rights.

  6. So are enough Californians fed up with this nonsense to the point where they will get the initiative to repeal Top Two Primary on the ballot for the 2018 election?

  7. The top-two system has the potential to create one-party states. Is that what the originators actually intended?

  8. @Walt Ziobro: “The top-two system has the potential to create one-party states. Is that what the originators actually intended?” Intended? No. The proponents favor a zero-party state, in which all officer holders are elected and serve as individuals. But government and politics are not possible without political parties. That’s why weakening them has so many unintended consequences.

  9. You can call it a one party state or a zero party state. The bottom line is that smaller parties which don’t have universal name recognition or massive advertising budgets or blanket news coverage lose control of their single biggest way of reaching the public with their message, their ballot line; and their candidates, along with any independents and dissident Demopublicans, get eliminated early on in the campaign season when few voters pay attention – except in races which are so lopsided that no more than one Demopublican even bothers filing, which the press and the public also almost universally ignore.

    Then, you get two establishment candidates running during the phase of the election when more than a trivial percentage of the public or media pay attention, or at best you have one establishment candidate who everyone knows will win easily and a non-establishment candidate that is roundly ignored. Any opportunity to build a party brand to carry over to future elections and build a base of support is lost.

    It’s a death sentence for non-establishment perspectives in the electoral arena or even any meaningful competition between more than trivially different factions of the establishment as we are beginning to see in the Financiers’ Managerial Republic of California.

  10. The law of unintended consequences strikes again. In answer to Andy’s question, no, California top two will remain the law for many years to come because that’s what the Democrat Party wants.

  11. Kevin De Leon’s campaign website http://www.kevindeleon.com/ says that he is running for Lieutenant Governor in 2018. When does he have to start reporting to the FEC? Content-wise, his website says “ambitious politician – term-limited – will run for office”.

    Feinstein will be 91-1/2 if re-elected and completes her term. From the article, it sounds like there were a bunch of people expecting/hoping that she would not run. Boxer and Feinstein had locked up the seats since 1992, and now Harris has the other seat locked up for the next couple of decades. This may be their only shot.

    Incidentally, the undervote in Feinstein’s races has been consistent regardless of the primary system:

    1992: 5.2%
    1994: 4.3%
    2000: 4.7%
    2006: 4.0%
    2012: 4.7%

    1994 and 2006 did not have a presidential race, so there would nobody who voted in only the presidential race.

  12. The CA top 2 primary is a large part of the CA gerrymander commission controlled by the Donkeys — via Donkey spies/agents [so-called independent commission members].

    ie divide and conquer the Elephants in marginal Elephant gerrymander districts.

    NO primaries.

    PR and Appv.

  13. “The law of unintended consequences strikes again. In answer to Andy’s question, no, California top two will remain the law for many years to come because that’s what the Democrat Party wants.”

    Actually, they passed a resolution saying that getting rid of it is among their highest priorities. They see it as a way to set themselves up spending money running against fellow Democrats in general elections when some of that same money could help Democrats who are running against Republicans in other states instead. There may well be Democrats who look at it differently but that is the official state party position.

  14. This is a fascistic, unfair system that disenfranchises millions of voters who do not support the entrenched statist party. But that is exactly what I expect from Democrats and other progressives.

    They’re not interested in you. They’re interested in power, money, and control.

  15. “[CA Dem Party] passed a resolution saying that getting rid of it is among their highest priorities.”

    That’s right up there with the three biggest lies of all times.

  16. http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/08/sacramento-bee-covers-proposed-initiative-to-repeal-california-top-two/ (you can folow the links back here to BAN and from there to Sacramento Bee)

    “…Both Republicans and Democrats oppose the top-two system. It has been criticized by the Republican Party for making it more difficult for Republican candidates to make it through a primary contests in a state growing more blue, and by Democrats because it forces them to fight one another, driving up the cost of races….”

    “I’m coordinating with Trump groups, Libertarians, the Green Party…Democrats and Republicans…they already know the top two is not good for them,” Palzer said.” (Palzer is trying to get an initiative to repeal top two on the ballot -p)

    ….

    In a statement, state Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman argued the top-two system “weakens the Democratic Party.”

    “Progressives have been forced to spend nearly $200 million in contests featuring two Democrats,” Bauman said. “This is a system that silences the Democratic base and completely excludes third parties from even competing in the fall…the fact that this initiative was filed by Republicans underscores how flawed the top-two system really is.”

    Bauman said repealing the system is a core priority for the party.

  17. Which factions have won thus far in general elections via the divide and conquer CA top 2 primary —

    majority Donkeys
    minority Donkeys
    majority Elephants
    minority Elephants
    minor parties/independents
    ???
    — esp having 2 minority faction EXTREMIST Donkeys in Nov.

  18. Tim, progressives are not the same as the Democratic Party. Generally speaking we support much more open ballot access laws, but sure, act as though Democrats and progressives are the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *