Political Science 101: when a sketchy PAC forms four days before the election and starts running ads supporting you, you are either losing or the weakest link. Or, maybe a DINO...
Those are literally the only options.
For those who haven't voted yet, give that a long hard think.
Firefighters don’t get trust funds, they get pensions. Joe receives a monthly pension benefit because he spent 34 years as a firefighter and he paid into it with every paycheck. It’s not a piggy bank you “empty” and then it disappears. That’s like saying “Joe emptied Social Security.”
Most people who have actually worked for a living understand that.
Not challenging how Joe receives his pension. However, pensions can be distributed in a lump sum which is quite common. Less common is anyone having a pension anymore. 30% or so of the district does, but that's due to government employees, and all pensions are not created equal (firefighters being aruably the most lucrative). Then some companies contribute to 401k's, but few of those nowadays, too. The majority of the hard working people don't have these financial cushions and 50% work in small businesses. Also, for government pensions, they are funded with a combination of taxpayer money and pension fund investment. Some of the taxpayer funding is via the taxpayer-funded salary, a part of which is paid to the pension fund. The taxpayers pay an additional amount. This breaks down as follows: OCERS pays approximately 30-40% of payroll into the pension, and the employee contributes approximately 13% of their taxpayer-funded salary. Returns on pension fund investments make up the rest (assuming a good year). This breaks down to approximately 65% funding directly from taxpayer dollar employer contributions, 23% from employee taxpayer-funded salary contributions, and approximately 11% from pension fund investments.
I'm going to interject and suggest the charitable approach which is that you just don't know what you're talking about.
You should try the FEC website, it's free and the info on how Joe's 2024 campaign was entirely staffed and run by Republican consulting firm i77 is all there for public viewing.
No surprise there. It comes from a leading political science textbook. Your two examples are irrelevant. What actually occurred promotes the fact that she is the weakest link. Look it up or land your plane.
Can you share a reference to the leading political science book you mention, along with the section/page would be helpful? I've searched and so far cannot find a book addressing your statement "when a sketchy PAC forms four days before the election and starts running ads supporting you, you are either losing or the weakest link. Or, maybe a DINO". I'm in particular looking for the sketchy PAC contributions days before the election comment and that it means either losing or the weakest link. I wouldn't expect the textbook to have the name-calling DINO reference so I wasn't searching for that.
Voting at the Political Fault Line, edited by Bruce E. Cain and Elisabeth R. Gerber (University of California Press, 2002). "Raiders support for the putatively weakest candidate in the opposing party in hopes of helping their own party's candidate win the general election."
Or, Cho, Seok-ju and Insun Kang. "Open Primaries and Crossover Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics (2015). Raiding – supporting a more extreme or weaker candidate in the other party to improve one's own party's chances in the general election.
Or, Cain & Gerber, Voting at the Political Fault Line, 2002 Political scientists refer to the practice of assisting a weaker or more extreme candidate in the opposing party's primary as "raiding"—a form of strategic intervention intended to produce a more favorable general-election opponent.
A Republican-aligned group might support a Democrat viewed as out of step with Democratic priorities. In that case, critics within the candidate's own party may argue the candidate is a "Republican In Name Only (RINO)" or "Democrat In Name Only (DINO)." Political science generally treats these as partisan labels rather than formal analytical categories. A well-known academic source on parties as policy-seeking organizations is the book The Party Decides by Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller.
I would not have expected you to know where to look. That's why I simplified my summary.
What keeps me sane is working to GOTV for local candidates. Cynthia Vasquez now has a challenger, risking a 💯 MAGA Mission Viejo city council. If only Esther or Lisa would move to one of their districts! And then there’s Judy Bullockus of Capo USD school board N word fame. She needs to go! If Joe wins the primary, I’ll support his campaign. If not, peace out!
One of my favorite new hobbies is logging out to see what Joseph Varet writes. I had to block him because he was harassing me. I swear, if I ever make it on Jeopardy, the fun fact I will tell about myself will be, "I was repeatedly harassed and insulted by a congressional candidate and her husband across multiple platforms."
Joseph's head is constantly exploding over everything. But in this case, his wife is being supported with MAGA PAC money and his answer is, "Oh well." That's not the move, my guy. There isn't even an attempt to disavow it.
I voted for Lisa and I am super happy with that decision. Please consider her if you haven't voted yet.
I know Esther's response would be, "Ew, you're no better than MAGA," to which I say, "Girl, please. You just took 300k from them so they could ironically beat you."
Your statement that Esther "took 300k from them" is not accurate. Esther's campaign didn't take any money from the MAGA Super PACs. She's not allowed, to, either. The Super PAC is independent of her campaign and is free to spend Independent Expenditures for media buys in support of or also against any candidate. Esther is not allowed to influence their operation. However, Esther is an outspoken critic of the Super PAC issue and has this listed on her policies page (Citizens United). Super PAC's are also involved supporting and opposing the two Republican candidates. Of the two other Democrat candidates, Joe has a statement not direct but related (transparency), and Lisa doesn't address it (campaign web sites only not whatever they might have said in socials).
She didn't disavow it either. In fact, Joey Varet is in these comments basically saying, "Oh well."
Esther may not control it, but this is a raider op by Republicans to boost the weakest candidate. She gets in her own way and it'll be easy for them to discredit her from the outset. We have one Blue MAGA candidate with a lot of money being propped up by MAGA in order to be knocked over. And we have two decent candidates with less money. I've already made my choice. This was just the nail in the coffin.
All three candidates have taken the political integrity pledge, so there is no daylight there between them (although I trust Varet the least).
I believe your point is true in that it would be OK to make a short statement to disavow. It could be tricky if opponents and social media commentators then challenged and a reply back and forth ensued. It could reach the stage of appearing to be influencing the super PAC's who monitor us and those various parties who want to file a complaint with the FEC. Shrugging off via the comment that was made, or ignoring without comment are also safe routes to avoid influencing or appearing to be involved/influencing the super PAC's. I find some interaction with Super PAC's questionable (Ken Calvert pictured in the White House partying with a leader of a super PAC is one), yet this appears to be allowed because no money visibly changed hands, and there is no record of what they said to each other.
CA 40 Election math will be interesting. Assume the GOP Gets what it wants, Kim or Calvert against Esther-Kim-Varet. In the 40, registered voters:
Dems — 55,198 (31%)
GOP— 72,704 (41%)
Non-Part — 38,347 (22%)
Others — 11,865 (6%)
I hold that every Congressional seat has to be considered up for grabs by the Dems, and local efforts have to reflect a really good chance of winning. That is, no such thing right now as a “safe” GOP seat. Have to have that mindset.
Here’s how i see a possible Election Day going for each:
Dems — 10% stay home, 5,000 chase one of the “others”, and 45,000 vote for the Dem candidate.
GOP — 10% stay home, 15% vote Dem, and the remaining 56,000 vote for GOP candidate.
Non-Partisan — 10% stay home, and they break for Dem candidate 60/40; 21,000 for the Dem and 14,000 for GOP.
Total these up and the Dem wins 76,000 to 70,000.
Now, I think the Dems will capture more of the Dems, and maybe even more of the GOP based on gas and war, and, really, can see even a greater number of Non-Pars than 60/40 swinging Dem.
So, a 9% gap is not really a gap this mid-term, as we are seeing around the country.
And, the first, the very first thing on a recent Young Kim flyer as to her accomplishments and goals — as a “MAGA Warrior” who “stands with Trump 100% of the time” was “ENFORCE TERM LIMITS”. WTF??? What term limits, whose term limits are you enforcing? Is that all? No, she also supports “No Amnesty for Illegals” (amnesty?) and “Ban Sex Changes for Kids” If that’s her and probably similar to Calvert’s campaign pitch, if i were a Dem, and I’m not, I would be shouting BRING IT ON. Let’s F*ING WIN THIS THING. And, Jesus will be invited….
Nice analysis. Always fun to consider the what-ifs. Step 1 we will find out the results of the Primary. Depending on how close, media may call the result within a day or two. It will definitely be determined by the official certification date which is July 2nd for the counties to certify their results. CA SOS then certifies by July 10th.
I live in this district also. The truth is that since the passage of prop 50 the dccc wanted the two republicans to fight each other and spend money and the only one that has a chance to make it out of our jungle primary is Esther and Ken Calvert knows that this. The district is mainly in Riverside county now and past performance by Kerr will not matter. I admire Lisa’s immigration work and Joe’s contribution to the labor movement and I have not endorsed in this race but this is the reality.
Nice to see you comment on one of Jeff's pieces, Ms. Hoffman.
It certainly has been a race of no way to know who to endorse. I'll tell you this as a voter - I have never been enticed by anyone spending more money than another as a reason to vote for that person. I am, what I consider, a rare voter who actually learns about who is running, right down to those running for positions we barely know about. That's how it's been for me in this race and that's how I will continue voting in the future. We have a terrible lack of voter education going on in this country. Not because there isn't plenty of info and resources to learn from, but from people not being interested enough to educate themselves.
I'm anonymous here but I'm running for local office and want to thank the DPOC for creating the program you did that helps prospective candidates, and actual candidates, learn more about how to run a successful campaign. Keep that up, really. It's an excellent resource. My treasurer and campaign manager both were on the list you all suggested.
Yes, when I read the Popular Info piece by Judd Legnum, I understood full well what was going on. Upon reflection, however, Esther never had a chance because she gets in her own way, and CA-40 is very red. So the PAC is also wasting money there, just not as much as it might have. Peace to you. Please don't move to Guam. You might not like writing about politics, but you are great at this stuff!
I wouldn't be so quick to write off this race if a Dem makes it to the general. We've seen massive shifts towards Democrats in the last year up and down the ballot.
CA-40 is primed to surprise if a Dem can make it to the general.
We can’t win if there isn’t a Dem in the General Election. It’s a few months away which is a lot of time in politics. Rs are already spending a lot of money defending races they thought were safe across the country, so one more won’t matter much. Two Rs don’t do us any good even if they waste a lot of money. But a D in there, well, a lot of places have surprised us since the return if the orange one.
3. We simply can't and won't know until late Tues what we've ended up with
Since Trump hit office again, I have gotten used to the dissolution with what politics used to be. All I can do is fight my fight and hope for the best.
DPOC and folks like yourself who know Esther’s character should've backed Lisa and pressured Esther to back down. If the Dem vote hadn't been split, we'd have at least one Dem to rally around in the General. Now, we have two GOP candidates. I understand DPOCs' cowardice to stand up to wealthy individuals (Steyer, Varet) and not endorse the best candidate but, yes, next time, please back character, not wealth.
Lisa got more than 50% of the vote at the CADEM convention and at most of the local Dem clubs. However, to secure an official party endorsement, a candidate needs a supermajority. With so many Dems in the race, it was hard to secure. At that point, political parties just let it play out in the primaries.
After she failed to secure an endorsement, EKV basically just kept making the case that she had the most money, so everyone else should drop out. Then she did one poll 6 weeks before the election and used it as marketing. The sample breakdown for that poll looks significantly off, actually, given the real returns.
I do market research for a living, and political polling is much harder. You cannot trust one point-in-time poll by one firm. You need continuous polling, closer to the actual election, by a variety of independent firms to get an average of all the polls. That's why, say the polls predicted the Governor's race way better than Esther's one poll.
I missed the part where your job is market research. That's interesting and gives you a more informed perspective. For polling, I think it would be informative if as part of the contract package, the polling firm would do a postmortem. In Esther's case, I choose to believe it was not a push poll and was done in good faith. That's based on my limited research on the Tulchin company which has a good reputation and has been used in other campaigns that I find reputable. They came up with Esther a bit too high and Lisa significantly too low. Polls are complicated and it isn't just a case of looking at some demographics and counting totals. Tulchin has the expertise to analyze their own results. The benefit to Tulchin would be to include that knowledge in future polls to make their service offering more accurate. Now, I don't know if in fact they do this kind of postmortem, and even if they did, I wouldn't expect them or the campaigns to necessarily share it, although I would be interested.
Agree on multiple polls and independent vs. campaign funded. Independent polls still have to be paid by someone, though. It's typically the media companies from what I've seen recently, and they can also have a well-known partisan leaning which makes the public question them. The alternative would be to fund from general taxpayer dollars.
There are a few things about a poll like this. I don't think it was a push poll, either. But I think it suffered from a few things:
1) Collection method: This is common across all political polling today. The only way to collect is by phone or over the internet. In the past, the phone was pretty reliable because most people had to just pick up. Of course, there was some non-response bias because people would hang up, but it was rarer, partially because people got fewer telemarketer calls, and the culture wasn't as rude. You simply have fewer people picking up the phone now (and those who do are older), so I am guessing that they went to an internet sample that was a mix of email, text, and social media. Almost by definition, even if these people match what you need on "observable" characteristics, they are likely to be, on average, wealthier and better educated than the electorate as a whole.
In addition, you have a whole group of people who, even if you reach them with a survey, are just NOT going to take it. These people tend to be more conservative and distrustful of polling. And you can see that born out in the results. Not only did the poll get LR and EVK wrong, but also Ken Calvert, who is getting significantly more votes than EVK's poll would suggest.
This was a big problem in 2024, and why places like Iowa were predicting a Harris victory, but it didn't materialize.
2) Geographic and Demographic distribution: This is extremely important and is correlated with the first issue. Even if they got the distribution exactly right, it would probably be biased because of the collection method. And I am willing to bet they didn't get it exactly right. They obviously tried, and got as close as they could. However, in many firms, if you don't have all the people you need in a certain demographic — Latino women, for example — you often weight the data higher for that demographic. So if you need 50 of them, but only get 30, you weigh their responses more heavily. However, that does affect accuracy because you didn't actually get 50, which could change the averages a bit.
In an ideal situation, you would keep collecting data on the demos you need and not weight, but collecting data is expensive, so most contracts collect only up to the agreed-upon overall sample size.
3) Timing: This poll was done 6 weeks before the election. That is an eternity before the election. There is just no reliable way to use one poll that far out to make a real decision about who is ahead. That said, she MIGHT have been ahead by that much at that point (I don't really think so because of the KC results), but for argument's sake, even if she was, polls that far out are not destiny by any means. There were many efforts by LR in the last six weeks of the race to reach people, and she did.
EVK did a good job of using the poll as marketing, though. Her marketing ignored things like the 25% undecideds, and since people don't understand polling, it worked. I saw right through it right away, but I am a random lady on the internet,
None of this is to say Tulchin did a terrible job. I think the results are probably a result of a limited contract (get 500 respondents and then close the survey no matter the demo mix because it is expensive), the timing, and the collection method (which is something everyone in the industry is trying to figure out).
I am glad I am in market research and not political polling. We know the limitations, and can also use "hard" sales data and other "hard data" to help explain the anomalies we see.
Thanks. That's why the most reliable polling is an "average of averages" where you look at the average of repeated, independent polls. It's just really, really expensive, so unlikely to happen in a congressional race like this. My sense is that YK and KC probably also did several polls, but were happy to not release them and let EKV fight with everyone on this blog and all over the internet. It only benefited them.
There is voter transfer fallacy to consider as part, not all, of the equation. Just because one candidate drops out does not mean that the votes for that person will transfer to another targeted candidate. As evidence, one only has to look at the various thread responses here, and even to the candidates themselves. There was only one candidate who said they would be happy to have any of the other Democrat candidates clear the Primary. This was said in front of the other two candidates in public and crickets... Responders in this platform have clearly said repeatedly they would refuse to vote if their preferred candidate did not clear the Primary. Now, it's hard to say how this would scale, and these comments about vote transfer apply to whatever candidate would drop out.
Thanks for sharing your opinion that this is now the "high life". The choices now are Young Kim or Ken Calvert (unless something unusual happens before ballot certification).
Please, Pearlman, this last piece is some of the most disingenuous crap I've seen you offer up - and that's saying something. You've stomped in, horns blaring, flags waving, and most of it has seemed to be designed to distract from the lack of research or experience in your writing here, most often marked by a failure to offer anything coherent or to reach any valid conclusions. No, your greatest consistency has been your inconsistency. More flip-flops than a flounder on the pier.
You should have stuck to sports drivel, where nobody expects anything coherent or substantial.
You've been on at length about the clusterfuck that this local race has been - when you've served to create and continue much of it, and now you want to whine your way out the back door, hands raised in supplication.
If you're claiming to be a genuine journalist "covering" this race, how in hell did you miss the Popular Information scoop? And then where did you go with the revelations? Sadly, not far.
No, from you it's just been more sniveling about the futility of fighting the money. If you'd done some basic legwork, you too could have come up with something like the numbers posted below by Steve Torreto, along with a history of recent election upsets scored throughout the country by those willing to stand up and fight the power. That's the way it's done, and if you actually had the courage of your alleged convictions, you'd be out front of that fight.
No, as you've said yourself, you're not a responsible writer, you're just a lazy hack who loves to see his own name on the page.
Hey, how about those Giants? Take it away, Jeff....
Esther has the strongest statement against such super PAC activity if one goes by statements on the websites of the candidates. This is a Citizens United issue.
Looking at the Democrat candidates' websites, here's what I see with respect to this issue:
Joe:
Increase transparency in campaign finance so billionaires and dark money groups cannot buy influence; and...
Lisa:
Couldn't find anything directly applicable to Citizens United or Super PAC's.
Esther:
Legislation to reverse the harmful SCOTUS “Citizens United” ruling
The candidates may have also addressed this in ads, talks, and so forth. This is just looking at the policies and priorities stated on their web sites.
Oh, so you DO understand how PAC IE’s work after all! As was already explained to you on FB where you were using one of your numerous burners to troll this same nonsense verbatim, including the stupid nuts emoji, Joe’s campaign didn’t send out that text. It must’ve come from an IE.
You’re invoking your supposed expertise on PACs while simultaneously arguing with yourself depending on whose name is on the yard sign.
“Esther can’t control what outside groups do.”
“Joe is personally responsible!”
Pick a lane.
Even funnier is that you keep insisting Joe is irrelevant, yet you’ve written more words about him in the last 12 hours than some people write in a college term paper.
At this point, the jokes are writing themselves and your obsession has become the punchline.
Please write about how the DNC apparently muzzles the local Dem clubs on the big issues. War. AIPAC. The DNC autopsy report that didn’t address Biden’s age or Gaza.
Do you have any info to share? That sounds like an interesting topic. Any insight on the rules imposed on the local Democrat clubs from the national organization restricting discussion? Anything with respect to the canyondems club?
Donation limits are $3,500 per election, $7k if one considers the primary and general election. This is for Federal positions. With Citizens United, the "super PAC's" have unlimited donations and Independent Expenditures allowed. Typically, the donations are cloaked with a 5014c "social welfare" nonprofit, which does not have to reveal donors. These donations and expenditures are not under the control or influence by a candidate, by law.
Esther has the strongest and most specific wording in her platform against Citizens United compared to the other Democrat candidates for CA40 (source: the web sites of the candidates).
Political Science 101: when a sketchy PAC forms four days before the election and starts running ads supporting you, you are either losing or the weakest link. Or, maybe a DINO...
Those are literally the only options.
For those who haven't voted yet, give that a long hard think.
LOL is that how you think pensions work?
Firefighters don’t get trust funds, they get pensions. Joe receives a monthly pension benefit because he spent 34 years as a firefighter and he paid into it with every paycheck. It’s not a piggy bank you “empty” and then it disappears. That’s like saying “Joe emptied Social Security.”
Most people who have actually worked for a living understand that.
Not challenging how Joe receives his pension. However, pensions can be distributed in a lump sum which is quite common. Less common is anyone having a pension anymore. 30% or so of the district does, but that's due to government employees, and all pensions are not created equal (firefighters being aruably the most lucrative). Then some companies contribute to 401k's, but few of those nowadays, too. The majority of the hard working people don't have these financial cushions and 50% work in small businesses. Also, for government pensions, they are funded with a combination of taxpayer money and pension fund investment. Some of the taxpayer funding is via the taxpayer-funded salary, a part of which is paid to the pension fund. The taxpayers pay an additional amount. This breaks down as follows: OCERS pays approximately 30-40% of payroll into the pension, and the employee contributes approximately 13% of their taxpayer-funded salary. Returns on pension fund investments make up the rest (assuming a good year). This breaks down to approximately 65% funding directly from taxpayer dollar employer contributions, 23% from employee taxpayer-funded salary contributions, and approximately 11% from pension fund investments.
You’re right. You’re confused.
I'm going to interject and suggest the charitable approach which is that you just don't know what you're talking about.
You should try the FEC website, it's free and the info on how Joe's 2024 campaign was entirely staffed and run by Republican consulting firm i77 is all there for public viewing.
Hilarious. Nepo dude back to argue with people here.
No surprise there. It comes from a leading political science textbook. Your two examples are irrelevant. What actually occurred promotes the fact that she is the weakest link. Look it up or land your plane.
Can you share a reference to the leading political science book you mention, along with the section/page would be helpful? I've searched and so far cannot find a book addressing your statement "when a sketchy PAC forms four days before the election and starts running ads supporting you, you are either losing or the weakest link. Or, maybe a DINO". I'm in particular looking for the sketchy PAC contributions days before the election comment and that it means either losing or the weakest link. I wouldn't expect the textbook to have the name-calling DINO reference so I wasn't searching for that.
Voting at the Political Fault Line, edited by Bruce E. Cain and Elisabeth R. Gerber (University of California Press, 2002). "Raiders support for the putatively weakest candidate in the opposing party in hopes of helping their own party's candidate win the general election."
Or, Cho, Seok-ju and Insun Kang. "Open Primaries and Crossover Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics (2015). Raiding – supporting a more extreme or weaker candidate in the other party to improve one's own party's chances in the general election.
Or, Cain & Gerber, Voting at the Political Fault Line, 2002 Political scientists refer to the practice of assisting a weaker or more extreme candidate in the opposing party's primary as "raiding"—a form of strategic intervention intended to produce a more favorable general-election opponent.
A Republican-aligned group might support a Democrat viewed as out of step with Democratic priorities. In that case, critics within the candidate's own party may argue the candidate is a "Republican In Name Only (RINO)" or "Democrat In Name Only (DINO)." Political science generally treats these as partisan labels rather than formal analytical categories. A well-known academic source on parties as policy-seeking organizations is the book The Party Decides by Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller.
I would not have expected you to know where to look. That's why I simplified my summary.
Thanks for the references. Will check them out.
Esther is being propped up by Republicans. Cool, cool.
She is a Graham Platner-level trainwreck.
What keeps me sane is working to GOTV for local candidates. Cynthia Vasquez now has a challenger, risking a 💯 MAGA Mission Viejo city council. If only Esther or Lisa would move to one of their districts! And then there’s Judy Bullockus of Capo USD school board N word fame. She needs to go! If Joe wins the primary, I’ll support his campaign. If not, peace out!
One of my favorite new hobbies is logging out to see what Joseph Varet writes. I had to block him because he was harassing me. I swear, if I ever make it on Jeopardy, the fun fact I will tell about myself will be, "I was repeatedly harassed and insulted by a congressional candidate and her husband across multiple platforms."
Joseph's head is constantly exploding over everything. But in this case, his wife is being supported with MAGA PAC money and his answer is, "Oh well." That's not the move, my guy. There isn't even an attempt to disavow it.
I voted for Lisa and I am super happy with that decision. Please consider her if you haven't voted yet.
I know Esther's response would be, "Ew, you're no better than MAGA," to which I say, "Girl, please. You just took 300k from them so they could ironically beat you."
Your statement that Esther "took 300k from them" is not accurate. Esther's campaign didn't take any money from the MAGA Super PACs. She's not allowed, to, either. The Super PAC is independent of her campaign and is free to spend Independent Expenditures for media buys in support of or also against any candidate. Esther is not allowed to influence their operation. However, Esther is an outspoken critic of the Super PAC issue and has this listed on her policies page (Citizens United). Super PAC's are also involved supporting and opposing the two Republican candidates. Of the two other Democrat candidates, Joe has a statement not direct but related (transparency), and Lisa doesn't address it (campaign web sites only not whatever they might have said in socials).
She didn't disavow it either. In fact, Joey Varet is in these comments basically saying, "Oh well."
Esther may not control it, but this is a raider op by Republicans to boost the weakest candidate. She gets in her own way and it'll be easy for them to discredit her from the outset. We have one Blue MAGA candidate with a lot of money being propped up by MAGA in order to be knocked over. And we have two decent candidates with less money. I've already made my choice. This was just the nail in the coffin.
All three candidates have taken the political integrity pledge, so there is no daylight there between them (although I trust Varet the least).
I believe your point is true in that it would be OK to make a short statement to disavow. It could be tricky if opponents and social media commentators then challenged and a reply back and forth ensued. It could reach the stage of appearing to be influencing the super PAC's who monitor us and those various parties who want to file a complaint with the FEC. Shrugging off via the comment that was made, or ignoring without comment are also safe routes to avoid influencing or appearing to be involved/influencing the super PAC's. I find some interaction with Super PAC's questionable (Ken Calvert pictured in the White House partying with a leader of a super PAC is one), yet this appears to be allowed because no money visibly changed hands, and there is no record of what they said to each other.
CA 40 Election math will be interesting. Assume the GOP Gets what it wants, Kim or Calvert against Esther-Kim-Varet. In the 40, registered voters:
Dems — 55,198 (31%)
GOP— 72,704 (41%)
Non-Part — 38,347 (22%)
Others — 11,865 (6%)
I hold that every Congressional seat has to be considered up for grabs by the Dems, and local efforts have to reflect a really good chance of winning. That is, no such thing right now as a “safe” GOP seat. Have to have that mindset.
Here’s how i see a possible Election Day going for each:
Dems — 10% stay home, 5,000 chase one of the “others”, and 45,000 vote for the Dem candidate.
GOP — 10% stay home, 15% vote Dem, and the remaining 56,000 vote for GOP candidate.
Non-Partisan — 10% stay home, and they break for Dem candidate 60/40; 21,000 for the Dem and 14,000 for GOP.
Total these up and the Dem wins 76,000 to 70,000.
Now, I think the Dems will capture more of the Dems, and maybe even more of the GOP based on gas and war, and, really, can see even a greater number of Non-Pars than 60/40 swinging Dem.
So, a 9% gap is not really a gap this mid-term, as we are seeing around the country.
And, the first, the very first thing on a recent Young Kim flyer as to her accomplishments and goals — as a “MAGA Warrior” who “stands with Trump 100% of the time” was “ENFORCE TERM LIMITS”. WTF??? What term limits, whose term limits are you enforcing? Is that all? No, she also supports “No Amnesty for Illegals” (amnesty?) and “Ban Sex Changes for Kids” If that’s her and probably similar to Calvert’s campaign pitch, if i were a Dem, and I’m not, I would be shouting BRING IT ON. Let’s F*ING WIN THIS THING. And, Jesus will be invited….
Nice analysis. Always fun to consider the what-ifs. Step 1 we will find out the results of the Primary. Depending on how close, media may call the result within a day or two. It will definitely be determined by the official certification date which is July 2nd for the counties to certify their results. CA SOS then certifies by July 10th.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/primary-election-june-2-2026/key-dates-and-deadlines
I live in this district also. The truth is that since the passage of prop 50 the dccc wanted the two republicans to fight each other and spend money and the only one that has a chance to make it out of our jungle primary is Esther and Ken Calvert knows that this. The district is mainly in Riverside county now and past performance by Kerr will not matter. I admire Lisa’s immigration work and Joe’s contribution to the labor movement and I have not endorsed in this race but this is the reality.
Nice to see you comment on one of Jeff's pieces, Ms. Hoffman.
It certainly has been a race of no way to know who to endorse. I'll tell you this as a voter - I have never been enticed by anyone spending more money than another as a reason to vote for that person. I am, what I consider, a rare voter who actually learns about who is running, right down to those running for positions we barely know about. That's how it's been for me in this race and that's how I will continue voting in the future. We have a terrible lack of voter education going on in this country. Not because there isn't plenty of info and resources to learn from, but from people not being interested enough to educate themselves.
I'm anonymous here but I'm running for local office and want to thank the DPOC for creating the program you did that helps prospective candidates, and actual candidates, learn more about how to run a successful campaign. Keep that up, really. It's an excellent resource. My treasurer and campaign manager both were on the list you all suggested.
Yes, when I read the Popular Info piece by Judd Legnum, I understood full well what was going on. Upon reflection, however, Esther never had a chance because she gets in her own way, and CA-40 is very red. So the PAC is also wasting money there, just not as much as it might have. Peace to you. Please don't move to Guam. You might not like writing about politics, but you are great at this stuff!
Fair enough. We shall see.
I wouldn't be so quick to write off this race if a Dem makes it to the general. We've seen massive shifts towards Democrats in the last year up and down the ballot.
CA-40 is primed to surprise if a Dem can make it to the general.
You need a legit candidate, and one with coin. That person doesn't exist.
At least you'd have a shot with a person with little coin but character. Now we have neither.
We can’t win if there isn’t a Dem in the General Election. It’s a few months away which is a lot of time in politics. Rs are already spending a lot of money defending races they thought were safe across the country, so one more won’t matter much. Two Rs don’t do us any good even if they waste a lot of money. But a D in there, well, a lot of places have surprised us since the return if the orange one.
That argument was not sufficient in this case.
Exactly - and to win control of the House, which we must, Democrats cannot afford to not flip CA40.
1. You deserve a break for sure
2. I'm hoping for a Hail Mary
3. We simply can't and won't know until late Tues what we've ended up with
Since Trump hit office again, I have gotten used to the dissolution with what politics used to be. All I can do is fight my fight and hope for the best.
DPOC and folks like yourself who know Esther’s character should've backed Lisa and pressured Esther to back down. If the Dem vote hadn't been split, we'd have at least one Dem to rally around in the General. Now, we have two GOP candidates. I understand DPOCs' cowardice to stand up to wealthy individuals (Steyer, Varet) and not endorse the best candidate but, yes, next time, please back character, not wealth.
Lisa got more than 50% of the vote at the CADEM convention and at most of the local Dem clubs. However, to secure an official party endorsement, a candidate needs a supermajority. With so many Dems in the race, it was hard to secure. At that point, political parties just let it play out in the primaries.
After she failed to secure an endorsement, EKV basically just kept making the case that she had the most money, so everyone else should drop out. Then she did one poll 6 weeks before the election and used it as marketing. The sample breakdown for that poll looks significantly off, actually, given the real returns.
I do market research for a living, and political polling is much harder. You cannot trust one point-in-time poll by one firm. You need continuous polling, closer to the actual election, by a variety of independent firms to get an average of all the polls. That's why, say the polls predicted the Governor's race way better than Esther's one poll.
I missed the part where your job is market research. That's interesting and gives you a more informed perspective. For polling, I think it would be informative if as part of the contract package, the polling firm would do a postmortem. In Esther's case, I choose to believe it was not a push poll and was done in good faith. That's based on my limited research on the Tulchin company which has a good reputation and has been used in other campaigns that I find reputable. They came up with Esther a bit too high and Lisa significantly too low. Polls are complicated and it isn't just a case of looking at some demographics and counting totals. Tulchin has the expertise to analyze their own results. The benefit to Tulchin would be to include that knowledge in future polls to make their service offering more accurate. Now, I don't know if in fact they do this kind of postmortem, and even if they did, I wouldn't expect them or the campaigns to necessarily share it, although I would be interested.
Agree on multiple polls and independent vs. campaign funded. Independent polls still have to be paid by someone, though. It's typically the media companies from what I've seen recently, and they can also have a well-known partisan leaning which makes the public question them. The alternative would be to fund from general taxpayer dollars.
There are a few things about a poll like this. I don't think it was a push poll, either. But I think it suffered from a few things:
1) Collection method: This is common across all political polling today. The only way to collect is by phone or over the internet. In the past, the phone was pretty reliable because most people had to just pick up. Of course, there was some non-response bias because people would hang up, but it was rarer, partially because people got fewer telemarketer calls, and the culture wasn't as rude. You simply have fewer people picking up the phone now (and those who do are older), so I am guessing that they went to an internet sample that was a mix of email, text, and social media. Almost by definition, even if these people match what you need on "observable" characteristics, they are likely to be, on average, wealthier and better educated than the electorate as a whole.
In addition, you have a whole group of people who, even if you reach them with a survey, are just NOT going to take it. These people tend to be more conservative and distrustful of polling. And you can see that born out in the results. Not only did the poll get LR and EVK wrong, but also Ken Calvert, who is getting significantly more votes than EVK's poll would suggest.
This was a big problem in 2024, and why places like Iowa were predicting a Harris victory, but it didn't materialize.
2) Geographic and Demographic distribution: This is extremely important and is correlated with the first issue. Even if they got the distribution exactly right, it would probably be biased because of the collection method. And I am willing to bet they didn't get it exactly right. They obviously tried, and got as close as they could. However, in many firms, if you don't have all the people you need in a certain demographic — Latino women, for example — you often weight the data higher for that demographic. So if you need 50 of them, but only get 30, you weigh their responses more heavily. However, that does affect accuracy because you didn't actually get 50, which could change the averages a bit.
In an ideal situation, you would keep collecting data on the demos you need and not weight, but collecting data is expensive, so most contracts collect only up to the agreed-upon overall sample size.
3) Timing: This poll was done 6 weeks before the election. That is an eternity before the election. There is just no reliable way to use one poll that far out to make a real decision about who is ahead. That said, she MIGHT have been ahead by that much at that point (I don't really think so because of the KC results), but for argument's sake, even if she was, polls that far out are not destiny by any means. There were many efforts by LR in the last six weeks of the race to reach people, and she did.
EVK did a good job of using the poll as marketing, though. Her marketing ignored things like the 25% undecideds, and since people don't understand polling, it worked. I saw right through it right away, but I am a random lady on the internet,
None of this is to say Tulchin did a terrible job. I think the results are probably a result of a limited contract (get 500 respondents and then close the survey no matter the demo mix because it is expensive), the timing, and the collection method (which is something everyone in the industry is trying to figure out).
I am glad I am in market research and not political polling. We know the limitations, and can also use "hard" sales data and other "hard data" to help explain the anomalies we see.
Political polling is much harder.
Nina, Really appreciate your detailed analysis.
Thanks. That's why the most reliable polling is an "average of averages" where you look at the average of repeated, independent polls. It's just really, really expensive, so unlikely to happen in a congressional race like this. My sense is that YK and KC probably also did several polls, but were happy to not release them and let EKV fight with everyone on this blog and all over the internet. It only benefited them.
There is voter transfer fallacy to consider as part, not all, of the equation. Just because one candidate drops out does not mean that the votes for that person will transfer to another targeted candidate. As evidence, one only has to look at the various thread responses here, and even to the candidates themselves. There was only one candidate who said they would be happy to have any of the other Democrat candidates clear the Primary. This was said in front of the other two candidates in public and crickets... Responders in this platform have clearly said repeatedly they would refuse to vote if their preferred candidate did not clear the Primary. Now, it's hard to say how this would scale, and these comments about vote transfer apply to whatever candidate would drop out.
Once this primary is over, we will truly be back in the high life again.
Thanks for sharing your opinion that this is now the "high life". The choices now are Young Kim or Ken Calvert (unless something unusual happens before ballot certification).
Yes, the situation is dire but this was a dumb Steve Winwood joke.
Agreed.
Jeff - your coverage of local politics is soooo appreciated.
Please, Pearlman, this last piece is some of the most disingenuous crap I've seen you offer up - and that's saying something. You've stomped in, horns blaring, flags waving, and most of it has seemed to be designed to distract from the lack of research or experience in your writing here, most often marked by a failure to offer anything coherent or to reach any valid conclusions. No, your greatest consistency has been your inconsistency. More flip-flops than a flounder on the pier.
You should have stuck to sports drivel, where nobody expects anything coherent or substantial.
You've been on at length about the clusterfuck that this local race has been - when you've served to create and continue much of it, and now you want to whine your way out the back door, hands raised in supplication.
If you're claiming to be a genuine journalist "covering" this race, how in hell did you miss the Popular Information scoop? And then where did you go with the revelations? Sadly, not far.
No, from you it's just been more sniveling about the futility of fighting the money. If you'd done some basic legwork, you too could have come up with something like the numbers posted below by Steve Torreto, along with a history of recent election upsets scored throughout the country by those willing to stand up and fight the power. That's the way it's done, and if you actually had the courage of your alleged convictions, you'd be out front of that fight.
No, as you've said yourself, you're not a responsible writer, you're just a lazy hack who loves to see his own name on the page.
Hey, how about those Giants? Take it away, Jeff....
The anonymous tough guy speaks!
Are you guys at 4 campaign directors, or 5?
Esther has the strongest statement against such super PAC activity if one goes by statements on the websites of the candidates. This is a Citizens United issue.
Looking at the Democrat candidates' websites, here's what I see with respect to this issue:
Joe:
Increase transparency in campaign finance so billionaires and dark money groups cannot buy influence; and...
Lisa:
Couldn't find anything directly applicable to Citizens United or Super PAC's.
Esther:
Legislation to reverse the harmful SCOTUS “Citizens United” ruling
The candidates may have also addressed this in ads, talks, and so forth. This is just looking at the policies and priorities stated on their web sites.
And yet, here we are.
Oh, so you DO understand how PAC IE’s work after all! As was already explained to you on FB where you were using one of your numerous burners to troll this same nonsense verbatim, including the stupid nuts emoji, Joe’s campaign didn’t send out that text. It must’ve come from an IE.
What in the pretzel logic is going on here?
You’re invoking your supposed expertise on PACs while simultaneously arguing with yourself depending on whose name is on the yard sign.
“Esther can’t control what outside groups do.”
“Joe is personally responsible!”
Pick a lane.
Even funnier is that you keep insisting Joe is irrelevant, yet you’ve written more words about him in the last 12 hours than some people write in a college term paper.
At this point, the jokes are writing themselves and your obsession has become the punchline.
Please write about how the DNC apparently muzzles the local Dem clubs on the big issues. War. AIPAC. The DNC autopsy report that didn’t address Biden’s age or Gaza.
Do you have any info to share? That sounds like an interesting topic. Any insight on the rules imposed on the local Democrat clubs from the national organization restricting discussion? Anything with respect to the canyondems club?
Please write about the biggest donations. Thank you for covering all this!
Donation limits are $3,500 per election, $7k if one considers the primary and general election. This is for Federal positions. With Citizens United, the "super PAC's" have unlimited donations and Independent Expenditures allowed. Typically, the donations are cloaked with a 5014c "social welfare" nonprofit, which does not have to reveal donors. These donations and expenditures are not under the control or influence by a candidate, by law.
Esther has the strongest and most specific wording in her platform against Citizens United compared to the other Democrat candidates for CA40 (source: the web sites of the candidates).