23 Comments
User's avatar
Gary Kephart's avatar

Or one of them could do what I did last election for AD71: be the token Dem on the ballot, just to give voters a choice. Don't spend money or time on it.

Expand full comment
Jenny Ellsworth's avatar

Having someone to vote for increases voter turnout, too.

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

Is that all it was for you? What a waste, honestly. If you don't intend to work for the people in your district, don't run. I don't care what your reasoning is. IMO, what you did was harmful, for many reasons but the #1 being you didn't show you took it seriously so people didn't take you seriously which leads to making the party come across feckless. I was there for the conversations you weren't, Gary. I heard what the opinion was of you doing that.

Expand full comment
Gary Kephart's avatar

Sounds like you made a lot of assumptions and conclusions without any background information. I was there for the conversations you weren't. Let me fill you in. I was asked, at the very last minute, by the party, to run for this seat. Why? Because everyone else who might have run knew there was no way to win. If anyone did think they could win, they would have started a campaign _months_ before the party contacted me. When I was asked, I asked them if they knew it was an unwinnable seat and I would be spending no time or money on it, and they knew and accepted this. Why? Because this is a *common strategy*. It's better to have a candidate that's not going to win than have no candidate at all in the race. Because I ran, we know how many voters would vote for a basically no-name Dem. I got 92,424 votes (38.5%) and Sanches got 147,932 votes (61.5%). That was basically dead-on to my estimate before the election. This is more information than we had before. We now have this as a baseline and now know that the next candidate will have to get an extra 12.5% votes + 1 in order to win. Swinging the vote by 12% or more is pretty much impossible.

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

If you're saying you ran purely for statistics? That isn't information that was being given to anyone asking why you were even in the race to begin with if you weren't going to actually make an effort to win.

I've been involved with politics for decades. That isn't a "common strategy" on any level. It leads to exactly what I said already. The democrats have hit historically low approval ratings for a reason. The only reason we have any remaining favorability is because of the absolutely bananas mess the current congress and administration are getting us all into. That's not good, in my book.

Expand full comment
Gary Kephart's avatar

I’ve been in politics since 2004 and yes, I’ve heard of this before. In fact, I was asked to do this back in 2014. This information was for the party and for future candidates. I disagree with your conclusion that this was bad. A lot of people don’t do any research at all on candidates. They open the election guide and see who’s in what party and vote that way. Only the most in-the-know political people know who their State Assemblymember or State Senator is.

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

"Only the most in-the-know political people know who their State Assemblymember or State Senator is." What? That's ridiculous.

I'm not going to keep this going after this. I don't care who supposedly asked you to do anything. I'm a voter telling you what I've heard and the discussions I've had with OTHER voters. We are who matter.

Btw, I've been involved with politics since the 1980's. Have a good weekend.

Expand full comment
Keith Frohreich's avatar

Sadly, you are correct. And we live in her district and have to put up with her bullshit emails. No doubt her ancestors came to this country because they were hoping that someday, one of their kin, would support a Fascist.

Expand full comment
Community of Hope's avatar

I will lose my mind if the candidate who was on a school board wins the primary. We will be bombarded with 6 million dollars worth of anti-trans ads and mailers. 😵‍💫

Expand full comment
Jeanne's avatar

Absolutely. All bets are off until the Nov. 4 election results are out. Most of us the current CD 40 will be stuck with Young Kim in 2027-2028 if Prop 50 passes.

Does that mean we want Prop 50 to fail? OMG NO!

Our ONLY possibility of removing control of the US House by Trumpist sycophants is if Prop 50 passes. As Chris Kluwe says, if you donate to any campaign, donate to the YES on Prop 50 campaign. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/erra-web

We need to take the long view here. Having to live in a Young Kim district is a small price to pay to thwart the fascists in Congress.

Expand full comment
Community of Hope's avatar

I am forever the optimist. This was the same strategy for the last CA40 race. Joe Kerr had no money, no grassroots support. I was scolded by my activist friends for my relentless canvassing and voter registration in this district. They said I was wasting my time. Joe managed to narrow the margin to within 5 points and if every registered Democrat had voted, we would’ve been rid of Young Kim. GOTV efforts are not futile. Even if we don’t win, we make progress and we have an opportunity to change down ballot races. The only Democrat elected on my city council got a boost from Joe’s campaign. We have awful CUSD school board candidates who need to be voted out. The strategy should be to take all the resources from the “safe” seats after redistricting and flood CA 40 with resources. Even if YK stays in office, we could gain some down ballot seats. 37 out of the last 40 elections nationwide have shown huge gains for Democrats. Billionaire media wants us to doubt the power of the people. Let’s fight like hell whether it makes sense or not!

Expand full comment
Jenny Ellsworth's avatar

I was right there with you, canvassing for Joe Kerr. And I learned afterwards that our efforts forced Kim to actually defend her seat. She had to spend money on literature, ads, signs, and campaigning, which could have been used instead to defeat Derek Tran or something. In any case, she does not deserve a freebie. We made a difference fighting that losing fight, and I will be doing that again.

Expand full comment
Community of Hope's avatar

Good point!! And think about our potential anti-young Kim ads! Wouldn’t it be great to bombard social media and people’s mailboxes with pro-pedophile ads for stopping the release of the Epstein files?? And the deciding vote on cutting health benefits? I think all the safe candidates should jump on board and spend their money to defeat her!

Expand full comment
Kenneth Cooper's avatar

I would not write off the district that quickly.

In every special election across the country held since November, 2024. Dems have outperformed by an average of 16%. That tells me that any GOP incumbent within single digits is vulnerable.

Trump's policies are only becoming more unpopular by the day. Especially when one goes to the grocery store.

That is only going to get worse as the effects of the tariffs continue to wreak havoc.

I say "full speed ahead."

I live in the district. I supported Kerr last time. I will be supporting him again.

He is the only viable candidate. Having established name ID in the last election.

One more point. While money is certainly a factor. It is not the only factor.

If elections were decided solely by money.

CA would have had governors named; Chechi, Simon, Riordan, and Whitman.....among others.

All of those candidates had far more money than their competition.

Expand full comment
Molly Cummins's avatar

Talk about surrending in advance...make her fight for her seat regardless!

Expand full comment
Northpark's avatar

I’m hoping Joe Kerr will keep to his word and run regardless of the Prop 50 outcome. I agree, it’s important to have a choice and he has the best name recognition.

Expand full comment
Community of Hope's avatar

He is all in. I was at a meet and greet last week and he is working very hard to raise money and get endorsements. Check out his IG and FB.

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

I will stand behind Joe Kerr just like I did last time. His campaign made good strides with miserable funding. He's a moderate, he's worked in the public sector for decades and while he's yet another older, white man, none of the other candidates hold a candle to him in my opinion. He has name recognition, as well, since he ran last time. What we need to do is get people to fking VOTE! There's literally no excuse. I'm so sick of the pacifists who have no problem blaming but don't want to do anything to make things better.

Expand full comment
Judy Fike's avatar

Ouch, the brutal truth

Expand full comment
Jill Rosales's avatar

Wish we weren’t the sacrificial district. Having lived here in the red zone since ‘79 it was so refreshing when our blue grew enough to seep us purple. 💜

Expand full comment
Adam Carr's avatar

That McGrath campaign was HORRIBLE. She said nothing about the Kentucky farmers sinking from Republican policies. Never mention the minimum wage, how low it was or how Republicans stripped their health care. Or how millionaires and billionaires get a free ride by paying no taxes. Or the banks robbing us. And McConnell was THE main player in getting the corporations to dominate over working Americans. Democrats don’t know how to campaign! I’m watching it here in real time with Sherrill in NJ. She’s taking the bait about her Navy record instead of focusing on constituents’ concerns. They make the same mistake election after election.

Expand full comment
Marcia Goldstein's avatar

Thanks for the perspective on Kim's chances if 50 passes. As a friend once told me,, "If you ain't where you at, you nowhere." We need to keep in mind where we are at and let reason be our guide when spending time and money.

Expand full comment
Daniel Amos's avatar

You are such a breath of practical fresh air!

Expand full comment