Kerr also soaked up labor endorsements, which didn't really net him volunteers or money in a serious way because of his previous poor performances making an R/R outcome seem fait accompli — but it did keep them from Ramirez (EKV is reportedly actively hostile to labor and gave a poor showing at the OCLF). The votes for him at the CA Dems conference (Ramirez placed first, Kerr second, EKV third) also would have pushed LR over the top for the DP endorsement. All of that money and time could have gone to help consolidate behind LR and win Dems a shot, but it didn't because of Kerr. IMO he is the villain here (as likeable and harmless a guy he is personally), because his candidacy prevented Dems & Labor from consolidating behind LR which would have also marginalized EKV.
Not sure about number of volunteers for any of the candidates. Many would be behind the scenes not necessarily in photo ops. Joe Kerr stated quite a few times that money was a misleading indicator due to all the work of the many union volunteers. He stated it was the same plan as his last attempt, just get out more Democrats to vote for him, often quoting the number of union households. Joe never addressed the money concerns otherwise, obligations exceeding cash on hand as reported by FEC records at the end of the first quarter of 2026. We will have to wait until second quarter financials are posted as required by law for more insight
Could you share any info about Esther Kim Varet being actively hostile to labor (unions, I assume)? I searched and couldn't find anything in particular. You mentioned some OCLF meeting; not sure what went on there.
1. Word. The hubris he and others showed in this and other races really were awful.
2. Maybe the LAIICTPOIWCTBIOIAASP could have done some introspection too. Brilliant political mind that she is, I saw where she’s started a PAC and rather than help her fellow Californians have representation in Congress, her first act is to give money to a race in Florida.
If one eliminates California districts that were intentionally gerrymandered by prop 50 to be more favorable to Democrats, I’m not sure what potential red-to blue districts are left. It’s unclear how much extra support is needed in the districts that were intentionally gerrymandered. Those districts might be likely to receive sufficient support from Democrat resources that were instrumental in the gerrymandering activity.
I could just as easily speculate that had EVK or Ramirez not entered the race, Kerr would be the leading vote getter. Putting this seat in play for November.
EVK parachuted in and lost. Ramirez does not live in the district and lost. Both took votes away from someone who had name ID and a history of pulling GOP votes. This is especially significant given the lack of resources the DCCC never put into the race. Just two years ago one district away. The DCCC spent over ten million supporting Will Rollins when he had already lost once previous. That same group never spent a nickel on Kerr. I believe had they spent a fraction on CA40 two years ago. This would be a D seat. Jeffries would be Speaker. The OBBB would have failed. But they ignored this district and here we are.
The Dem party has since made it clear they had no interest in engaging in this race.
EVK was probably their preferred candidate. Her resources would have allowed them to focus their attention on other races. While she continued to spend on her vanity project.
Now the DCCC gets to watch two GOP candidates beat the crap out of each other. And Calvert will be there for another two years.
But hey, at least EVK's consultants made a ton of money giving her false hope. Good for them.
Okay, how about a little shift in perspective here with regard to who should be first in line at the curb as the bus comes speeding in? Before we shove Joe Kerr up there, let's first take a hard look at where it all went south.
The first mistake is the unexamined assumption that either woman was ever going to win - with or without Joe Kerr on the ticket.
Next, looking at the nature of the candidates and the voters each attracted, neither of the other two were ever going to attract any significant numbers of Kerr's voters if he had dropped out. It's just foolish to assume otherwise.
So now, my question is why, when both of the other two candidates could plainly see that they could never even begin to approach Joe's credentials for the job, shouldn't they both have dropped out and shifted their support to him?
Take a look at the numbers in that scenario, and then also ask yourself how they might have looked even better if Joe had gotten any real support from the party itself; the party that flatly refused to put any money into the district, even while they poured funds into solidly safe campaigns in sure-thing races elsewhere.
Remember, we're talking about an art dealer with a long string of failed businesses, some anger management issues and related juvenile outbursts under pressure, and then a local immigration lawyer. Again, where's the beef? This wasn't a vote for senor class president at Aryew High. This was for someone with the tools and knowledge to change lives and perhaps help make the difference in turning our republic back toward where we all want it to be.
Sadly, the comments I kept hearing from locals were far too often, "We really need a woman in there," or some variation. Nope, qualifications were never mentioned. They only place I saw that subject brought up, if you can believe it, was from among those here who kept asserting that one or the other of the two women were highly qualified - but, for obvious reasons, never offered anything in support of those statements.
And there it is. It's still the same old identity politics that's been identified time and time again as perhaps the party's greatest failing, and the repeated failure to consequently get the hell off that runaway train will take the party down to yet another catastrophic defeat in November with consequences too horrible to contemplate.
Perspective; If you aspire to write about politics and the society at large, Mr. Pearlman, you might want to go shopping for some - before you approach your keyboard. So far you've managed to miss far more relevant points than you've covered on this subject.
That's a really hot take considering your preferred candidate finished third behind the women you malign as just being there for "identity politics " It's almost as if voters preferred them over Joe. 🤔
Well, Nina, you may or may not understand misogyny when you see it, since you want to think you've seen it here, when in fact you have not.
On the contrary, what we've seen in the election results, and much of the prior commentary here, would fit far more neatly into the definition of misandry, rather than misogyny.
In your running leap to your conclusion, you've slipped and fallen into the trap of attempting to make the evidence fit the crime. It's something I recognize, having spent a past life living with the rules of evidence for my bread and butter.
It is another way in which you've missed the point of my argument and also the explanation for the election results.
I would urge you to go back over my comments with this in mind, since I believe it will lead you to reach a different conclusion. At least, I hope so.
Joe Kerr was the obvious choice for me. He won the primary in ‘24 and narrowed the gap with no support from anyone because it was considered a “waste of time and resources”. I was hopeful election outcomes would mimic others across the country and reflect Trump’s low approval rating, making it possible to flip the seat. There were more union households in the new district. None of that happened, but I’m grateful that Joe Kerr gave it a shot. Things could have gone differently and no one has a crystal ball. I don’t think an immigration attorney would have had any chance of winning this district, even if she was the only Dem on the ballot and had all of “she who will not be named” ‘s money. Just my HO! The silver lining is it’s fueling my fire to GOTV for City Council, State Assembly, and CAPO school and hopefully people will cast their ballots to vote the MAGAs out!
Mostly, I've seen these types of primaries characterized as top-two finishers vs. winner/second place. Both Young Kim and Joe Kerr were the top-two finishers of the 2024 Primary, although Young Kim got the most votes.
As far as narrowing the gap in 2024, it's true that Joe Kerr narrowed the gap between him and Young Kim from the Primary to the General in 2024, but part of that would surely be due to the Primary having two Democrats running vs. only one in the General.
Specified below in margin percentage points (a typical metric that is widely used).
Actual Primary to General: 30.8 to 10.6 percentage points margin (narrowed in the General by 20.2 percentage points)
Hypothetical (conjecture), assuming only Joe Kerr and Young Kim in the Primary, and assuming Joe Kerr got the entirety of all the Allyson Damikolas Primary vote count:
Hypothetical Primary to actual General: 12.8 to 10.6 percentage points margin
(narrowed in the General by 2.2 percentage points)
--- The math
2024 Primary:
Young Kim: 109,963, 56.4%
Joe Kerr: 49,965, 25.6%
Joe Kerr trailed Young Kim by 30.8 percentage points.
In the general election:
Young Kim: 211,998, 55.3%
Joe Kerr: 171,637, 44.7%
Joe Kerr lost by 10.6 percentage points.
So, it's true he did reduce the margin from 30.8 to 10.6 percentage points (narrowed by 20.2 percentage points).
Source: California Secretary of State election records.
------ Speculation follows
Now, consider that Primary again and the "what-if" Joe Kerr was the only Democrat, AND assume that all the votes for Allyson Damikolas would have voted for Joe Kerr:
Young Kim: 109,963, 56.4%
Joe Kerr: 49,965, + 35,153 (Allyson Damikolas) = 85,118, 43.6%
Joe Kerr would have trailed Young Kim by 12.8 percentage points.
In the General, Joe lost by 10.6 percentage points vs. 12.8 percentage points in the hypothetical Primary, narrowing the margin in the General by 2.2 percentage points.
This speculation is just that, because vote transfer is not a given.
Joe Kerr’s not a ‘thing’, and the Dems aren’t looking for a scapegoat.
The Primary Election is over. The losers are the Dems, and one of the candidates clearly doesn’t know how to take an L.
I like how your results graphics really tells the whole story at a glance.
Why don’t all of the candidates have their picture showing?
Is it because Joe’s not a rookie candidate?
Has he stood for a Congressional General Election before in California/won a Primary Election previously??
I also like how the opening paragraph (from the NY Times?) singles out only Esther as an art dealer, as if to say ‘Why the heck is an art dealer running for Congress??’
So we had more than two rookies Dems jump in to this race before Prop 50 passed, and some had the sense to drop out when it did, and the rest split the votes and ruined our chances of kicking both ‘Pubs out of Congress this year.
I wish someone would do some analysis on how much each candidate spent for each vote they got, and why did Joe’s votes cost so relatively little. Maybe because he already paid for them previously with his career/life’s work, and prior political efforts, and all of the money Esther and Lisa blew on road signs, banners, and ads wasn’t going to convince his supporters of who had a better chance of winning in an increasingly Republican district.
"I wish someone would do some analysis on how much each candidate spent for each vote they got, and why did Joe’s votes cost so relatively little. Maybe because he already paid for them previously with his career/life’s work, and prior political efforts, and all of the money Esther and Lisa blew on road signs, banners, and ads wasn’t going to convince his supporters of who had a better chance of winning in an increasingly Republican district."
GREAT POINT!
It's too late now. Imagine what Kerr could have done had the DCCC supported him like they did with Rollins and Tran in the last cycle.
Really, Jeff? Is that what we’re doing here, looking for a scapegoat?
Is this to distract us from the fact that you helped create the very narrative you’re now pretending to analyze from a distance?
For the past year, you acted as Esther’s unpaid hype man, relentlessly pushing the narrative that she was “the only viable Democrat” because she had money.
Money.
Not experience. Not qualifications. Not a record of public service. Not labor support. Not legislative accomplishments. Not one shred of substance that we would expect from someone running for office.
Just money.
But now that Esther crashed and burned, you want to pretend you were merely an innocent observer watching events unfold from afar. And you’ve also been pushing the narrative that Lisa is the tragic hero of CA-40 and Joe is somehow the villain.
Sorry. No.
It was clear from the jump that you never wanted Joe to be the CA-40 nominee. But you don’t even live in this district and couldn’t vote for any of these candidates, so the amount of time and energy you’ve dedicated trying to diminish Joe’s candidacy in the eyes of your readers — while pretending he was some ego-driven spoiler who had no business running — is pretty puzzling, and frankly nothing more than revisionist history.
You have repeatedly dismissed Joe, despite the fact that he was the only candidate in the race who had already won a congressional primary, largely due to his decades of labor leadership, legislative experience, and endorsements from the very organizations that represent working people throughout this region.
So you can try to downplay Joe’s qualifications, but I literally can’t think of a time when we’ve ever had a candidate with the unusual combination of experience and expertise that Joe brought to the table:
• Decades of public-sector leadership.
• Labor credentials that most Democrats can only talk about, not demonstrate.
• Extensive experience working with legislation and government agencies, already getting over 200 pieces of legislation passed at the local, state, and national levels.
• Environmental and wildfire expertise that is directly relevant to California and our district.
• Held numerous positions within the Democratic Party and established relationships throughout Democratic politics.
• Positions and experience that all align with mainstream Democratic priorities on labor, reproductive rights, voting rights, healthcare, common-sense gun safety, water, infrastructure, and more.
• The only candidate who has already brought back over $2.3 billion (and counting) to our local communities.
• The only candidate who could have walked into Congress and gotten to work on day one.
But you continually and inexplicably act like Joe was some random vanity candidate who had no business being in the race.
And probably one of the biggest holes in your logic is that you’re treating Joe’s votes as if they were Lisa votes just sitting in escrow waiting to be transferred. They weren’t. Joe had his own coalition, his own labor support, his own name ID from 2024, his own relationships, and his own voters.
We could just as easily make the opposite argument and it wouldn’t have been any less speculative:
“Had Lisa not jumped into the race late, Democratic voters would have consolidated around Joe, the candidate who had already run districtwide, built labor support, earned more endorsements than any of the other candidates, won a congressional primary, shifted CA-40 top 5 out of 435 races in the entire country (making this the top flip seat in CA prior to Prop 50 redistricting), and received 171,000 votes in 2024.”
To be clear, neither claim about where the votes would’ve gone can be proven. The difference is that you present your assumption as though it’s an established fact.
And the reader’s comment about labor endorsements is especially weak. Labor endorsed Joe because labor wanted Joe. Those unions weren’t Joe’s property to hand over to Lisa. They interviewed the candidates, including Joe, so it wasn’t a foregone conclusion. They evaluated each of their records and made their own decisions.
So the idea that labor should have ignored the retired fire captain, former labor federation vice president representing hundreds of thousands of workers in this district, former firefighter union president, and statewide Workforce Development Board member because another Democrat entered the race is a pretty wild argument.
It’s also funny how in all of your stories the “correct” Democrat always seems to be whoever isn’t Joe.
Why is that? Why was Joe the only Democrat required to perform this act of self-sacrifice?
Why wasn’t Esther, the unhinged, failed art dealer with no qualifications required to step aside?
And here’s an unpopular take on this particular forum, but for the sake of seeing this argument through to its logical conclusion, why wasn’t Lisa encouraged to step aside?
And before anybody comes for me, I’m not saying Lisa shouldn’t have been allowed to run. It was absolutely her democratic right to throw her hat into the ring, but we can’t ignore the fact that her choice also came with consequences.
Lisa entered the race late.
Lisa entered the race knowing multiple Democrats were already running.
Lisa entered the race knowing this was a top-two primary where vote-splitting posed a very real risk.
So she further divided Democratic voters, and failed to advance just like all the other candidates, yet people are praising her courage, celebrating her future, and framing her campaign as an inspiring success story. That’s fine, but let’s at least be honest, that’s not a success story. That’s a loss for CA-40.
Bottom line, Democrats in CA-40 lost because Democratic voters were split among multiple candidates. And that’s not a Joe problem. That’s just math.
Yet somehow in your world Joe is the only person expected to answer for the inevitable loss of a top-two spot.
Now as far as Joe’s campaign, I’m not going to get into specifics about what went on behind the scenes at the party leadership and Democratic club levels that radically affected the outcome. I’ll just say that I’m reminded of the quote “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”
The same can be said of politics in general. It’s messy, ugly, full of compromises, backroom deals, and unpleasant details that never make it into a news article or a social media post.
From the outside, people just see a result and then work backward to construct a simple explanation. “Candidate X lost because…” or “Candidate Y was obviously the strongest…” That’s much easier than grappling with the hundreds of variables that were actually in play. The election result is just the final chapter. The rest of the book is happening out of view.
We all like to think elections are simply voters weighing the candidates and making a choice. Of course votes matter. They’re the final step. But pretending that voters operate in a vacuum and that results are determined solely by the wisdom of the electorate is laughably naïve. Voters see the final vote, but they don’t see the machinery that spent months trying to influence the outcome before a single ballot was cast.
Long before Election Day, powerful people are working behind the scenes to influence who gets resources, who gets attention, who gets endorsements, and ultimately who gets a real chance to compete. What you don’t see are party leaders, consultants, donors, media figures, interest groups, endorsing organizations, and political operatives all working to shape the choices voters are presented with and the narratives they hear.
That’s just the reality of politics, Jeff, but what’s especially maddening is when armchair quarterbacks like you speak with absolute certainty about events they only observed through a keyhole.
You, and some others here, are essentially saying (as of the current count):
“Those 18,268 voters shouldn’t have voted for Joe. They should have voted for Lisa.”
But voters aren’t transferable property. There is no evidence those voters would have automatically migrated to Lisa. That’s simply an assumption you’re making because it supports the conclusion you already want to reach.
And if we’re now declaring that every candidate who failed to advance should never have run, where are your articles about Claude’s 4,732 votes? Francis’s 3,245? Nina’s 3,235?
I don’t see you writing “The Claude Thing.”
I don’t see you writing “The Francis Thing.”
I don’t see you writing “The Nina Thing.”
No, your whole blame narrative is reserved exclusively for Joe, because Joe is the only candidate whose voters are being treated as though they belonged to somebody else.
In your myopic version, Lisa is the rising star, Esther is the cautionary tale, and Joe is the villain.
Nice try, but that’s not legitimate analysis. That’s a story you’re peddling because you can’t accept that thousands of Democratic voters made a choice you didn’t like.
If you really think you have a future in writing about politics, maybe you should also consider this before you take any more shots from the cheap seats: what happens when the political establishment decides it doesn’t want a particular candidate to succeed?
That’s the question nobody wants to ask.
Because it’s much easier to pretend every candidate starts on a level playing field and the voters simply sort it all out in the end.
They don’t.
Campaigns live and die based on resources, access, and support. When those things are withheld, it has real consequences.
Maybe for better perspective, more clarity, and the humility that is sorely lacking in your fledgling political punditry, you should put your name on a ballot some time and find out for yourself how the sausage gets made.
What district did Lisa Ramirez live in for the last cycle? From what she stated very near the end of the campaign this year is that she used to live in CA40 but after proposition 50 she no longer did so. I might have misunderstood that, though. Are you saying she was in a district other than CA40?
I really love how she has been "Voldemorted" here. There is nobody more deserving.
I have to admit I have had fun sparring with her over the past few days on her unhinged Instagram posts, which she inevitably removes. She told me in one post that my volunteer activity for LR "fucked the Democrats," which was news to me. I didn't realize I had THAT much power.
Voldemort's new PAC apparently is going to be for centerist Dems who absolutely do not take endorsements from DSA and other "extremist groups." I think this is funny because so many organizations endorse people, and the candidate finds out later when someone tells them. Voldemort was happy to accept Jane Kim's endorsement, who was backed by the DSA. It's almost as if Voldemort is just saying these things because she is mad about losing the election.
But back to the point: it would have been nice if Joe had backed out, and Lisa would have had a better shot at making it to the general. But you can't make anyone do anything, and this is another bad outcome produced by the weird incentive structure of the jungle primary. It's another reason to support reforms like rank-choice voting (RCV), which would eliminate these high-stakes winner-take-all scenarios.
You’ve said this more than once. It’s fascinating that after everything that’s transpired this election cycle, your takeaway is Joe’s name. That’s about as substantive as the arguments that got us here. But if we’re gonna make rude jokes about names being destiny, maybe a guy named ‘Peter’ shouldn’t be making them. 🍆
No matter your viewpoint on the subject, this was the most accurate and articulate analysis of the whole thing that I've seen up to this point.
Everything else has been a lot of unsupported and emotionally-charged blather. And that's reflected by the election results.
Before November, those who didn't vote for Joe Kerr this time very badly need to go back and reread this statement and then ask yourselves how you made such a very obvious mistake.
"What reason weaves, by passion is undone." ~ Alexander Pope.
Kerr also soaked up labor endorsements, which didn't really net him volunteers or money in a serious way because of his previous poor performances making an R/R outcome seem fait accompli — but it did keep them from Ramirez (EKV is reportedly actively hostile to labor and gave a poor showing at the OCLF). The votes for him at the CA Dems conference (Ramirez placed first, Kerr second, EKV third) also would have pushed LR over the top for the DP endorsement. All of that money and time could have gone to help consolidate behind LR and win Dems a shot, but it didn't because of Kerr. IMO he is the villain here (as likeable and harmless a guy he is personally), because his candidacy prevented Dems & Labor from consolidating behind LR which would have also marginalized EKV.
Not sure about number of volunteers for any of the candidates. Many would be behind the scenes not necessarily in photo ops. Joe Kerr stated quite a few times that money was a misleading indicator due to all the work of the many union volunteers. He stated it was the same plan as his last attempt, just get out more Democrats to vote for him, often quoting the number of union households. Joe never addressed the money concerns otherwise, obligations exceeding cash on hand as reported by FEC records at the end of the first quarter of 2026. We will have to wait until second quarter financials are posted as required by law for more insight
Could you share any info about Esther Kim Varet being actively hostile to labor (unions, I assume)? I searched and couldn't find anything in particular. You mentioned some OCLF meeting; not sure what went on there.
1. Word. The hubris he and others showed in this and other races really were awful.
2. Maybe the LAIICTPOIWCTBIOIAASP could have done some introspection too. Brilliant political mind that she is, I saw where she’s started a PAC and rather than help her fellow Californians have representation in Congress, her first act is to give money to a race in Florida.
If one eliminates California districts that were intentionally gerrymandered by prop 50 to be more favorable to Democrats, I’m not sure what potential red-to blue districts are left. It’s unclear how much extra support is needed in the districts that were intentionally gerrymandered. Those districts might be likely to receive sufficient support from Democrat resources that were instrumental in the gerrymandering activity.
Varet needed to drop out and go back to LA. Problem solved.
I could just as easily speculate that had EVK or Ramirez not entered the race, Kerr would be the leading vote getter. Putting this seat in play for November.
EVK parachuted in and lost. Ramirez does not live in the district and lost. Both took votes away from someone who had name ID and a history of pulling GOP votes. This is especially significant given the lack of resources the DCCC never put into the race. Just two years ago one district away. The DCCC spent over ten million supporting Will Rollins when he had already lost once previous. That same group never spent a nickel on Kerr. I believe had they spent a fraction on CA40 two years ago. This would be a D seat. Jeffries would be Speaker. The OBBB would have failed. But they ignored this district and here we are.
The Dem party has since made it clear they had no interest in engaging in this race.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/democrats-add-4-new-pickup-opportunities?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
EVK was probably their preferred candidate. Her resources would have allowed them to focus their attention on other races. While she continued to spend on her vanity project.
Now the DCCC gets to watch two GOP candidates beat the crap out of each other. And Calvert will be there for another two years.
But hey, at least EVK's consultants made a ton of money giving her false hope. Good for them.
Totally agree with this.
Okay, how about a little shift in perspective here with regard to who should be first in line at the curb as the bus comes speeding in? Before we shove Joe Kerr up there, let's first take a hard look at where it all went south.
The first mistake is the unexamined assumption that either woman was ever going to win - with or without Joe Kerr on the ticket.
Next, looking at the nature of the candidates and the voters each attracted, neither of the other two were ever going to attract any significant numbers of Kerr's voters if he had dropped out. It's just foolish to assume otherwise.
So now, my question is why, when both of the other two candidates could plainly see that they could never even begin to approach Joe's credentials for the job, shouldn't they both have dropped out and shifted their support to him?
Take a look at the numbers in that scenario, and then also ask yourself how they might have looked even better if Joe had gotten any real support from the party itself; the party that flatly refused to put any money into the district, even while they poured funds into solidly safe campaigns in sure-thing races elsewhere.
Remember, we're talking about an art dealer with a long string of failed businesses, some anger management issues and related juvenile outbursts under pressure, and then a local immigration lawyer. Again, where's the beef? This wasn't a vote for senor class president at Aryew High. This was for someone with the tools and knowledge to change lives and perhaps help make the difference in turning our republic back toward where we all want it to be.
Sadly, the comments I kept hearing from locals were far too often, "We really need a woman in there," or some variation. Nope, qualifications were never mentioned. They only place I saw that subject brought up, if you can believe it, was from among those here who kept asserting that one or the other of the two women were highly qualified - but, for obvious reasons, never offered anything in support of those statements.
And there it is. It's still the same old identity politics that's been identified time and time again as perhaps the party's greatest failing, and the repeated failure to consequently get the hell off that runaway train will take the party down to yet another catastrophic defeat in November with consequences too horrible to contemplate.
Perspective; If you aspire to write about politics and the society at large, Mr. Pearlman, you might want to go shopping for some - before you approach your keyboard. So far you've managed to miss far more relevant points than you've covered on this subject.
This. An immigration attorney and an entitled and crazy art dealer were not going to win in this district either.
That's a really hot take considering your preferred candidate finished third behind the women you malign as just being there for "identity politics " It's almost as if voters preferred them over Joe. 🤔
Sadly, either by choice or by chance, you've completely missed the point there.
I feel like I understood the point quite well. Two women, who you say are tokens and unable to win the seat, beat Joe Kerr.
However, you somehow feel that Joe Kerr is best positioned to win the general when he couldn't even beat the other two people who lost
I think I understand misogyny fairly well when I see it.
Well, Nina, you may or may not understand misogyny when you see it, since you want to think you've seen it here, when in fact you have not.
On the contrary, what we've seen in the election results, and much of the prior commentary here, would fit far more neatly into the definition of misandry, rather than misogyny.
In your running leap to your conclusion, you've slipped and fallen into the trap of attempting to make the evidence fit the crime. It's something I recognize, having spent a past life living with the rules of evidence for my bread and butter.
It is another way in which you've missed the point of my argument and also the explanation for the election results.
I would urge you to go back over my comments with this in mind, since I believe it will lead you to reach a different conclusion. At least, I hope so.
Cheers!
Thanks for mansplaining misogyny to me. I was definitely right the first time.
Nina, Your perspective is always interesting to me. I don't always agree with you, but I do in this instance.
Joe Kerr was the obvious choice for me. He won the primary in ‘24 and narrowed the gap with no support from anyone because it was considered a “waste of time and resources”. I was hopeful election outcomes would mimic others across the country and reflect Trump’s low approval rating, making it possible to flip the seat. There were more union households in the new district. None of that happened, but I’m grateful that Joe Kerr gave it a shot. Things could have gone differently and no one has a crystal ball. I don’t think an immigration attorney would have had any chance of winning this district, even if she was the only Dem on the ballot and had all of “she who will not be named” ‘s money. Just my HO! The silver lining is it’s fueling my fire to GOTV for City Council, State Assembly, and CAPO school and hopefully people will cast their ballots to vote the MAGAs out!
Mostly, I've seen these types of primaries characterized as top-two finishers vs. winner/second place. Both Young Kim and Joe Kerr were the top-two finishers of the 2024 Primary, although Young Kim got the most votes.
As far as narrowing the gap in 2024, it's true that Joe Kerr narrowed the gap between him and Young Kim from the Primary to the General in 2024, but part of that would surely be due to the Primary having two Democrats running vs. only one in the General.
Specified below in margin percentage points (a typical metric that is widely used).
Actual Primary to General: 30.8 to 10.6 percentage points margin (narrowed in the General by 20.2 percentage points)
Hypothetical (conjecture), assuming only Joe Kerr and Young Kim in the Primary, and assuming Joe Kerr got the entirety of all the Allyson Damikolas Primary vote count:
Hypothetical Primary to actual General: 12.8 to 10.6 percentage points margin
(narrowed in the General by 2.2 percentage points)
--- The math
2024 Primary:
Young Kim: 109,963, 56.4%
Joe Kerr: 49,965, 25.6%
Joe Kerr trailed Young Kim by 30.8 percentage points.
In the general election:
Young Kim: 211,998, 55.3%
Joe Kerr: 171,637, 44.7%
Joe Kerr lost by 10.6 percentage points.
So, it's true he did reduce the margin from 30.8 to 10.6 percentage points (narrowed by 20.2 percentage points).
Source: California Secretary of State election records.
------ Speculation follows
Now, consider that Primary again and the "what-if" Joe Kerr was the only Democrat, AND assume that all the votes for Allyson Damikolas would have voted for Joe Kerr:
Young Kim: 109,963, 56.4%
Joe Kerr: 49,965, + 35,153 (Allyson Damikolas) = 85,118, 43.6%
Joe Kerr would have trailed Young Kim by 12.8 percentage points.
In the General, Joe lost by 10.6 percentage points vs. 12.8 percentage points in the hypothetical Primary, narrowing the margin in the General by 2.2 percentage points.
This speculation is just that, because vote transfer is not a given.
Joe Kerr’s not a ‘thing’, and the Dems aren’t looking for a scapegoat.
The Primary Election is over. The losers are the Dems, and one of the candidates clearly doesn’t know how to take an L.
I like how your results graphics really tells the whole story at a glance.
Why don’t all of the candidates have their picture showing?
Is it because Joe’s not a rookie candidate?
Has he stood for a Congressional General Election before in California/won a Primary Election previously??
I also like how the opening paragraph (from the NY Times?) singles out only Esther as an art dealer, as if to say ‘Why the heck is an art dealer running for Congress??’
So we had more than two rookies Dems jump in to this race before Prop 50 passed, and some had the sense to drop out when it did, and the rest split the votes and ruined our chances of kicking both ‘Pubs out of Congress this year.
I wish someone would do some analysis on how much each candidate spent for each vote they got, and why did Joe’s votes cost so relatively little. Maybe because he already paid for them previously with his career/life’s work, and prior political efforts, and all of the money Esther and Lisa blew on road signs, banners, and ads wasn’t going to convince his supporters of who had a better chance of winning in an increasingly Republican district.
"I wish someone would do some analysis on how much each candidate spent for each vote they got, and why did Joe’s votes cost so relatively little. Maybe because he already paid for them previously with his career/life’s work, and prior political efforts, and all of the money Esther and Lisa blew on road signs, banners, and ads wasn’t going to convince his supporters of who had a better chance of winning in an increasingly Republican district."
GREAT POINT!
It's too late now. Imagine what Kerr could have done had the DCCC supported him like they did with Rollins and Tran in the last cycle.
To me, “thing” in this context means situation or controversy.
Really, Jeff? Is that what we’re doing here, looking for a scapegoat?
Is this to distract us from the fact that you helped create the very narrative you’re now pretending to analyze from a distance?
For the past year, you acted as Esther’s unpaid hype man, relentlessly pushing the narrative that she was “the only viable Democrat” because she had money.
Money.
Not experience. Not qualifications. Not a record of public service. Not labor support. Not legislative accomplishments. Not one shred of substance that we would expect from someone running for office.
Just money.
But now that Esther crashed and burned, you want to pretend you were merely an innocent observer watching events unfold from afar. And you’ve also been pushing the narrative that Lisa is the tragic hero of CA-40 and Joe is somehow the villain.
Sorry. No.
It was clear from the jump that you never wanted Joe to be the CA-40 nominee. But you don’t even live in this district and couldn’t vote for any of these candidates, so the amount of time and energy you’ve dedicated trying to diminish Joe’s candidacy in the eyes of your readers — while pretending he was some ego-driven spoiler who had no business running — is pretty puzzling, and frankly nothing more than revisionist history.
You have repeatedly dismissed Joe, despite the fact that he was the only candidate in the race who had already won a congressional primary, largely due to his decades of labor leadership, legislative experience, and endorsements from the very organizations that represent working people throughout this region.
So you can try to downplay Joe’s qualifications, but I literally can’t think of a time when we’ve ever had a candidate with the unusual combination of experience and expertise that Joe brought to the table:
• Decades of public-sector leadership.
• Labor credentials that most Democrats can only talk about, not demonstrate.
• Extensive experience working with legislation and government agencies, already getting over 200 pieces of legislation passed at the local, state, and national levels.
• Environmental and wildfire expertise that is directly relevant to California and our district.
• Held numerous positions within the Democratic Party and established relationships throughout Democratic politics.
• Positions and experience that all align with mainstream Democratic priorities on labor, reproductive rights, voting rights, healthcare, common-sense gun safety, water, infrastructure, and more.
• The only candidate who has already brought back over $2.3 billion (and counting) to our local communities.
• The only candidate who could have walked into Congress and gotten to work on day one.
But you continually and inexplicably act like Joe was some random vanity candidate who had no business being in the race.
And probably one of the biggest holes in your logic is that you’re treating Joe’s votes as if they were Lisa votes just sitting in escrow waiting to be transferred. They weren’t. Joe had his own coalition, his own labor support, his own name ID from 2024, his own relationships, and his own voters.
We could just as easily make the opposite argument and it wouldn’t have been any less speculative:
“Had Lisa not jumped into the race late, Democratic voters would have consolidated around Joe, the candidate who had already run districtwide, built labor support, earned more endorsements than any of the other candidates, won a congressional primary, shifted CA-40 top 5 out of 435 races in the entire country (making this the top flip seat in CA prior to Prop 50 redistricting), and received 171,000 votes in 2024.”
To be clear, neither claim about where the votes would’ve gone can be proven. The difference is that you present your assumption as though it’s an established fact.
And the reader’s comment about labor endorsements is especially weak. Labor endorsed Joe because labor wanted Joe. Those unions weren’t Joe’s property to hand over to Lisa. They interviewed the candidates, including Joe, so it wasn’t a foregone conclusion. They evaluated each of their records and made their own decisions.
So the idea that labor should have ignored the retired fire captain, former labor federation vice president representing hundreds of thousands of workers in this district, former firefighter union president, and statewide Workforce Development Board member because another Democrat entered the race is a pretty wild argument.
It’s also funny how in all of your stories the “correct” Democrat always seems to be whoever isn’t Joe.
Why is that? Why was Joe the only Democrat required to perform this act of self-sacrifice?
Why wasn’t Esther, the unhinged, failed art dealer with no qualifications required to step aside?
And here’s an unpopular take on this particular forum, but for the sake of seeing this argument through to its logical conclusion, why wasn’t Lisa encouraged to step aside?
And before anybody comes for me, I’m not saying Lisa shouldn’t have been allowed to run. It was absolutely her democratic right to throw her hat into the ring, but we can’t ignore the fact that her choice also came with consequences.
Lisa entered the race late.
Lisa entered the race knowing multiple Democrats were already running.
Lisa entered the race knowing this was a top-two primary where vote-splitting posed a very real risk.
So she further divided Democratic voters, and failed to advance just like all the other candidates, yet people are praising her courage, celebrating her future, and framing her campaign as an inspiring success story. That’s fine, but let’s at least be honest, that’s not a success story. That’s a loss for CA-40.
Bottom line, Democrats in CA-40 lost because Democratic voters were split among multiple candidates. And that’s not a Joe problem. That’s just math.
Yet somehow in your world Joe is the only person expected to answer for the inevitable loss of a top-two spot.
Now as far as Joe’s campaign, I’m not going to get into specifics about what went on behind the scenes at the party leadership and Democratic club levels that radically affected the outcome. I’ll just say that I’m reminded of the quote “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”
The same can be said of politics in general. It’s messy, ugly, full of compromises, backroom deals, and unpleasant details that never make it into a news article or a social media post.
From the outside, people just see a result and then work backward to construct a simple explanation. “Candidate X lost because…” or “Candidate Y was obviously the strongest…” That’s much easier than grappling with the hundreds of variables that were actually in play. The election result is just the final chapter. The rest of the book is happening out of view.
We all like to think elections are simply voters weighing the candidates and making a choice. Of course votes matter. They’re the final step. But pretending that voters operate in a vacuum and that results are determined solely by the wisdom of the electorate is laughably naïve. Voters see the final vote, but they don’t see the machinery that spent months trying to influence the outcome before a single ballot was cast.
Long before Election Day, powerful people are working behind the scenes to influence who gets resources, who gets attention, who gets endorsements, and ultimately who gets a real chance to compete. What you don’t see are party leaders, consultants, donors, media figures, interest groups, endorsing organizations, and political operatives all working to shape the choices voters are presented with and the narratives they hear.
That’s just the reality of politics, Jeff, but what’s especially maddening is when armchair quarterbacks like you speak with absolute certainty about events they only observed through a keyhole.
You, and some others here, are essentially saying (as of the current count):
“Those 18,268 voters shouldn’t have voted for Joe. They should have voted for Lisa.”
But voters aren’t transferable property. There is no evidence those voters would have automatically migrated to Lisa. That’s simply an assumption you’re making because it supports the conclusion you already want to reach.
And if we’re now declaring that every candidate who failed to advance should never have run, where are your articles about Claude’s 4,732 votes? Francis’s 3,245? Nina’s 3,235?
I don’t see you writing “The Claude Thing.”
I don’t see you writing “The Francis Thing.”
I don’t see you writing “The Nina Thing.”
No, your whole blame narrative is reserved exclusively for Joe, because Joe is the only candidate whose voters are being treated as though they belonged to somebody else.
In your myopic version, Lisa is the rising star, Esther is the cautionary tale, and Joe is the villain.
Nice try, but that’s not legitimate analysis. That’s a story you’re peddling because you can’t accept that thousands of Democratic voters made a choice you didn’t like.
If you really think you have a future in writing about politics, maybe you should also consider this before you take any more shots from the cheap seats: what happens when the political establishment decides it doesn’t want a particular candidate to succeed?
That’s the question nobody wants to ask.
Because it’s much easier to pretend every candidate starts on a level playing field and the voters simply sort it all out in the end.
They don’t.
Campaigns live and die based on resources, access, and support. When those things are withheld, it has real consequences.
Maybe for better perspective, more clarity, and the humility that is sorely lacking in your fledgling political punditry, you should put your name on a ballot some time and find out for yourself how the sausage gets made.
I would add one point.
Had EKV and Ramirez run in the districts they lived in last cycle. I feel very certain Kerr would have been the leading vote getter in this election.
Beating both GOP candidates.
What district did Lisa Ramirez live in for the last cycle? From what she stated very near the end of the campaign this year is that she used to live in CA40 but after proposition 50 she no longer did so. I might have misunderstood that, though. Are you saying she was in a district other than CA40?
It is all a moot point now.
Move on.
Thank you for your reply.
I really love how she has been "Voldemorted" here. There is nobody more deserving.
I have to admit I have had fun sparring with her over the past few days on her unhinged Instagram posts, which she inevitably removes. She told me in one post that my volunteer activity for LR "fucked the Democrats," which was news to me. I didn't realize I had THAT much power.
Voldemort's new PAC apparently is going to be for centerist Dems who absolutely do not take endorsements from DSA and other "extremist groups." I think this is funny because so many organizations endorse people, and the candidate finds out later when someone tells them. Voldemort was happy to accept Jane Kim's endorsement, who was backed by the DSA. It's almost as if Voldemort is just saying these things because she is mad about losing the election.
But back to the point: it would have been nice if Joe had backed out, and Lisa would have had a better shot at making it to the general. But you can't make anyone do anything, and this is another bad outcome produced by the weird incentive structure of the jungle primary. It's another reason to support reforms like rank-choice voting (RCV), which would eliminate these high-stakes winner-take-all scenarios.
Nomen est omen...Joekerr. Why not Joseph?
You’ve said this more than once. It’s fascinating that after everything that’s transpired this election cycle, your takeaway is Joe’s name. That’s about as substantive as the arguments that got us here. But if we’re gonna make rude jokes about names being destiny, maybe a guy named ‘Peter’ shouldn’t be making them. 🍆
OUCH!!
Your last question is the most important one.
Very, very well said.
No matter your viewpoint on the subject, this was the most accurate and articulate analysis of the whole thing that I've seen up to this point.
Everything else has been a lot of unsupported and emotionally-charged blather. And that's reflected by the election results.
Before November, those who didn't vote for Joe Kerr this time very badly need to go back and reread this statement and then ask yourselves how you made such a very obvious mistake.
"What reason weaves, by passion is undone." ~ Alexander Pope.
Putting a period at the end of this sentence.
I think of this axiom.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken