Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Padilla. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Padilla. Show all posts

Thursday, October 9, 2025

Katie Porter's Bad Day

Our new book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American PoliticsIt includes a chapter on congressional and state elections.

Martha McHardy at Newsweek:

Katie Porter—long considered a frontrunner in the race to succeed Gavin Newsom as California’s next governor—is seeing her chances plummet in betting markets, according to new data.

Betting platform Kalshi shows that Porter's chances of becoming governor in 2026 have plummeted in the last day from 40 percent to 18 percent.

Meanwhile, Senator Alex Padilla has overtaken Porter with a 26 percent chance, up from a 10 percent chance on October 8. Padilla has not yet announced that he is running for California governor, but he is reportedly weighing up a bid. Former Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has a 10 percent chance, up from 6 percent, according to the platform.
Melanie Mason, Jeremy B. White and Blake Jones at Politico:
Katie Porter’s “unhappy experience” in a viral interview has become the news cycle from hell.

The bipartisan pile-on following the widely-circulated clip of her contentious sit-down with a local CBS news affiliate was only hours old when a new video surfaced from POLITICO of the former House member berating a staffer in 2021 — the two clips fueling long-simmering concerns about her temperament and judgment.

Together, they suddenly boiled over into the broader political zeitgeist, raising questions about just how durable Porter’s lead in California’s gubernatorial race really is.


“Is this a disaster? Yes,” said Gale Kaufman, a veteran Democratic strategist based in Sacramento. “And the reason it’s a disaster is because it amplifies what her reputation already is.”

Porter’s Democratic rivals, smelling blood in the water, quickly seized on the former congresswoman’s wince-worthy television appearance. Antonio Villaraigosa took the unusual step of purchasing three-minute ads in the Sacramento market to run the entirety of Porter’s tense exchange with CBS reporter Julie Watts. Stephen J. Cloobeck released a digital ad knocking Porter for past inflammatory comments. Xavier Becerra and Tony Thurmond highlighted their own, less-incendiary, responses to Watts’ questions. And Betty Yee called on Porter to drop out.




Saturday, June 21, 2025

Vance Slimes LA


Salvador Hernandez, Seema Mehta, and Christopher Buchanan at LAT:
“What happened here was a tragedy,” Vance told reporters. “You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law, and you had rioters, egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job.”

Although Newsom and Bass have criticized the immigration raids, which led to protests and sporadic violent attacks against law enforcement officials, both have repeatedly urged demonstrators to remain peaceful.

Bass, who was not invited to meet with Vance, dismissed his description of what has unfolded in Los Angeles over the last two weeks.

“Unfortunately, the vice president did not take time to learn about our city and understand that our city is a city of immigrants from every country and continent on the planet,” Bass said at a news conference Friday evening. “But then again, he did need to justify the hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars that were wasted in the performance of a stunt.

“How dare you say that city officials encourage violence,” Bass said. “We kept the peace.”

Newsom weighed in repeatedly on the social media platform X, notably about Vance calling Sen. Alex Padilla “Jose” during his remarks.

Padilla was dragged to the ground by federal law enforcement officers and briefly detained when he attempted to ask U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during a news conference earlier this week.

“I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn’t a theater, and that’s all it is,” Vance said.

A spokesperson for Padilla responded that Vance, as a former colleague of Padilla in the U.S. Senate, “knows better.”

“He should be more focused on demilitarizing our city than taking cheap shots,” spokesperson Tess Oswald posted on X. “Another unserious comment from an unserious administration.”

Friday, June 13, 2025

The Padilla Incident

 Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American PoliticsThe second Trump administration is off to an ominous start

Michael Luciano at Mediaite:
While Padilla’s treatment understandably received all the attention, lost in the incident was a pledge from Noem that the federal government will “liberate” Los Angeles from the leaders the city’s voters elected to represent them:
The Department of Homeland Security and the officers and the agencies and the departments and the military people that are working on this operation will continue to sustain and increase our operations in this city. We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor had placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.
It was at that point, Padilla interrupted and was physically pushed out of the room and into a hallway, where he was handcuffed.

Friday, January 28, 2022

California Snoozing

Our new book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state elections.

The absence of exciting California state races could depress turnout in 2022, which in turn could have consequences in elections for the House.

From Politico California Playbook:

We’re officially in a gubernatorial campaign cycle — indeed, we’re now closer to the March filing deadline for the June primary than to last September’s recall — but you wouldn’t know it from surveying the landscape. No prominent Republican has announced plans to challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom. Top recall vote-getter Larry Elder has bowed out of a rematch, Assemblymember Kevin Kiley is preoccupied with a run for Congress, and Republicans John Cox and Kevin Faulconer haven’t reported raising money for months (if Faulconer runs at all).

Newsom’s resounding recall win is lost on no one. The Democratic incumbent crushed the recall attempt by double digits — by the same margin, down to a decimal point, as his 2018 landslide victory. You don’t need to run a campaign firm or hold a political science degree to look at those numbers and conclude that Newsom has cemented his overwhelming frontrunner status as he seeks a second term.

Money is an overriding consideration for Republican hopefuls. Newsom was sitting on $24.5 million at the end of June and has since collected at least $500,000 more, including from boldfaced corporate names like Google and Warner Bros. A viable statewide opponent would need to raise significant sums — and quickly — to compete. Faulconer has been gauging donors’ appetites, and his consultant told us the former San Diego mayor is unlikely to run unless he’s confident tens of millions of dollars will materialize behind him.

But the Republican donor class isn’t exactly energized.We repeatedly heard phrases like “burned out” and “worn out” after the recall fizzled. With much of the focus on competitive House races and potentially more promising statewide contests for attorney general and controller, one prominent GOP donor told us she nearly forgot the governor was also on the ballot. “I haven’t paid any attention to it,” she said.
Similarly, serious opposition to appointed Senator Alex Padilla has yet to emerge.

On the ballot measure front:

Four years ago, Reid Wilson reported at The Hill:

In California’s case, initiative supporters must collect a number of signatures equal to or greater than 8 percent of the number of ballots cast in the preceding gubernatorial election.

California’s 2014 gubernatorial contest, in which Gov. Jerry Brown (D) skated to re-election over former Bush administration official Neel Kashkari (R), was a dismally low-turnout affair in which only 30 percent of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot.

That meant supporters of any particular ballot measure needed just 365,880 valid signatures to qualify an initiative or referendum for the ballot in the two elections that followed.

The bar was so low that California’s ballots were inundated by initiatives: In 2016, voters weighed in on 15 citizen-sponsored ballot measures. In 2018, they decided eight more citizen-sponsored measures.

The surge in turnout this year [2018] means future ballot measures will require many, many more signatures. To qualify, initiative supporters will need to collect more than 623,000 valid signatures, a 70 percent increase.
“Generally speaking, 2016 and 2018 were seen as sort of opportunities in California for initiatives because of the low 2014 turnout,” said Josh Altic, who studies ballot measures for the nonpartisan website Ballotpedia. “2020 and 2022 will be seen as the opposite of that.”

At LAT, John Myers reports that the cost per signature will increase.

The era of grass-roots, volunteer signature drives to qualify a ballot measure long ago gave way to an “initiative industrial complex” that pays petition circulators by how many signatures they collect at those ubiquitous folding tables outside supermarkets and department stores.

The economics are simple: Per-signature prices are low when an election is a long way away and only a few ballot measure proposals are in circulation. And prices rise sharply when interest groups begin their initiative campaigns late and petition circulators are in high demand.

...
Two veteran strategists of the initiative process said they wouldn’t be surprised to see prices as high as $15 per signature by the time the finish line approaches this spring. While there’s no official data on signature payments — campaigns report total petition costs on disclosure forms, a lump sum of these expenses — the consensus seems to be that $10 per signature is the high-water mark from previous statewide ballot measure drives. (Local ballot measures often cost much more per signature, partly the result of having a smaller pool of voters from which to gather the needed support.)

(And the COVID-era labor shortage probably also boosts the cost.) 

 From Politico California Playbook:

More and more ballot initiative campaigns are pulling the plug as they confront the difficult realities of signature-gathering. An effort to channel general fund dollars to water storage projects looks like the latest to capsize, with organizers telling The Mercury News that they lacked the resources to rally enough voters. The measure’s committee had reported raising about $100,000 so far from farms and farmers. Now environmentalists needn’t come up with the cash to counter.

Organized labor could have fewer fights on its hands , too, as a trio of potential threats have evaporated or been deferred. One of two school voucher initiatives folded earlier this month; a proposal to make a quality education a constitutional right, cracking the door to teacher employment law fights, is now looking to be kicked to 2024; and Silicon Valley player and periodic ballot bankroller Tim Draper has abandoned his quest to declaw public employee unions by barring them from collective bargaining.

ALREADY IN — If you love watching campaign ads or make your living off of them, don’t worry. We’re still likely to see a lively and expensive ballot. A tobacco-sponsored referendum on California’s flavored tobacco ban, a recycling overhaul funded by waste management companies and the latest doctors-versus-lawyers fight over malpractice payouts have all gathered enough signatures to qualify. So too has a tribal-backed sports wagering effort, although that could be supplanted by a new tribal proposal that seeks in turn to compete with FanDuel et al’s still-circulating gaming push.


Sunday, June 13, 2021

Accelerating the California Recall


CA Democrats reckon that Gavin Newsom would benefit from holding the recall election sooner rather than later. Emily Hoeven at CalMatters:
Thursday morning, the state Department of Finance released estimates showing it would cost California’s 58 counties at least $215 million to hold the recall election. A few hours later, the leaders of the state Assembly and Senate announced they would include the money in the state budget they’re required to pass by Tuesday — and would waive the 30-day period the law gives them to review election costs. That helps pave the way for the election to be as soon as September instead of the traditional November.
  • Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon: “This funding will allow for an earlier recall election.”
Ironically, Democratic lawmakers are waiving the very rules they wrote in 2017, when they added more steps to California’s recall process in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the recall of Democratic state Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton. In that case, they were trying to delay the election. Now, they’re trying to accelerate it — though the jury’s still out on whether the legislators’ maneuvers will help Newsom any more than they helped Newman.

The rapid-fire changes illustrate the power the Legislature’s supermajority of Democrats wields over state law. They also underscore the fact that although election dates may seem set in stone, some can be shaped by the party in charge. That’s one reason why you’ll likely vote twice for the same California U.S. Senate seat in 2022.