UPDATE – 3:35 pm: THE CELEBRATION MAY HAVE BEEN PREMATURE
None of the papers have called this race, so a Harris victory is not official. And, until it’s over, it ain’t over, although the odds look good for Harris.
One SF paper, The San Francisco Appeal, reported that Harris’s office had declared victory. But now I’m starting to doubt this, as major news outlets have not repeated it, although it’s scooting madly around the Twitter-verse.
With 100 percent of precincts reporting (only absentees and provisionals waiting to be counted), it appears that Kamala Harris will be California’s next Attorney General.
Meanwhile, the LA Times asks if pension comments hurt Cooley.
Uh, yeah they did. (I have this on very good authority from my UPS guy with whom I discussed the issue in great detail this morning.)
Harris, [Cooley’s] Democratic challenger, had blanketed the airwaves with a commercial that used a clip from a recent debate. Times reporter Jack Leonard asked Cooley if he planned to “double dip” by taking his pension from his tenure as district attorney -– and his $150,000 annual salary as attorney general. Cooley’s quick response: “Yes, I do. I earned it. I definitely earned whatever pension rights I have and I will certainly rely upon that to supplement the very low, incredibly low, salary that’s paid to the state attorney general.”
Over that answer, Harris’ campaign displayed the text: “$150,000 a year isn’t enough?”
When California has more than 12 percent unemployment, that assessment of what constitutes an “very low, incredibly low salary” did not work for voters.
Steve Cooley has always been very popular with Los Angeles voters. But not this time. As it turned out, it was LA that hurt him the most.
Original (un-messed with) photo by Luke Thomas
That’s excellent news. I’d just assumed she lost. Think most of the media outlets had it called for Cooley in the wee hours. Great news.
You know, I have to say, as a Democrat, I don’t see yesterday as a total loss, if even a loss at all. The exiting Democratic controlled congress that came into power in ’06 just seemed in over their heads from the get to. They were just getting pushed around by Republicans from the start. A Republican minority, at that. It resulted in a watered down credit card bill and a watered down health care bill that helped big business far more than it helped the people who put this Democratic congress into power. They just didn’t know how to stand up to the Republican bullies the way those old WW2 generation democrats stood up to Reagan in the ’80s. They put too much emphasis on compromise. It can only be a compromise if BOTH SIDES cede power and back off their position to some extent. When have the Republicans ever backed off of anything they proposed since Gingrich’s congress took over in ’94? I can’t think of any instance. If only one side cedes power and backs off, it’s not a compromise. It’s a pure bullying.
Also, we had a Republican congress with a Democratic senate and president in the late ’90s, and even though there were several outlying factors, that government oversaw the most economically prosperous time in American history. Who knows, maybe that’s the way it’s supposed to work. A Democratic president with a vision for the future, a Democratic senate to make sure only bills that benefit the people get to the president’s desk, and a shrill, obnoxious, angry Republican congress crying from the cheap seats. I can live with that.
Well, that’s one way to look at it. lol.
That’s not the way the POTUS is looking at it, and I’m glad.
Headline in the LA Times:
After ‘shellacking,’ Obama vows to seek a consensus
I’m glad he’s not choosing to ignore an obvious butt whipping.
From the New York Times
By Sen. Evan Bayh
DEMOCRATS can recover from the disappointments of this election and set the stage for success in 2012. But to do so we must learn from Tuesday’s results.
Many of our problems were foreseeable. A public unhappy about the economy will take it out on the party in power, even if the problems began under previous management. What’s more, when one party controls everything — the House, the Senate, the White House — disgruntled voters have only one target for their ire. And the president’s party almost always loses seats in midterm elections.
Nonetheless, recurring patterns of history, broad economic forces and the laws of politics don’t entirely account for the Democrats’ predicament. To a degree we are authors of our own misfortune, and we must chart a better path forward.
It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a “political realignment” and a “new progressive era” proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left.
***********************************************************
YEAH. WHAT HE SAID. Vindication is the sweetest fruit of all.
I think Evan Bayh’s got it wrong. I don’t think Democrats fought hard enough. It sounds to me like he’s trying as hard as he can to let Republicans eventually bully Democrats out of the senate, too. If there’s any Democrats left in the congress or senate with backbones, this is their time to stand up. Not to take Bayh’s pushover advice.
The electorate says you’re wrong. President Obama says you’re wrong.
Don’t know what else to tell you.
We can agree to disagree.
Kamala Harris is a terrible choice for AG, no different then she was for DA. This state is not only at the bottom of the list for being business friendly and will probably make the bottom after this elections results take hold, we’ve now apparently elected a woman who has said more than once, screw the law I’ll do what I want.
If this was how a conservative acted, in her position as SF DA, the left would be up in arms but since it’s for this champion of those attempting to avoid the ultimate punishment it’s ok for all you weaklings.
I would also tell Evan Bayh that the 2008 exit polls also revealed the country to be 66 percent moderate to liberal, according to his formula, and I don’t think his party did enough to address the needs of that 66%. In fact, I think they abandoned them right from the get go, and allowed a minority of house and senate members, exclusively representing that 32 percent of conservatives in the electorate, to push them into a corner.
I think Harris will do a fine job. She’s not a gun slinging, Wil E Cayote type of DA that police tend to rally behind. She’s more of a DA for the people, prioritizing the big criminals over the small ones. It’s a different type of prosecution that doesn’t sit well with the “lock ’em up” crowd, but it’s what Californians voted for and it’s what I prefer in a D.A. as well.
Lee,
I will tell you this. Democrats in mid-America don’t think like Democrats in SoCal.
Democrats on the coasts are thinking in a bubble…they think Democrats across the country should think the way they do. THEY DON’T.
You know what the most intriguing thing about the election is CA was?
Failure of Prop 19. Man oh man. I can think of a guy who’s absolutely heartbroke right now. What a dichotomy this state is.
Similar to 2008 when we went for Obama but also went for Prop 8.
I’d bet Democrats in mid-America are more like Democrats in Southern California than you think. If they’re conservatives, they can always just switch parties. Last I checked, the Republican party caters right to the door step of the middle American conservative. There must be a reason they’re democrats, and it’s probably because they’re progressive on issues they take most seriously. Otherwise, again, it’s a short leap to other major party.
If you ever turned off the cable news channels and political radio shows and visited the midwest and the south, ATQ, it would blow your mind how many liberals there are. And they’re every bit as much liberal as California liberals. Maybe even more so. A lot of southern liberals I’ve met have more courage to speak truth to power than most of the California liberals I know, who tend to only express their liberal views when with other liberal peers, and suddenly coil up when in the presence of an obnoxious conservative. Not middle American liberals. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter come to mind.
Careful Lee. In post #9 you’re awful close to saying that Democrats are wimps.
You’re also wrong. We didn’t let them push us around on healthcare. We wouldn’t have let them push us around on Cap N Trade either, except now they have the numbers.
When we had the numbers we got healthcare passed, in spite of what the polls told us. The polls said a majority of Americans were against it.
Remember Joe Biden’s quote: “This a big F’ing deal”?
WE stood our ground no matter what. Even if the people didn’t want it. We flaunted our power to show those Repubics a thing or two. We let them know who was in charge in no uncertain terms. We stood our ground, rode with our ideology, and got it done.
But oh shit!!! We forgot that we aren’t really the one’s in charge. The people are.
Yesterday we paid the price for flaunting our power and forgetting who the boss really is.
Yesterday the people fired a lot of our incumbents for standing on their ideology and enacting legislation the people didn’t want.
Your strategy of not caring what the people want…or as you like to term it, letting them “push us around” is what caused us to get our ass kicked in epic proportion yesterday.
But go ahead and suggest we stick with that strategy. I’m not buying it, and neither is the President.
“Careful Lee. In post #9 you’re awful close to saying that Democrats are wimps.”
To clarify: That’s EXACTLY what I said in post #9, as a matter of fact. And I said it clearly.
And, Evan Bayh is the biggest wimp of them all. Laughable he has advice for Democrats. It’s like the Texas Rangers giving us advice on how to beat the Giants.
Uh Lee, you’re in waaaaaaay over your head. I’ve lived in Missouri and Arkansas. When I lived there I travelled on a regular basis to several other mid-western and southern states.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Barbara Boxer and Joe Manchin are as different as night and day.
As are Diane Feinstein and Bart Stupak.
Let me put it to this way, there are no Blue Dogs from CA or NY….why is that? Because that like of thinking and political ideology won’t get them elected on the coasts.
The facts speak for themselves. Blue Dogs come from the mid-west and south. That’s a fact. To argue with it is to argue with reality.
Well, re; post 14, no wonder you’re pissed off. I would be too if I thought my party was a bunch of wimps. I’d switch parties.
Especially if I was so crystal clear positive like you are.
As someone with over 30 plus years of law enforcement behind him it’s not about locking everyone up, never has been. That’s a fairy tale told by the far left who want fewer than should be locked up, always have.
The bottom line is Harris took an oath when she became DA of SF and decided only parts of it applied to her because like most of the elite left, she thinks she knows what’s best for everyone else and they need to step aside.
She lacks character and integrity, you need both to be the AG in any state.
Evan Bayh is smart enough to get elected Senator in Indiana.
He may have it wrong in your book, but in Indiana our fellow Democrats think he’s great.
Sorry. You can’t argue with the facts.
It’s like the Texas Rangers giving us advice on how to beat the Giants.
*********************************************************
No Lee, it isn’t. Evan Bayh has never been defeated in an election in Indiana. He’s a winner.
Sorry again to correct you when you’re obviously having a tough day.
“Barbara Boxer and Joe Manchin are as different as night and day.”
No, they’re not. They’re different in some ways, but they see eye to eye on a lot of things, too.
“As someone with over 30 plus years of law enforcement behind him it’s not about locking everyone up, never has been.”
It is with most conservative voters, especially where poor black and Latino criminals are concerned. What else explains the disproportion in sentencing? When you tie the prison lobby in with that, it creates political pressure in district attorneys to focus on mere jailing stats as opposed to the quality of life and safety of their constituents. If Kamala Harris thinks that a big business crook is as much of a threat to society in the long run as a random, city dwelling criminal, good for her.
No, they’re not. They’re different in some ways, but they see eye to eye on a lot of things, too.
*****************************************************
Sorry Lee. Your day’s about to get a little worse.
FYI,
Manchin is pro-life, pro-gun, and opposes same sex marriage.
Politically speaking, sounds a lot like Barbara Boxer to me alright.
ROFLMAO.
Manchin is considered moderate. Of course, if he was a Rep. some in our party would label him as insane.
And our fellow Democrats in WV elected him Governor, then Senator.
You know, just like all those pro-life pro-gun anti-gay marriage Democrats in CA/NY that got elected.
Because there’s no difference in the way Democrats in SoCal and NY think than the Democrats in Indiana and West Virginia.
Geez. Come on man. You’re messing with me aren’t you? You’re not serious? You’re just trying to get me to laugh.
Mission accomplished.
Manchin must be progressive on some issues, otherwise he’d be a Republican. Why would somebody who’s conservative on EVERY issue be a Democrat? Makes no sense. Since Boxer and Pelosi are at least moderately progressive on just about all issues, they’d have to see eye to eye with Manchin on whatever views he’s progressive on, and I’m betting it’s with labor. I don’t know much about Manchin but I’m guessing he has some union support? Well, if he does, that would be an issue where he sees eye to eye with Pelosi and Boxer. Labor rights, collective bargaining, etc. Basically protecting the working man. And that’s a big issue, perhaps one of the biggest issues, considering the employment numbers today.
And what does this mean?
“Sorry Lee. Your day’s about to get a little worse”
How so? You have a really competitive attitude toward blogging. LOL.
From Investor.com
Why Big Labor Is Backing Joe Manchin
By Sean Higgins
Fri., Oct. 29, 2010 4:50 PM ET
Tags: West Virginia – Unions – Elections – Senate – Card Check – Manchin
Some of the reporting on today’s story about the West Virginia Senate race had to be left on the cutting room floor. One bit was why the United Mine Workers of America was backing Democrat Joe Manchin, despite the fact that he has the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce and has indicated that he opposes the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act, neither of which endears him to the union.
The short answer is that they think they can get Manchin to switch on EFCA, also known as “card check.”
******************************************************
Nope. Not pro-union so far. They know the Repubic would never be pro-union, so I guess they have a better chance of getting Manchin to come around.
And the ump says: Steeeeeerriiiiikkkkeeee FOUR.
Besides, what you said was: “they see eye to eye on a lot of things”.
That’s laughable. So far you can’t come up with one thing.
But I’m willing to listen if you can.
BTW, the NRA endorsed Manchin.
You have a really competitive attitude toward blogging.
***************************************************
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you’d admire me for standing my ground and not letting someone tell me why my thinking is wrong and let them push me around.
You called my fellow Democrats wimps because in your opinion that’s how they interacted with Repubics. Are you now suggesting I sjhould be spineless and not stand my ground? You think I should rethink my position?
Are you seriously equating what you do in here with the leadership of elected officials? Wow.
Anyhow, regarding Manchin, like I said, I don’t know what issues he’s progressive on. I don’t now a lot about him. I clearly said that I was guessing he was pro labor. If he’s not, fair enough. I’m just assuming he’s liberal on at least one issue, otherwise I’d have to ask why he’s a democrat in the first place.
Oh, so you’re backtracking on the comment “they see eye to eye on a LOT of things”.
Gotta wonder if your need to disagree (otherwise known as competetiveness) caused you to make that statement in the first place. You obviously didn’t think it thru before saying it.
If not, I’ll take your word for it.
You see Lee, I have no problem defending my point of view or debating with someone, and you obviously don’t either.
What I think is fantastic is that we can do it a civil way. Not label each other. Not disintegrate into junior high type bullshit.
Debating the issues/strategies/tactics of our politicians is a healthy endeavor. We learn from it. As long as we do it in a mature way.
Which we are.
Nice aint it?
Well, at least I never equated my competitive blogging to being an elected leader, as you did. That’s what I was talking about. I think you have a delusional perception of your relevance in the blogosphere.
I don’t think you’re doing anything in here in a mature way, ATQ. So I don’t think you have the high ground to suggest others do.
Of course I don’t equate what I do in here to what an elected official does. That would be silly.
But having a spine is having a spine, whether you’re an elected official or not.
“I don’t think you’re doing anything in here in a mature way, ATQ.”
That hurts. That could definitely be interpreted as you calling me immature. Why would you say that? Simply for giving my opinion, and then having the spine to defend my position?
I’m not trying to claim any high ground. Or suggest others do. In fact, I even complimented you on the way we were interacting with concern to our debate.
Then you come with something like post 33. WOW.
For the record, I don’t mind sarcasm. That’s part of any healthy debate in my book.
Personal attacks?
That’s what happens when someone gets upset because they are losing the debate. And of course, there’s times when someone has to have a spine and put the people who are attacking them personally in their place.
I prefer not to do that. And I know that Celeste doesn’t approve of it. So out of respect for her I suggest that we ease up a little.
Whatcha say Lee? You down with continuing to keep it respectful?
You’re a Democrat who believes in giving Republicans whatever they want. Just where is this “spine” of yours? LOL.
What Celeste might notice is that either you or Sure Fire are in every single fight that takes place here, your maturity and civility noted.
Lee,
Speaking of noticing things, have you ever noticed how it takes two to Tango?
Seems to me you’re dancing right along with me.
Dancing with you? I don’t think so. I would call it playing straight man to your clown.
Just where is this “spine” of yours?
Now come on Lee. There you go again. That’s pretty insulting.
And now you’re calling me a clown?
Like I said, some people who are losing a debate often disintigrate very rapidly into personal attacks. Some people who don’t have the intellectual capacity to engage in a cerebral manner have nothing left but to engage in name calling. Often it’s done because they are angry that the other person appears to those observing the debate to be intellectually superior to them.
That would appear to be the case here.
BTW, you’re not fooling anybody with your new screen name.
Both of you stop your endless two person tango or I’m going to delete and then block—but this time it’ll be both of you blocked. Your choice.
I don’t care if this comment area stays empty for the next month.
Ha ha ha, people can change names but it’s always the same old Rob.
Same applies to you, SF. All three of you.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris’s slender lead is eroding as over 1M late mail in ballots and provisional ballots are being counted. In the past 24 hours, the gap between Cooley and Harris closed from 14,780 votes to 9,030, a trend that is likely to continue as most of the the yet to be counted ballots come from the non-urban areas where Colley held a 2 to 1 lead over Harris.
A recount is almost a certainty regardless of the outcome, unless a victor emerges with more that a 2% lead. Currently Harris has a 0.1% lead.
Thanks, Jack, I just looked. Amazing race.
Cool.
Jack really? Here’s another view.
Los Angeles topped all counties in the number of unread ballots: an estimated 411,960. Mail-in ballots were 233,374 of those. The other counties with the most uncounted ballots were San Diego with 240,000; Orange, with 233,196; Alameda, with 122,000; Sacramento, 120,000; Santa Clara, 108,000; and Contra Costa, 107,000.
Ventura County reported 40,279 uncounted and Riverside County 78,100. San Bernardino’s estimate had not been submitted to the secretary of state. Nine other counties, including San Francisco, Kern and Sonoma, also had not submitted estimates.
In tiny El Dorado County, between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe, 17,400 ballots remained uncounted Thursday. Potentially, that could equal 25% of the vote in the county.
Of the reported numbers above, the blue county votes total about 750,000 and the red just over 600,000. And as stated, that does not include San Francisco, San Mateo, nor Sonoma which I think outweigh Kern and San Bernadino. Again, Sacramento and Santa Barbara were pretty close as to be considered almost a wash. That pretty much accounts for the larger counties.
Jack really? Here’s another view.
Los Angeles topped all counties in the number of unread ballots: an estimated 411,960. Mail-in ballots were 233,374 of those. The other counties with the most uncounted ballots were San Diego with 240,000; Orange, with 233,196; Alameda, with 122,000; Sacramento, 120,000; Santa Clara, 108,000; and Contra Costa, 107,000.
Ventura County reported 40,279 uncounted and Riverside County 78,100. San Bernardino’s estimate had not been submitted to the secretary of state. Nine other counties, including San Francisco, Kern and Sonoma, also had not submitted estimates.
In tiny El Dorado County, between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe, 17,400 ballots remained uncounted Thursday. Potentially, that could equal 25% of the vote in the county.
Of the reported numbers above, the blue county votes total about 750,000 and the red just over 600,000. And as stated, that does not include San Francisco, San Mateo, nor Sonoma which I think outweigh Kern and San Bernadino. Again, Sacramento and Santa Barbara were pretty close as to be considered almost a wash. That pretty much accounts for the larger counties.
It will go where it goes. The AG position isn’t where some real crime fighter is needed, I just hope someone with more honesty ends up as SF DA. Maybe someone who will raise that horrific conviction rate of her office. Maybe all those NoCals voted for her so they could get her out of office in SF.