If you find yourself dismayed by the likelihood of California yet again being largely ignored in a presidential election year (the root causes of political irrelevance include being lumped into a 16-state “Super Tuesday,” then noncompetitive in November elections), fear not: three US Senate debates between now and California’s March 5 primary—the first coming next Monday—make for a consolation prize.
Why the interest in this year’s Senate primary?
For openers, there’s the question of whether a Republican candidate will manage to finish first or second and thus qualify for the general election under California’s “open” primary system. That means keeping an eye on Steve Garvey, the former Southern California–based baseball great (he divided his career between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Diego Padres) who placed third in last week’s Berkeley IGS Poll (with support at 13%, Garvey was four points behind Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, who likewise trailed Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff by four points).
The other reason for Senate debate-watching?
The three gatherings might offer a window into the soul of the California Democratic Party—the Golden State’s dominant political organization (Democrats presently hold all elected statewide offices) but at the moment showing some ideological schisms.
Potential insights include:
What Happened to “Bernie Mania”? Vermont senator Bernie Sanders wears many hats—self-avowed “democratic socialist,” frequent critic of capitalism and America’s wealth class who’s not opposed to amassing a personal fortune. He’s also the answer to the trivia question: Name the winner of California’s 2020 presidential primary (he bested Joe Biden by eight points after finishing second to Hillary Clinton in 2016).
In theory, a Bernie-friendly electorate should bode well for Rep. Barbara Lee, the Bay Area Democrat who not only has a Sanders-like worldview but added some of his 2020 California crew to her Senate campaign staff. That said, the cash-strapped Lee has done little in the way of advertising and stood at an anemic 9% in the aforementioned IGS poll (one ray of hope for Lee: 21% of respondents were undecided).
Still, opportunity knocks for the Lee in the form of Middle East unrest and its deranging effect on California progressives—that region’s hostilities prompting San Francisco supervisors to approve a resolution calling for a “sustained ceasefire” in Gaza; as well as Los Angeles spectacles of pro-Palestine protests in Beverly Hills and vandals spray-painting “Free Gaza” on headstones in a veterans cemetery (here’s a Lee op-ed connecting the situation in the Middle East to her past opposition to America’s War on Terror).
But in an alternate universe—one where Lee could match her fellow Democrats in paid airtime—would it make a difference?
Maybe or maybe not, judging by the other two Democrats’ television ads.
Which takes us to . . .
Messaging and Motivating California Democrats. Here’s the latest Porter ad, which just happens to be playing in the San Francisco Bay Area (perhaps not a coincidence given Lee’s struggles). Her point of emphasis: she’s the only candidate in the race who’s into “grilling top executives of banks, Big Pharma.” Which just happens to be a Sanders hobbyhorse.
But such anticorporate rhetoric is nowhere to be found in this Schiff ad, where he credits himself with holding President Donald Trump “accountable”—not a surprise given Schiff’s history as a Trump impeachment manager.
One curious thing about these ads and their core mission of tapping into California’s Democratic base: there’s no mention of abortion, despite a gender-targeted audience.
The Schiff and Porter campaigns reportedly sought out channels and networks that attract women, as well as LGBTQ individuals—in the words of an anonymous political consultant, a strategy meant to appeal to “women, gays and the straight men who love them” (I tested this theory by taping local stations here in the Bay Area; sure enough, Schiff and Porter ads popped up on two CBS soap operas “daytime dramas”).
Speaking of drama, in California it’s not limited to daytime television these days—especially in Sacramento, where state lawmakers rarely would be mistaken for “the bold and the beautiful,” much less a “guiding light.”
Case in point . . .
Taxing the Governor’s Patience. Not to be confused with love triangles that are staples of daytime dramas: a nonaffectionate relationship involving a prominent national newspaper, California governor Gavin Newsom, and Democratic legislators.
The plotline begins with this Wall Street Journal editorial implying that California’s governor might be amendable to a “wealth tax”—in its current form, an immediate annual excise tax of 1.5% on worldwide net worth exceeding $1 billion for full-time and partial California residents as well as “wealth-tax residents”; after 2025, an extra 1% tax on wealth exceeding $50 million, with an additional 0.5% tax on assets exceeding $1 billion. (According to the measure, an eligible “wealth-tax resident” includes anyone with “wealth sourced to this state” who “is no longer a resident and does not have reasonable expectation to return to the state.”)
Newsom opposed the same concept last year (“a wealth tax is not part of the conversation. Wealth taxes are going nowhere in California,” he declared). When asked at last week’s budget unveiling if a wealth tax is in play in 2024, Newsom was in no mood for playing along with the Journal’s speculation. “Are you supporting a wealth tax?” Newsom replied to a reporter’s question. “No, yet again. Why the hell do you keep writing about that?”
Another question Newsom might pose: why do his fellow Democrats keep flogging what’s tantamount to a dead tax horse even if the governor’s not on board?
In early 2024, that included the unusual step of the wealth-tax proposal receiving an Assembly committee hearing—“unusual” in that previous such bills only sat and gathered dust. Also curious: why lawmakers would choose to hold the hearing just hours before Newsom announced proposed steps to close California’s budget deficit.
In fairness to Newsom, he has a right to be miffed at the suggestion of a tax narrative that doesn’t exist. But, as the constant subject of presidential speculation, he also likely understands the political damage in less progressive states from headlines such as this: “California is likened to EAST BERLIN over democratic socialist lawmaker’s attempt to impose wealth tax on its richest residents even if they try to leave the state to escape it.”
Perhaps that’s the moral of the California Democratic story as the March primary nears: Bernie Sanders isn’t on the ballot, and his closest ideological affiliate may not advance to November.
Still, opportunities still exist for “democratic socialists” to cause a wealth of mischief in the Golden State.
Are California Democrats Still “Feeling The Bern” In 2024?
14
4
19.01.2024
If you find yourself dismayed by the likelihood of California yet again being largely ignored in a presidential election year (the root causes of political irrelevance include being lumped into a 16-state “Super Tuesday,” then noncompetitive in November elections), fear not: three US Senate debates between now and California’s March 5 primary—the first coming next Monday—make for a consolation prize.
Why the interest in this year’s Senate primary?
For openers, there’s the question of whether a Republican candidate will manage to finish first or second and thus qualify for the general election under California’s “open” primary system. That means keeping an eye on Steve Garvey, the former Southern California–based baseball great (he divided his career between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Diego Padres) who placed third in last week’s Berkeley IGS Poll (with support at 13%, Garvey was four points behind Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, who likewise trailed Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff by four points).
The other reason for Senate debate-watching?
The three gatherings might offer a window into the soul of the California Democratic Party—the Golden State’s dominant political organization (Democrats presently hold all elected statewide offices) but at the moment showing some ideological schisms.
Potential insights include:
What Happened to “Bernie Mania”? Vermont senator Bernie Sanders wears many hats—self-avowed “democratic socialist,” frequent critic of capitalism and America’s wealth class who’s not opposed to amassing a personal fortune. He’s also the answer to the trivia question: Name the winner of California’s 2020 presidential primary (he bested Joe Biden by eight........
© Hoover Institution
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Abbas Juma
Michael Kwet
