On what basis do you consider Janice Hahn a "Blue Dog" or "Republican-like?" She is one of the most left-leaning members of the lefty LA City Council, and is the near-unanimous choice of organized labor. Marcy is surely more left than Bowen or Hahn, but Bowen arguably considerably more moderare than Hahn.

Brad Friedman wrote: "California's Republican-supported Prop 14..."

Huh?

What is your source for the claim that the Republicans supported Prop 14?

Here ya go, Parke:

Supporters included the California Chamber of Commerce and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Critics included the ACLU.

Park Bostrom @ 2 asked:

What is your source for the claim that the Republicans supported Prop 14?

For a start, as noted via sources linked on WikiPedia, supporters of Prop 14 included then Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, then Republican Lt. Gov. Abel Moldonado, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Campbell, as well as this from the Los Angeles Business Journal:

"The vast majority of business groups in the state and in Los Angeles County, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, strongly support the proposition, saying that open primaries would result in more centrist candidates, and presumably more business-friendly ones, getting elected to the Legislature."

Collins @ 1 asked:

On what basis do you consider Janice Hahn a "Blue Dog" or "Republican-like?"

Well, for a start, on the basis of the article posted on her own Janice Hahn for Congress website which reads:

Call her a “blue dog,” similar to the departed Harman.

Need more? Cause I'll post it if you really want me to (which I don't think you actually do --- but I'm willing!)

Yeah, I think we do need more than someone else said it in their column (which also said it remains to be seen whether Bowen or Hahn will run as the moderate) and the column got posted on her website. Marcy was my candidate and Bowen my fallback choice but I don't see much ground to call the labor-friendly Janice Hahn a Blue Dog --- Harman's blessing doesn't overide Hahn's record.

Hey Brad - I tried emailing you but my message got bounced. Oh well. Here is what I had in mind:

"Editorial note: For my part, I believe candidates should run when they have important ideas to bring to an election, which is the case with Winograd. And, by way of full disclosure, Bowen remains the only candidate ever officially endorsed by The BRAD BLOG during her first run for CA Sec. of State in 2006. We did not make any endorsements during her 2006 run for the same office and, though we have been supportive of Winograd in her races against Republican-friendly Harman in the past, we have stayed out of the CA-36 primary entirely.]"

My question was: shouldn't that second "2006: be "2008" or something?

I hope all's well with you folks!

"a system which was decertified and then conditionally re-certified, in part, by Bowen herself in 2008"

Another ironic faith election.

1. sorry, as a 99'er, i can't spare the shekels for your excellent work; funny you can't get any rich konservatives who *actually* believe in free and fair elections to sponsor your sorely needed watchdoggery (woof, i just neologized... and again!)...
funny, that... you'd think 'freedom loving' (*cough*cough*) koch bros, constitution-revering (*cough*cough*) coors family, or other kapitalist piggy defenders of our freedoms, would want to ensure our bedrock basis for small-dee democracy -voting- is on the up and up...
gee, wonder why they are so concerned with nearly non-existent 'voter fraud', but don't give a fig about REAL election fraud...
hmmm, wonder why that is...
(furiously connecting dots...)
oh shit...
2. i'm sorry to be so obtuse, but i don't understand the 'principle' upon which:
A. states/etc have 'open' primaries where non-party voters get to vote in an opposing parties primaries... WTF ?
isn't the Whole Point of PARTY primaries, is that THAT PARTY gets to vote on THEIR CANDIDATE ?
really, i don't understand the 'principle' on which this is based, and it appears to ONLY allow for mischief by non-party parties...
B. similarly, the idea of 'primaries' where party affiliation doesn't matter, seems pointless... it only seems to guarantee there will ALWAYS be one -or more?- runoffs... otherwise, you have party-aligned primaries, you select the 2+ candidates from each eligible party (which is a problem in itself), and have the main election... you *may*, or *may not* have a runoff after that, but it appears you will almost certainly have one under the non-party aligned primaries...
again, color me obtuse...
if you tell me these are simply tactics used to undermine third party candidates, etc; then that makes (perverted) sense...
3. about tired of the LOTE, and 'practical votes only count' AUTHORITARIAN krowd... (and if you don't know me, 'authoritarian' is about the worst insult i can think of calling someone)
my vote is MINE ! ! !
i don't 'owe' it to who YOU THINK is 'electable' or 'practical'; and MOST ESPECIALLY NOT to the two-faced korporate money borg's approved candidates...
ps as much as i despise those retarded 'captcha' thingies, at least yours is tuned to a reasonable level of difficulty... some are so munged up, i have to click through 4-5 to get one i can read... i bet the bots do better at it than humans...
*sheesh* vat a vorld...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Received this from Mark Crispin Miller.
Peace,
Sark

How much radiation's hitting North America from Fukushima? Quite a lot, apparently...
link: http://wp.me/pkFiL-7sE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMePBnkJhY

Apologies, the above was to go to another story at BradBlog.
Peace,
Sark

If you are going to have a crazy open primary system like this, how could it be structured so that progressive candidates like Winograd can run without the risk of being vote-splitting "spoilers"?

The answer would be "instant run-off voting", where voters could mark their 2nd and 3rd choices, and if their first choice gets too few votes, their vote transfers* over to their 2nd choice (e.g. Bowen). (*This transfer is why this is also called "single transferable vote".)

Voters should have the freedom to express their actual preferences without having to predict the behavior of other voters (the spoiler effect).

Unfortunately, Brad Blog is absolutely opposed to this type of system. It's one of the few disagreements I have with you. (I accept there are practical difficulties, as with every voting system, but in principle this is a much better system than what CA is now engaged in.)

Randy D, you may like to look at how IRV played out in NC. It may not change your mind but the information is important.
Peace,
Sark
http://irvbad4nc.blogspo...wide-instant-runoff.html

http://www.ncvoter.net/irv.html

I believe the parting of the ways with Bowen and Winograd is with unquestioning support for Israel. Winograd is willing to speak out regarding the crimes being committed against Palestians. She belongs to Jewish Voice for Peace. Unfortunately Bowen and Hahn signed the "pledge" to support Israel...no matter what.
Frankley...I would think it should be unlawful for U.S. elected officials to be pledging support for any foreign country.

Brilliant, Diane. Outlaw treaties. No, that's too extreme. Just outlaw treaties with Israel.

John Seeley @ 6 said:

Yeah, I think we do need more than someone else said it in their column (which also said it remains to be seen whether Bowen or Hahn will run as the moderate) and the column got posted on her website.

Well, it didn't get posted. The Hahn campaign posted it themselves. I wouldn't even post something here where somebody said something inaccurate about me (at least without comment in regard to it), much less on my official campaign website.

It should also be noted that Hahn was Harman's personal pick as well, having notified her by phone about her intentions before she told the public, and allowing her to have her campaign website up within hours of Harman's announcement. Hahn was also Harman's guest at the State of the Union speech.

Anonymous @ 15 said:

Brilliant, Diane. Outlaw treaties. No, that's too extreme. Just outlaw treaties with Israel.

Um, "Anonymous", I'm pretty sure what Bowen and Hahn signed were not treaties, and I'm also pretty sure that treaties are not signed by elected officials, other than the President, in any case.

But, other than that, great anonymous, knee-jerk over-reaction to Diane's comment!

To clarify... I am not talking about international treaties… I am talking about accepting bribes ($$$) from representatives of foreign countries in exchange for turning a blind eye to crimes their governments may have committed..

http://whatreallyhappene...ARTICLES/ussliberty.html

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Marcy Winograd would not have entered the race if the Democratic candidates had shared her views toward the Middle East...pledge or no pledge..

Jewish Voice for Peace Response to Obama’s Speech on the Middle East


May 19, 2011

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) was disappointed by President Obama’s speech today. While President Obama did speak for the first time of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, he did not break new ground in his overall approach to the conflict. His speech did not reflect the reality on the ground and further showed a breathtaking hypocrisy by omission.

When President Obama says, "The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region," we ask, "Will you hold Israel accountable for its violence against Palestinians, both in daily life under occupation and in Israel's brutal response to nonviolent Palestinian protest, like in Nabi Saleh and Bil'in?"



President Obama seems to recognize that the Palestinians are "suffering the humiliation of occupation," but he blatantly ignores the tyranny and violence of over four decades of control, land confiscation and worse. Further, he offered not one concrete step towards ending the occupation, an absence made all the more grotesque because Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu chose to headline today with plans to expand illegal and immoral Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem.

Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to President Obama’s speech with an immediate rejection of the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiation, with one of the leading American Jewish organizations – whose leader was named by Newsweek as the most influential rabbi in America – calling the 1967 borders “Auschwitz borders.”

In the face of such intransigence, we need President Obama to match his words with action. We need him to make a commitment to human rights and democracy for all of the Middle East, including all the people of Israel and Palestine.

For further comment, contact Rebecca AT jewishvoiceforpeace.org

Approval Voting would work very well with the Top-Two Primary. Those who wanted to vote for both Marcy Winograd and Debra Bowen could have done so, and then maybe Debra Bowen would have come out one of the top two for the runoff.

Approval Voting involves voting for as many as you like, and whoever gets the most votes wins (or in this case, whichever top two get the most votes go to the general election). Simple to vote, simple to tally. No weird cliffhangers like the Oakland Mayor race in 2010.

It's much easier to audit Approval Voting than IRV anyway. And Approval Voting can be done by hand, or done statewide. It can also be added to the Top-Two Primary System (Prop. 14) by the State Legislature.

Regarding "Republican" support for Prop. 14, while Schwarzenegger and Maldonado supported it, both were fairly moderate Republicans. It is worth noting that, like the ACLU and *every other* political party, the California Republican Party vehemently opposed Prop. 14, as did numerous Republican elected officials and other Republican "hard liners". The Republican Party feared that Prop 14. would dilute its power.

Also, the Chamber of Commerce is not a Republican organization, last time I checked.

Parke Bostrom @ 21 rejoindered:

"Moderate" or otherwise, they were the two leading Republicans in the state for crying out loud, and loudly pushed Prop 14. Not sure how you can dispute that fact. Moreover, I don't know if you consider gubernatorial Tom Campbell a "moderate" or not, but it's somewhat a shame (more than somewhat), that it's come down to the amount of extremism of one's ideology in making the distinction of who is a Republican and who isn't, inside the Republican party.

It is worth noting that, like the ACLU and *every other* political party, the California Republican Party vehemently opposed Prop. 14, as did numerous Republican elected officials and other Republican "hard liners". The Republican Party feared that Prop 14. would dilute its power.

Fair enough, though I didn't say "Republican Party-backed", I said "Republican-backed", and I think that statement is supportable through the evidence discussed.

Also, the Chamber of Commerce is not a Republican organization, last time I checked.

Um, which "Chamber of Commerce"? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Definitely a Republican organization. The CA Chamber? I can't speak to that, as I don't know how closely they are allied with the mafia-like, Rightwing thugs at the U.S. Chamber.