Democratic party

Alameda Democrats Endorse Barbara Lee and Mike Honda, but not Eric Swalwell

Alameda Democrats Endorse Barbara Lee and Mike Honda, but not Eric Swalwell ACDCC, Politics No Responses »

Feb 072014

Battle for AD 15 and CD 15 Democratic endorsement moves to the State Convention

Feb 8 Update

Congress: In CD 13, Barbara Leee was recommended for endorsement, with 100% of the vote. I was wrong about CD 15, and Eric Swalwell got the majority of the vote, though not enough to get a recommendation. The fight for the endorsement goes up to the Convention, where it will probably come to the floor, giving Ellen Corbett an advantage. Stay tuned. As predicted, in CD 17 Mike Honda easily got the endorsement. Indeed, Ro Khanna did not even bother to show up to the meeting, probably thinking that his time was better spent campaigning.

Senate: Mary Hayashi did show up and made some vague accusations against Bob Wieckowski, but couldn’t get even one vote. Wieckowski easily got the recommendation for the endorsement for SD 10, with a handful of votes going to Roman Reed.

Assembly: I was surprised to see that a clear majority of the votes in AD 15 went to Elizabeth Echols, though not enough to break the 70% and give her the recommendation. The endorsement thus goes to the Convention. As predicted, Andy Katz got a few votes, but none went to either Sam Kang nor Pamela Price-Crawley. Both civil rights lawyers were pretty impressive, however, and I’m interested in hearing more from both of them. Tony Thurmond‘s vote count may not have impressed, but he’s a dynamic and inspiring speaker and made an impression even with my very politically jaded 12-year-old. While Echols is likely to win at the endorsement caucus at the convention, if Thurmond can pull her name out of consent – which he may very well be able to – and send this to the floor of the convention, he has a very good chance of winning. Echols may be solid, but she’s not an exciting candidate.

Also as predicted, Rob Bonta and Bill Quirk easily got the endorsements for AD 18 and AD 20 respectively. No endorsement recommendation was made for AD 25, and nobody got enough votes for this to go up to the convention. Craig Steckler got the most votes, but Kansen Chu wasn’t far behind, with Teresa Cox trailing both. Armando Gomez didn’t get any votes. While Steckler called himself a progressive Democrat, almost all his campaign loot comes from police chiefs and law enforcement, which suggests he isn’t going to Sacramento to fight for civil liberties and against the prison-industrial complex. Mik

—–

The California Democratic Party will be conducting pre-endorsement conferences throughout the state this weekend. Members of the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) and other eligible Democrats will meet to listen to the different candidates that are competing for the Party’s endorsement in their respective districts and will vote on whom should get it. In races where a Democrat is endorsed by the party, other Democrats are encouraged to drop out.

Most of Alameda County, including San Leandro, falls within the Party’s region 5, and the caucus for our region will take place on Saturday, Feb. 8, starting at 2 PM at the Laborers Local 34 hall, located at 29475 Mission Blvd in Hayward. Any Democrat is welcome to attend.

While the vote count happens after the candidates have an opportunity to speak, in reality most candidates have been going around picking up vote-by-mail ballots from their supporters. Candidates who get 70% of the vote at the pre-endorsement conference are placed in the consent calendar for Party’s endorsement at the State Party Convention which will take place in early March – though their endorsement can be challenged with signatures of either 20% of DSCC members in their district or statewide. If no candidate gets 70% of the vote, but at least one gets 50%, there will be an endorsement caucus at the Convention, where they will need to garner 50% or 60% of the vote (depending on incumbency status), to get on consent. The same will happen if an endorsement is challenged.

In order to qualify for the Democratic endorsement, a candidate must be a registered Democrat and pay a fee ranging from $250 to $500.

Here are the candidates who are vying for the Democratic endorsement in Region 5

Congressional District 13

The only candidate running for the endorsement is incumbent Barbara Lee, who will easily get it.

Congressional District 15

Incumbent congressman Eric Swalwell battles State Senator Ellen Corbett for the endorsement. My bet is that if any candidate gets the endorsement tomorrow, it’ll be Corbett. I also bet that if one of them gets it, the other will have the endorsement challenged and it will go the Convention.

Congressional District 17

Here, congressman Mike Honda holds a significant advantage over challenger Ro Khanna. Khanna ran a successful slate at last year’s delegate elections and he may have a few other votes, but they will likely not be enough to prevent Honda from getting the endorsement. They may be enough for a challenge, but Honda is sure to get the endorsement at the Convention. Linguist Philip Bralich is also running for the endorsement, but I don’t believe he’ll get even one vote.

Assembly District 15

There are no incumbents in this race, but there are five candidate vying for the endorsement. Preliminary endorsements suggest that the two actual contenders are Alameda County Democratic Central Committee member Elizabeth Echols and former Richmond City Councilmember Tony Thurmond. EBMUD Director Andy Katz may get a few votes, but it seems unlikely that either civil rights attorneys Sam Kang or Pamela Price-Crawley will get any. The latter doesn’t even have a campaign website. My guess is that at least one of the candidates will get 50% of the vote, and the endorsement for this race will go to the Convention.

Assembly Districts 18 and 20

The only candidate running for AD 18 is incumbent Rob Bonta and for AD 20 is incumbent Bill Quirk, so both have it in the bag.

Assembly District 25

Four Democrats are vying for the open seat being left by Bob Wieckowski. San Jose Councilmember Kansen Chu battles Ohlone Community College Board Trustee Teresa Cox, Milpitas Councilmember Armando Gomez and former Fremont Police Chief Craig Steckler. I know nothing about the voters in that race, but given the crowded field it seems unlikely that anyone will get the endorsement tomorrow or even send this to the Convention.

Senate District 10

This is the race that actually makes me want to go to the conference (I already sent out my ballot). Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski is running against former Assemblymember and convicted thief Mary Hayashi. Also in the race is stem-cell-research-activist Roman Reed. Hayashi hasn’t even bothered to set up a campaign site, and she hasn’t done any fundraising lately (though she does have a lot of money from previous races she can use), but she did apply for the Democratic endorsement, so she’s presumably running. It’s unlikely she’ll get any endorsements votes, however. Reed may get a few, but Wieckowski should easily get the endorsement and keep it on consent.

I’ll post results tomorrow.

100 Days In, Swalwell Tires of Playing Progressive

100 Days In, Swalwell Tires of Playing Progressive Politics No Responses »

Apr 182013

For the last few months, Congressman Eric Swalwell has been working hard at painting himself as a progressive (or, at least, as not the Blue Dog Democrat he is said to be at heart). He has advocated in favor of gun control, co-sponsored the Violence Against Women Act, joined the Pro-Choice Caucus and even told constituents that the only thing that kept him from joining the Progressive Caucus were the caucus fees (which, it turns out, are both modest and voluntary).

But his flirtation with the progressive wing of the party seems to have ended. He celebrated his 100 days in office today by being the sole member of the Bay Area Congressional delegation (unless you count Napa Congressman Mike Thompson, himself a Blue Dog) to cast a vote in favor of CISPA. This so-called cybersecurity law will do little to secure computer systems, but it will provide even ampler powers both to the government and to private entities to monitor and share information about the private activities of regular citizens in the internet. The privacy holes are so egregious that even President Obama, who whole-heartedly supported the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, has threatened to veto it.

Politically, this move doesn’t make too much sense. His Republican and independent supporters in the Tri-Valley tend to display a libertarian streak and this vote is unlikely to please them. However, it may bring him a check or two and it should reassure his cronies in law enforcement that he won’t be an advocate for civil liberties any time soon.

The move, however, does provide an opening for his 2014 challenger, State Senator Ellen Corbett to publicly reassert her own commitment to due process and civil liberties. It’s also a silent “told you so” to anyone in the local party (me included) who might have thought Swalwell could be redeemable. If nothing else, this vote makes Corbett’s case that Swalwell needs to be taken out sooner rather than later.

California Democratic Party Condemns Unlawful Use of Drones

California Democratic Party Condemns Unlawful Use of Drones ACDCC, Politics No Responses »

Apr 162013

dronevictims At last weekend’s convention, the California Democratic Party issued a resolution calling for an end to extrajudicial executions and the unlawful use of drones. I wholeheartedly hope that Democratic politicians, both in California and other states, will put it into effect.

I thank resolution co-author California Democratic Party Chair John Burton as well as Resolutions Committee co-Chair and former California Senator Martha Escutia for their commitment to have this resolution reach the floor of the Convention, where it unanimously passed. I also thank the other co-authors of the resolution, in particular Karen Bernal and Peter Leinau, for all the work they put into drafting it. It was one of the most efficient and pleasurable drafting collaborations I’ve experienced.

You can see this and the other resolutions passed by the Party here.

—

Resolution to End Unlawful Drone Strikes, Extrajudicial Executions, and Restrict Domestic Drone Surveillance

WHEREAS, the U.S. government sets a dangerous precedent as it continues drone strikes and extrajudicial killings on people in countries with whom America is not at war, the majority being “signature drone strikes,” where operators fire upon groups of men whose identities are unknown, but who are deemed “targets” based on vaguely defined “suspicious behavior” or “signatures,” including being a male of “military age,” while also utilizing the unlawful and inhumane practice of “double taps,” where rescuers of victims of initial strikes are killed by a second strike; and

WHEREAS, our drone attacks result in the disproportionate killing of 36 to 50 civilians for every one alleged combatant and, given that the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks that “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life… excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” during armed conflicts, and that the extrajudicial execution of any person, whether in peace or war time, is prohibited by International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, and knowing that the constant overhead presence of U.S. drones engenders hatred and desire for revenge among the communities under attack by terrorizing the daily lives of ordinary civilians beyond actual death and physical injury- destroying the culturally binding fabric of weddings, funerals, everyday community activities and the lives of children, many who are so traumatized they cannot go to school, and are unable to eat, sleep, play, socialize or function normally, which is a form of physiological torture and collective punishment prohibited by international law, all the while making the world and our nation less safe; and

WHEREAS, the current administration is directing the use of drones on American citizens by

1) authorizing the use of military drones to target and kill alleged terrorists, including U.S. citizens who may not even be involved in operational plots to harm our nation, without recognizing the United States Constitutional guarantee of due process for all people, including those accused of treason; and

2) directing the FAA to create regulations enabling drones to fly throughout U.S. airspace including California by September 2015 for surveillance of individuals or groups in public spaces and in their homes, in direct violation of our Constitutional guarantee to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party stands in opposition to the extrajudicial killings and use of drones as described herein, both foreign and domestic, and urges that our policies be structured within the framework of international law, Constitutional checks and balances, due process, judicial review, and transparency; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon the Congressional delegation and the White House to:

1) Make public all claimed legal justifications of present policies and practices;

2) Conduct a fundamental re-evaluation and overhaul of current practices by reforming the policies authorizing the use of American military force, both foreign and domestic; and

3) Re-institute Congressional authority and oversight with regard to war making powers and federal law enforcement.

Authors: Karen Bernal, Margarita Lacabe, John Burton, Peter Leinau, Rick Tuttle

Democratic Delegates Pass Resolution on Domestic Use of Drones

Democratic Delegates Pass Resolution on Domestic Use of Drones ACDCC, Police, Politics 4 Responses »

Mar 112013

drones (Correction)

Last Saturday, delegates to the California Democrats Convention from Region 5 (encompassing most of Alameda County, as well as western Contra Costa and northeastern Santa Clara counties) had a pre-convention meeting. At the meeting, I introduced a resolution to have the California Democratic Party urge Congress and the California Legislature to pass legislation requiring police to obtain a warrant before using drones for law enforcement purposes. The resolution (see below for the text) was overwhelmingly approved by the delegates present at the meeting. It now goes up to the state party’s Resolutions Committee for consideration – along with potentially hundreds of other resolutions passed by county committees, charted organizations and regional meetings or signed by multiple delegates throughout California.

The Resolutions Committee will bring a handful of the resolutions submitted to the floor at the Democratic Convention in April, where delegates to the Convention will vote on them (often by a voice vote, which gives those with louder, deeper voices and advantage!). But if it passes, it will be a clear message to Democrats both in Sacramento and in Washington that people are concerned about the invasion of privacy that drones represent.

If the Resolutions Committee doesn’t bring this resolution to the floor, then we will need the signatures of 300 delegates present in Sacramento to bring it to the floor ourselves. If you will be a delegate to the convention and want this resolution passed, please contact me so that I can get your signature if need be. Please let other delegates to the convention know about this resolution as well!

Restricting the use of drones in law enforcement has become a particularly urgent matter for residents of Alameda County, as the county Sheriff is planning to acquire them and does not accept any privacy restrictions as to how to utilize them. Absent a state law, law enforcement could use drones to monitor demonstrations, peek into people’s windows or take infrared pictures of homes through walls – among even more nefarious things.

Sadly, it’s been the libertarian branch of the Republican Party that has been most concerned about the unconstitutional use of drones. But Democratic leaders are starting to see the dangers of this technology. Earlier this year, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Silicon Valley) introduced legislation that would require warrants for the use of drones in law enforcement while state Senator Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) introduced a spot bill to provide some state regulation on the use of drones.

Unfortunately, not all efforts to regulate drones are in good faith. In Arizona, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to both promote Arizona as a test-ground for drones and to require police to get warrants before using the drones, but almost immediately gutted the privacy aspects of the bill. Assembly members Jeff Gorell (R-Thousand Oaks) and Steven Bradford (D-Los Angeles) may have a similar plan for California. They’ve co-sponsored one bill that would provide financial incentives to drone-building companies locate in California and another that would place privacy limits in the use of drones both by public and private actors. Both assemblymembers have taken contributions from drone manufacturers and Gorell is a former District Attorney and Navy Intelligence officer, so it seems unlikely they are actually concerned about the misuse of drones.

Find more information on drones at the websites of the ACLU and Alameda County Against Drones

—

Resolution Restricting Use of Drones for Domestic Surveillance

WHEREAS the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 directs the FAA to create regulations that will enable drones to fly throughout U.S. airspace by September 2015 and small drones, 25 pounds or under, are now permitted to fly in general airspace below 400 feet for the use of police and first responders, with FAA permission; and

WHEREAS drones can be used for surveillance of individuals or groups in public spaces and in their homes, and police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology; and

WHEREAS the California Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to privacy and the California and United States Constitutions guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a potential threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including California residents;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party calls on the United States Congress and the Legislature of California to adopt legislation restricting the use of drones for law enforcement purposes without a warrant.

—

CA previous version of this posting featured the resolution I originally proposed, before it was amended and voted upon by Region 5. This has now been corrected to show the resolution that was passed by Region 5 and submitted to the State Convention. I apologize for the error.

—

Margarita Lacabe, the author of San Leandro Talk, is a human rights activist, a member of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee and a delegate to the California Democrats Convention.

Elections 2014: Can Ellen Corbett beat Eric Swalwell?

Elections 2014: Can Ellen Corbett beat Eric Swalwell? Politics 2 Responses »

Feb 122013

Ellen Corbett

She can, but only if she stop playing it safe.

Last October, in the midst of the 2012 electoral battle between veteran Congressman Pete Stark and Dublin City Councilman Eric Swalwell for Congressional District 15, California Senate Majority leader Ellen Corbett took the unprecedented step of announcing she would run for that seat in 2014.

Corbett had been angling to run for Stark’s seat, after he retired, for years. And there was much speculation that Stark would retire in 2012. He was in his 80’s, frequently in bad health, and had been marginalized in Washington. Furthermore, his district had been redrawn and he had lost much of the more liberal parts of western Alameda county, while gaining the conservative Tri-Valley area where his liberal policies were unlikely to be popular. Corbett already represented some of these areas – namely Castro Valley and Pleasanton – and her more moderate Democratic views would be an easier sell.

Stark, however, declined to do the “right thing” (for the local party, at least) and retire and while Corbett entertained the idea of challenging him, she eventually backed off. My guess is that labor would not support her against the aging incumbent.

Eric Swalwell

Her decision proved to be like manna from heaven for Eric Swalwell. The young Dublin City Council member had little to lose by taking on Stark. A prosecutor from a conservative Bay Area suburb, Swalwell was too young and had yet to pay enough dues to be taken seriously by the Democratic establishment or by labor. He had no support to lose by challenging the incumbent.

Swalwell, however, proved to be a consummate campaigner, willing to knock on door after door, attend event after event, and embrace the power of social media and new campaign technologies. He was also able to draw on the expertise of local politicos disaffected with Stark and the local Democratic party. Our own Mayor Stephen Cassidy, for example, shared his own tips and experience on defeating incumbents (he’d done it twice in San Leandro) while Swalwell’s former High School teacher and mentor Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti, an upcoming political force himself, once again took him under his wing. It certainly didn’t hurt that Stark made some serious gaffes during early debates and then disappeared altogether from the campaign trail, leaving it all in the hands of his campaign managers and his supporters in labor and the Democratic party.

Pete Stark

Ultimately, it was the new open-primary system in California that gave Swalwell his win. After his surprisingly good showing in June, which put him in a one-to-one contest with Stark in November, Swalwell started drawing on support and money from more disaffected politicians and individuals. He became the new darling of the news media, which covered Stark’s gaffes with gusto. And he was able to make the race about personalities, rather than issues, which allowed him the flexibility of appealing to voters with very diverse ideologies.

By the end of the campaign, Swalwell had raised $826K and spent $800K of that. That still pales in comparison with the almost $1.4M Stark spent on this race, but it definitely made him competitive.

At the end of the day, in the November election, Stark’s incumbency held and he easily won the part of the district that he had historically represented, while Swalwell easily won the rest.

The question, of course, is what all of this means for Ellen Corbett. While nobody can predict the future, it’s helpful to look at the differences between Corbett and Stark and what she can and cannot bring to a Congressional campaign. Let’s also keep in mind that as everyone wants to back a winner, Corbett’s chances at winning are also dependent on the analysis politicos, contributors and voters make of those same chances. If people think Corbett has a shot, they are more likely to give her their support. And she will definitely need lots of it.

Ellen Corbett is not Pete Stark – in either the bad or the good ways. She is a calm, measured politician; she’s pleasant, smart, compassionate and empathetic, without being overly emotional. She is unlikely to make offensive statements on the campaign trail and give Swalwell the type of ammunition that he had with Stark. However, Corbett has been in public office for a couple of decades: first as a City Council member and Mayor of San Leandro, and then in the California Assembly and now California Senate. If Swalwell decides to run a negative campaign against her, he will probably be able to find plenty of things to criticize.

In 2012, Corbett’s advantages over Pete Stark were that her Senate district included most of CD 15 and that her views were more moderate, and thus more attuned to the voters. She’s always been a grass-roots politician, and knows the importance of one-to-one contact with voters. Voters have seen her at community events in their cities throughout the years. Since the district was redrawn, Corbett has also been seen in community events in those cities she does not currently represent: Dublin, San Ramon and Livermore.

In order to win, Corbett will have to make sure that the votes that went to Stark in 2010 now go to her and that the Democratic voters in Castro Valley and Pleasanton who voted for Swalwell, now vote for her instead. Of course, she will also have to make inroads with other Tri-Valley voters.

The first proposition should be the easiest. Southern Alameda county voters are used to seeing her name on their ballot and seeing her at events, and they may still be bitter about Stark’s loss. However, Swalwell is well aware of this and he is reaching out towards those parts of the district, attending events and trying to ingratiate himself with the local political establishment. He might have made a mistake by locating his district office in Pleasanton, however, as that sends a message that his heart is really in the Tri-Valley (plus it’s awfully inconvenient for voters in the southern part of the district to drive to Pleasanton), but Corbett is not helping herself either by keeping her district office in San Leandro.

Converting Swalwell voters to her is likely to be more difficult. While it’s true that many of the votes that Swalwell got were “anyone but Stark” votes, Corbett will need to make a case to the voters as to why she’s a better choice for them than the man they just put in office. Attacking his youth or inexperience did not work for Stark, so she will have to try to draw other distinctions.

So far the only message I’ve heard concerns Swalwell’s political stances. Rumors are being circulated that he has reached out to Blue Dog Democrats and to Republicans and that he is really a Republican in disguise (though that can also be said about President Obama). But rumors are just rumors and Swalwell is smart enough to know that it behooves him, at this point, to entrench himself within the Democratic party and follow Nancy Pelosi‘s lead. So far, all indications are that he’s doing just that. He has co-sponsored gun control legislation and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and he happily accepted being appointed an Assistant Whip, which means he is now responsible for making other Congress members fall into the Democratic party line. If Corbett wants to go after Swalwell on the issues, she will have to be ready to make strategic attacks on the party line.

One area in which Eric Swalwell and the Democratic leadership are particularly weak is the protection of civil liberties. Swalwell approves of the Patriot Act, going to war with Iran and has dodged questions about whether he supports US Presidents having the power to assassinate American citizens (which would imply that he does). Swalwell, moreover, has made it explicit that he doesn’t believe in a separation of Church and State and has suggested there is no place in government (or maybe even America?) for non-believers. While those positions may play well with his conservative base in both parties, they will make many voters on his district – both in the Democratic left and the libertarian right – very uncomfortable. Indeed, his support for gun control legislation is already losing him support in the Tri-Valley. Corbett could seize on this and develop a strong civil liberties agenda that would put all those voters in play. Indeed, this would also draw her closer to her potential colleagues to the north and south, Barbara Lee and Mike Honda, both staunch civil liberty advocates. That said, Corbett has not focused on civil liberties in the past and seems to be in favor of stronger federal gun control measures.

Corbett has two other big hurdles to clear: money and support. It’s almost impossible to win a Congressional campaign without money. Candidates need to put their names out there and that involves sending out mailers and putting out radio and TV ads, all of which are very expensive. A crafty candidate can save some money by manufacturing news events and getting free media coverage, but Corbett has not exhibited those media skills. Corbett started the year with only about $100K in her campaign account for Congress, that’s less than a tenth of what she will need in order to run a competitive race. And it’s not clear where her funds will come from. Her previous campaigns have been funded almost exclusively by PACs, so she doesn’t have a network of individual contributors on whom to rely on (by contrast, 85% of Swalwell’s contributions came from individuals). PACs, however, are unlikely to support her unless she can give them something that Swalwell can’t or won’t.

It’s also unclear how much support Ellen Corbett will be able to get from the Democratic party, labor and other groups. She is extremely entrenched within the local party, while Eric Swalwell has received the cold shoulder – at least publicly – from local politicos. But Corbett is not without her detractors: it’s hard to be in politics for so long without making enemies. She also has a reputation for not paying back her political debts, something which may come back to haunt her. She does, however, have a good shot at winning the party’s endorsement, though it’s definitely too early to know how that will play out.

Local Democratic insiders seem to be under the impression that Corbett’s gender will play in her favor. Some believe that Corbett will get the support of Nancy Pelosi because Pelosi wants to see more women in Congress. While I’m sure she has that goal in general, I will note that in 2011 she participated in fundraisers for Ro Khanna, who at the time was planning to run for CD 15 against Ellen Corbett. And if Swalwell falls into line, Pelosi would have no incentive to back Corbett – in particular, when there are plenty of more important races for her to concentrate on. It’s also doubtful whether Corbett will enjoy the support of Emily’s List, which also has more important races to focus on. Plus Swalwell has been playing it smart, not only did he co-sponsor re-authorization of VAWA but he joined the pro-choice caucus.

Even without overwhelming party support, Corbett is likely to have the support of the Alameda Labor Council. She has been faithful to labor for many years and chances are they will go to bat for her. However, it’s unlikely that the AFL-CIO will go against an incumbent Democratic candidate – in particular, if he doesn’t do anything to offend them – which could put local labor in a pickle. Without labor’s money and volunteers, her campaign is a non-starter.

Even with them, Corbett’s campaign has one additional problem: it has not embraced digital campaign technologies. As of this writing she doesn’t have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a blog, a mailing list or even her own campaign website. This means that, at least online, the story of her campaign is being told by others (including me, if you search for “Ellen Corbett” you’ll see a link to San Leandro Talk). While in the digital age, it’s impossible for any politician to completely control their message; they still need to attempt to do so. And digital technologies not only allow politicians to interact with voters and maintain name recognition, but they also make it easier to run organized campaigns cheaply.

Swalwell knows all of this only too well. He has been tweeting out a storm (though he doesn’t respond to tweets), keeping up his Facebook page, posting videos on YouTube and making sure he’s seen everywhere. According to a recent tweet: “January by the numbers: 50 mtgs, 30 dist. events attended, 10 hearings, 200 guests from #ca15 for swearing-in & 9,000+ miles in the air.” He could have added his office issued 10 press releases in January, all available on his website (Corbett’s last press release is from September 2012). Moreover, Swalwell has been keeping the eyes of the media on him by hosting quirky events (e.g. “Ride with your Rep“) and vowing to try out one job held by people in his district every month.

One of the keys to Swalwell’s victory in 2012 was the support that he got from the news media, in particular San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci and Bay Area Newspaper Group’s Josh Richman, who were happy to write about the many gaffes of Pete Stark. Stark’s personal arrogance and disrespect for the media had made him many enemies, of course. It will be interesting to see what type of coverage Corbett gets.

One final factor on this analysis are what other candidates might enter this race. It seems unlikely that any serious Democrats will throw their hat into this ring, but stranger things have happened. Ro Khanna, who raised over $1 million in anticipation of a run, has since transferred his ambitions towards a run in CD 13 against Mike Honda. If a serious moderate Republican entered the race, however, things could get complicated very quickly. Roughly 40% of the votes in CD 15 are conservative/Republican votes. Swalwell got all of these in November 2010, but he would likely lose a large percentage of them in June 2014 if a serious, well-funded Republican entered the race. If Corbett was able to hold on to Stark’s votes, it’s possible that Swalwell could be eliminated in June, sending her and the Republican candidate to November (when the 60% Democratic votes would give her a win). If I was Corbett, I would be looking hard through my Rolodex with anyone with an R by their name.

Older Entries Newer Entries