California Midterm Election Discussion Thread

It'll be interesting to see what happens, everyone is predicting a Newsom/Villarogsa runoff (which means Villar will be Governor as LA has more votes than SF, and most of SF hates Newsom for not preventing the housing crisis) but it all depends on turnout. With mail-in ballots by default, a huge amount of Democrats might vote or a huge amount of previously untapped Republicans might vote. A major factor here is that there are eight Democrats on the ticket, all of which have their own cults of support. Meanwhile the CA GOP is rallying around Cox with Allen as a potential spoiler.

In other words: it's a fucking mess and it's exactly why Brown was against the top-two system when it was passed four years ago.

(Also don't defend the CA GOP ever, every single CA GOP Governor has passed gun control with Arnold going so far to ban all .50 cal weapons and most handguns, building off the handgun safety act Wilson passed. At their recent convention they couldn't even give Cox their official endorsement because he only had 55% of the delegates and not the minimum 60%. The party is fucking garbage and you are all seriously better off writing in Little or voting Green).

Attached: Car-Accidents[1].jpg (1440x560, 160.82K)

I hope so because then Newsom is guaranteed to loose. But more likely the beaners will not be able to read their ballots (the default ones sent are in English) or know how to properly fill them out causing the election to be dominated by white liberals and centrist Republican cucks like every other CA election is.

Thanks for the hard autism, user. My only addition is that Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa both want to be president someday, and Gavin "HIV 4eva" Newsom is a real danger. He's got the inside track to win here, and if he does we can pack it in. Every evil of the Clinton era will be in full force here, with a Getty Oil SJW fag-enabling major money anti-white kike loving sociopath in charge. He is the face of the enemy.

Newsom isn't on track to be President though. He's against three things that most urban Democrats support: California High Speed Rail, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and SB827 (zoning reform deregulation). Newsom's main strategy is to appeal to centrist Republicans who are all fiscal conservatives first even if it means letting in millions of illegals or subsidizing abortions (which means less food stamp costs).

If he's Governor and is successful on those three points he'll pretty much destroy the CA Dem party. Valley Dems will fight him hard for CAHSR while unions fight for CalPERS and urban renters get frustrated and stop turning out. He'd skirt this by working with the remaining CA Republicans and centrist/urban Dems who have no shame and will destroy the entities that support them. On the other side is Villarogsa who is pro fracking which soyboys refuse to accept.

Such is driving the current angst within the CA Dem party, which is why Chiang is in the running at all.

Gavin Newsom isnt appealing to any centrist Republicans , he is a staunch supporter of single payer health care in California. I'm pulling for Villaraigosa just because he's an incompetent who won't be able to inflict as much damage to the state. He just wants the perks, chicks, and photo ops.

I can shorten the list considerably with just one idea: Don't consider anyone who won't declare a party. If their convictions aren't strong enough to at least declare themselves a libertarian or independent, then they're not going to be strong enough to stand up for our interests against a sea of liberal voices. Hell, most of them probably ARE liberals.

The thing that stood out to me the most about this ballot is how many dems are running, dividing the vote. In the ling run this may work in our favor. Libertarians aren't exactly our guys, and neither are neocons these days, bit they're a damn sight better than committed liberals or stealth liberals running as undeclared.

single payer is cheaper than calpers, if Newsom slays that he'd also slay the unions too. For a centrist, "sane" fiscal conservative there's a lot to like.

Well constructed and informative, thanks OP. I hope we can have this level of information and organization for the remainder of the midterms. Trump can't do much without throwing out the republicucks and bluejew democrats.

It all depends on turnout. Everyone gets a postal ballot now, which can result in anything since the CA Dems failed to make official endorsements. 18 y/o teens will obviously lean Dem but they won't have a clue who to vote for beyond what they see in the news, and in the news every Dem on the ballot has something wrong with them (Newsom is against transit, Villaraiagosa supports fracking, Chaing is a gook (a problem for mexicans) and Eastin represents the CTA). However the CA GOP fucked up too as their stupid internal policies prevented them from endorsing Cox, who only got 55% of the vote not the 60% needed for an endorsement. But despite that the CA GOP is also much less split, with them it'll either be Cox or Allen.

Really it's just a shitshow. Chaing and Eastin (and everyone beneath them) exist only to spoil the ballot against Newsom and Villaraiagosa. Even if Dems get one on the ballot they've basically lost a spot because they fucked up and couldn't just make a god damn endorsement which the CA GOP can't exploit either because they didn't make any endorsements either.

It's just shit shit shit shit. And not even in a Zig Forums way but just a "wow this is fucking stupid and doesn't help anybody" way.

For example let's break down these numbers: 7,362,490 Californians voted for Hilary in 2016 and 3,916,209 for Trump with a record 75.3% turnout. Let's up that to 7,500,000 Dems and 4,000,000 Reps for simplicity.

Split amongst Cox and Allen is 2,000,000 votes each. If each of the four top Democrats receives the exact same amount of votes then each Dem will only have 1,875,000 votes each resulting in two Republicans facing off in the general election.

Democrats would need 500,000 new voters to break even, assuming votes are split equally. But for their best case scenario assuming 100% turnout AND a 2% increase in the total voting population who all vote Democrat gives us 9,973,094 Democratic voters, which split four ways is 2,493,274 votes per candidate, but the CA GOP would only have to increase their total voters by 1,000,000 in order to take the two top spits. However, if turnout returns to the 2014 primary level then only about 30% of eligible voters will participate meaning only about 3,000,000 voters total, which is about 1,800,000 Democrats and 1,200,000 Republicans. If Dems split four ways then they'd only get 450,000 votes per candidate while Republicans get 600,000 votes for their two candidates.

So again the CA GOP could eek out a long shot victory from this, but it all depends the division within CA Dems > division within CA Reps. Are there 600,000-2,000,000 people willing to vote for Chaing or Eastin? I doubt it but there's no way to know for certain because everyone will get a ballot with no information about the candidates. If people just choose based on hearsay or what they see on Twitter, anything could happen because each of the four Dems have some sort of non-liberal element or position about them that the media will exaggerate.

(disclaimer: not that it would be change much since the CA GOP are hardcore cucks especially Cox and Allen. Never forget that.)

Except he do any of that. He's a shill for the unions.

There's nothing right wing about him. Picture a pretty boy Bernie Sanders, that's Newsom.

California isn't the east coast. Newsom is completely clueless, roughly on par with De Blasio but more sheltered. To Newsom the Unions are this dying, bedridden thing that can't be counted on for support in future elections - consider the coming Janus decision that will fuck over California's unions too. As SF Mayor his base was a combination of urban homeowners (2/3rds of SF's land is single family detached homes) and soyboy renters who refuse to vote Green.

Given this context to him Calpers is just baggage. It's 80% of California's debt, getting rid of it allows him to finance things like free healthcare or college that soyboys want. This would not only give him a second term but would also give him an excellent POTUS platform, something he's going to try at least once like Brown did. The delusion is real, consider that for the greater part of Newsom's career SF has been growing massively. He thinks he and the Democrats are unstoppable and can survive without Unions, which also lets him avoid increasingly loud arguments by people within his own party (like Scott Wiener) about housing reform, which he won't ever touch.

He's not operating at the same level as Cuomo.

Also: I didn't claim he was right wing. I only claimed that he has appeal to "centrist" Republicans aka cucks.

Enjoy some kvetching about Patrick Little.

You shouldn't post their party affiliation. Instead post whether they take corporate and billionaire money. If they do they will support massive non white immigration and wars for Israel, just like trump. Just this week had 270 Somali's brought in to Az and about the same for texas. If a candidate doesn't change the 1965 immigration law then they're wasting your time.

It’s basically upper middle class boomer democrat Hillary voters, vs the hordes of illegal spic voters. Regardless of who wins, everybody looses. I’m calling it now, it’ll be Gavin Newsome that wins.

So, patrick little, what if he wins?

I wouldn't be so sure. Newsom isn't liked in the rest of the Bay Area which hates SF for their own personal reasons (San Mateo dislikes him because he kept dumping homeless off on them, Alameda dislikes him because he's white, Contra Costa hates him because he's not Spanish, Santa Clara considers itself northern LA) except for Marin which is a very small and extremely rich county. The main issue Newsom has to fight is his stance on housing, he was against zoning deregulation as Mayor and was the first to voice his opposition to SB827 which was passed by SF's own state sen. Scott Wiener.

One of the larger trends in California is the growing division between liberal urban homeowners and liberal urban renters. The former oppose all zoning deregulation because they hate apartment buildings while the latter obviously want more apartments built so rents fall. Newsom is on the wrong side of this precisely because of Wiener's bill, that will burn him hard to the benefit of Villaraigosa, Chaing and Eastin who are also against housing but aren't fighting their own base in doing so.

It's really his election to loose. in a normal year he'd have been a shoo-in because nobody other than rich white homeowners would vote in the primary causing him to win against a generic -R, but instead now everyone gets a postal ballot.

Carl DeMaio is Chairman of Reform California and the leader of the statewide Gas Tax Repeal Campaign.

Here's his suggested list of candidates you should be voting for (as long as you're not a SJW, tax and spend brain dead Democrat).
kogo.iheart.com/featured/the-demaio-report/content/2018-05-03-carl-demaios-california-election-guide/

If he somehow makes it to the final ballot he is either crushed by the Democrat while the CA GOP is ripped apart over his candidacy or the entire state votes for the other Republican.

But that said, Little has a slim chance because he put himself down as a "civil rights activist" on the ballot and formal voter guide. So if someone doesn't bother googling his name (and finding that he was kicked out of the CA GOP convention) they'll think he's an SJW or something. This probably won't work, and even if it did all it would do is spoil Allen's shot at getting to the runoff, but it's a fun thought regardless.

None of the candidates are against Prop 13, so they aren't really tax and spend unless you're a renter. Which is exactly the division within the CA Dem party and one which grows more acute every day.

For those who care CA's two biggest papers made their endorsements today. The SF Chronicle went for Newsom and the LA Times went for Villaraigosa. They're the top two contenders, though will obviously consolidate into one candidate if they somehow loose the second place to a Republican.

That made me think up another thing: it'd be really interesting to see a Newsom/Villaraigosa vs Chaing/Eastin election.

His bio says that he fought against Felarca when the Republicans were shoad at Berkley.

Weird lapels though. Still, seems the best we have for sec of state.

Attached: Capture.JPG (595x535, 64.16K)

Is there any point in discussing potential activism? I don't know if there are enough anons here who actually care for us to do anything significant.

There's not much to be activist about. The Democrats and Republicans share the same opinions on 99% of issues except CAHSR. Even on gun control most of that fight is being waged by moderate Democrats since they don't want to loose their 2/3rds majority.