{"id":13215,"date":"2023-08-07T02:11:28","date_gmt":"2023-08-07T02:11:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/?p=13215"},"modified":"2023-08-07T02:11:29","modified_gmt":"2023-08-07T02:11:29","slug":"californias-primary-a-kingmaker-or-a-royal-headache","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/?p=13215","title":{"rendered":"California\u2019s Primary: A Kingmaker, or a Royal Headache?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Bill Whalen <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Stormy weather brought high winds and mountain snow to parts of \nCalifornia last weekend. At the risk of getting out over our skis, it\u2019s \ntime to consider the growing probability of the otherwise improbable \nevery four years: California as an important player in the presidential \nselection process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I chose the word \u201cimprobable\u201d deliberately, for in recent campaign cycles, California has fallen short of an oversized role in national elections, despite the best efforts of lawmakers and state party leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1996, the Golden State\u2019s presidential primary was held on the \nfinal Tuesday in March rather its normal starting time of the first \nTuesday in June. But Bob Dole had put a mathematical lock on the \nRepublican nomination a week earlier, after a four-state sweep across \nthe Midwest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2000, California advanced a little further, to the first Tuesday \nin March. But by the time the political circus came to the Golden State,\n Al Gore was firmly in control of the Democratic contest and George W. \nBush had stopped John McCain\u2019s insurgency. The same scenario played out \nin 2004, with John Kerry dominating the Democratic contest at the time \nof California\u2019s early March vote, despite earlier predictions to the \ncontrary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That leads us to the presidential primaries of 2008 and 2016\u2014the \ncommon threads being two Hillary Clinton victories (yes, she defeated \nBarack Obama in California) and two Democratic nominations little \naffected by the outcomes, as the winner didn\u2019t amass a crushing number \nof delegates (more on that later).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what\u2019s different about California in 2020?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lacking a Democratic \u201calpha\u201d candidate in terms of money and the \nperception of inevitability, February\u2019s slate of primaries\u2014Iowa and New \nHampshire have voted, Nevada (Feb. 22) and South Carolina (Feb. 29) come\n next\u2014has yielded surprises. No one candidate has a clear path to the \nnomination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enter California, voting three days after South Carolina and part of \nthe Super Tuesday megaplex of 16 states and territories holding \nprimaries or caucuses that day. The Golden State\u2019s by far the biggest \nprize on March 3 (415 Democratic delegates, versus only 228 in Texas). \nAnd it provides a telling window into what works best in a large state \nwith multiple media markets and a diverse electorate: is it advertising \nor organization?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one corner, fueled by a Forbes-estimated $53.4 billion personal \nfortune (17 times that of President Trump) and the ability to run \ntelevision ads around the clock in California: former New York City \nMayor Michael Bloomberg. His campaign\u2019s reportedly hired 200 employees \nin California, dwarfing that of Vermont senator Bernie Sanders (at last \ncount, a team of 80 staffers).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What stands out about the Bloomberg approach is media buys. Per \nAdvertising Analytics, an ad-tracking firm, Bloomberg\u2019s spent over $35 \nmillion building a television, radio, and digital presence in \nCalifornia\u2014that figure reported nearly a month before the primary\u2019s \nofficial date. Keep in mind: a $2 million\u2013$3 million investment \nordinarily gets a candidate a week\u2019s-worth of healthy media buys in the \nGolden State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And in the other corner, proudly wearing the \u201cdemocratic \nsocialist\u201d trunks and banking on the combination of populist organizing \nand having competed in the last California presidential primary: Bernie \nSanders. The Vermont senator\u2019s ground game consists of 20 campaign \noffices (Bloomberg has 11). Sanders\u2019s media budget to date: a $2.5 \nmillion television buy for California and Texas\u2014just 1\/14 of Bloomberg\u2019s\n aforementioned spending spree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Sanders understands: given the nuances of California\u2019s \nDemocratic primary rules, the contest is an exercise in both quality and\n quantity. Unlike the Republicans\u2019 winner-take-all rules, Democratic \ndelegates in California are awarded on the basis of the statewide \nvote and the results in each of the state\u2019s 53 congressional districts. \nIn order to secure delegates, a candidate has to top 15% both statewide \nand in a district. Long story short: the system rewards candidates who \norganize efficiently in markets big and small. And that\u2019s the Sanders \nstrategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The irony of this: if California Democrats wanted to make their state\n the true epicenter of Super Tuesday, they should have ditched their \nproportional system for the ultimate in high stakes: a winner-take-all \nprimary for the richest-possible haul of delegates in a single state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Otherwise, the Democrats have a system where work doesn\u2019t necessarily match reward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated in Sanders in California\u2019s June \nprimary by 7.1% (one wag noted that it took California longer to count \nvotes in the summer of 2016 than it did China and Vietnam to wage war in\n 1979). Sanders received 46% of the statewide vote and 46.5% of \nCalifornia\u2019s 475 pledged delegates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2008, Clinton bested Barack Obama by over 8 points (51.5% to \n43.2%). The candidates\u2019 delegate split: 204\u2013166 in favor of Clinton (or \n55.1%\u201344.9%). In 2004, John Kerry won 64% of the statewide vote and \n77.8% of delegates (288 of 370). In 2000, Al Gore won almost 80% of the \nstatewide vote and nearly 83% of the delegates (304 of 267).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Change the rules in California in 2020 and how does it affect the Democratic outcome?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The winner would get to take at least 415 delegates to the national \nconvention in Milwaukee (that\u2019s 415 pledged delegates plus an unknown \nto-be-determined number of \u201csuperdelegates\u201d\u2014picked by state party \nleaders free to choose the candidate of their liking). The \u201cmagic \nnumber\u201d for winning the Democratic nomination: 1,991 delegates (a \nmajority of 3,979 delegates at stake in 57 contests).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it could make for more intriguing convention. Let\u2019s revisit the \n2008 Democratic nomination fight. Change California\u2019s rules to \nwinner-take-all and Hillary Clinton receives at least 370 of 441 \ndelegates (241 coming from the congressional districts and 129 for her \nstatewide win). Readjusting the final totals that year (2,275.5 \ndelegates for Obama; 1,978 for Clinton) and the new total reads: 2,106 \nfor Obama; 2,144 for Clinton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One final note about the upcoming California primary: any Silicon \nValley tecchie laughing at Iowa\u2019s unappetizing experiment \nin vote-counting apps is tempting fate\u2014and karma. For California\u2019s \nvoting system could easily end in embarrassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the first time in state history, California voters can register \nor re-register through Election Day at any polling station. Some \ncounties are ready for the crush (i.e., pre-establishing satellite \nelection offices). Time will tell if all 58 California counties have \ntheir act together on primary day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also confusion with the ballot itself. The Golden State runs a\n \u201cmodified\u201d system wherein independent voters can participate in the \nDemocratic primary (the GOP primary is closed to non-Republicans). But \nif that indy voter (in California parlance, \u201cno party preference\u201d) \nchooses to participate by mail (nearly 59% of the 2016 primary \ntally came from mail-in ballots, versus only 23% in the 1996 primary), \nthey\u2019ll need a nonpartisan ballot unless they\u2019ve indicated in advance \nthat they prefer a Democratic ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That ballot, by the way, is littered with a lot of dead wood. Because\n voting actually began in California last week, with ballots arriving in\n the mail the same day Iowans caucused, California\u2019s official ballot is \nstrewn with Democrats now long gone from the race: New Jersey senator \nCory Booker, California senator Kamala Harris, and spiritual maven \nMarianne Williamson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A third complication: a generous voting timeline. In California, \nballots will be honored if they\u2019re postmarked by March 3 and arrive \nwithin three days after the election. Election officials have an entire \nmonth after March 3 to certify the vote. Where will the Democratic \nrace be by early April 3? Nineteen states and votes will have voted by \nthen, including Michigan (March 10) and Ohio, Illinois, and Florida (all\n on March 17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Could California be a presidential kingmaker in a few weeks? Perhaps,\n if one of the Democratic hopefuls wires the Golden State properly and \ngarners 300-plus delegates to put him or her atop the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then again, that kingmaker could turn out to be a royal headache if, like Iowa, the system isn\u2019t ready for the experiment in democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill Whalen, Hoover Institution\u2019s Virginia Hobbs Carpenter Fellow, follows California and national politics and hosts Hoover\u2019s \u201cArea 45\u201d podcast on the Trump presidency. He can be reached at whalenoped@gmail.com.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Bill Whalen Stormy weather brought high winds and mountain snow to parts of California last weekend. At the risk of getting out over our skis, it’s time to consider the growing probability of the otherwise improbable […]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":13216,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[64],"tags":[83,85],"class_list":{"0":"post-13215","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-california","8":"tag-california","9":"tag-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13215"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13215\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13217,"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13215\/revisions\/13217"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/13216"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinosreadytovote.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}