John Garamendi Becomes First Prominent Dem To Endorse Lakoff Initiative Concept

John Garamendi appeared on Angie Coiro's Live From The Left Coast with Professor George Lakoff and our own David Atkins to talk about the California Democracy Act, Lakoff's one-line initiative which would change all legislative actions on budget and revenue to a majority vote. Listen at around 13:00 for Garamendi's remarks endorsing Lakoff's approach.

Garamendi: Well, if you put a proposition or a Constitutional amendment on the ballot, and it says, gives the legislature a majority vote to raise taxes and a budget, or one or the other, it's likely to be turned down. You know, that's, the polling indicates that, there are issues that have come up before, there was one I think two years ago that was on the ballot, it was turned down (it was 2004 -ed.). That was 55% for budgeting. The fundamental problem is, we're not framing the issue, we're not putting the proper issue to the people, and I think that was the common error from just a moment ago. If you make it about the budget, if you make it about taxes, I think you're sure to lose. If you make it about the very nature of democracy, all the way back to the Greek, the Greek civilization and the start of democracy, it was a majority. It was a majority situation, and here we are in this day and age in America where we really have thrown majority out, and we, in California at least, we are faced with minority rule, and some would say the tyranny of the minority. Which is exactly what's happened in the last two or three decades now, when it's come time for tight budgets and tight situations, urgency bills, as well as budget or tax bills. So I think we need to have a new discussion about what is the nature of our democracy.

While not an explicit endorsement, this mirrors Lakoff's theory on how to properly put together this kind of initiative. The majority rule theory is fairly rooted in the American imagination, and that's really the only way to explain this to people. There isn't enough of a sense that we have minority rule right now, and that this tyranny of the minority is largely the cause of the state's dysfunction over the last several decades. This is more than anything an education project, and Garamendi appears to understand it.

We're a democracy, we elected these people, let them do their jobs, and if we don't like what they do, we'll throw them out the next election.

Majority rule is an accountability measure. People currently have everyone and no one to blame for the problems of the state. Democrats can blame the rules, Republicans can blame the Democrats. Majority rule would make things much clearer for the public.

This is an important turning point, to have someone like Garamendi openly siding with the concept of the Lakoff initiative in what is fast becoming a grassroots/establishment split. The folks at CA Majority Rule are still raising money for a poll to prove their concept as one that can work with voters. I suggest you give it strong consideration.

"They aren't friends to consumers."

Harry Reid doesn't appear to be receptive to canceling the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption:

Reid (D-Nev.), who will play a key role crafting the final Senate healthcare overhaul in the next few weeks, is excluding a proposal to repeal a loophole that exempts health insurance companies from federal antitrust laws.

Although the proposal is very popular with Democrats and liberal groups, Reid has concerns that attaching it to the healthcare legislation risks damaging prospects for an effort already facing significant hurdles.

Republicans say Reid is being calculated in a different manner, dangling the standalone bill as a way of intimidating the companies into making concessions on Obama’s broader healthcare objective. But they will have to overcome recent testimony from former Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, who backed a broader effort to lift the exemption for the entire industry.

Many Republicans actually support the end of the anti-trust exemption because they believe it would be a vehicle to expand interstate sale of insurance and essentially deregulate the industry, which would not be to the benefit of the consumer. And Reid himself has backed a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which gave the industry the exemption, for many years. So if he's brandishing it as a club, he doesn't appear to be doing much of a job of it.

Unfortunately, there are too many people in the halls of Congress willing to give the industry exactly what it wants - a forced market without competition from a public option. Future Congressman John Garamendi, who for eight years was California's Insurance Commissioner, explains why that is a disastrous outcome.

Some in Washington are seriously considering penalizing Americans for being unable to afford care in a marketplace that doesn't control costs. If voters in the 10th Congressional District choose me to be their representative in Congress, let me be clear. I will not vote for any bill that includes the individual mandate unless I am confident that bill offers generous subsidies for Americans struggling to make ends meet and unless that bill includes the public option to provide real competition in the health care marketplace. I regulated the insurance companies for eight years as California's State insurance Commissioner, and I know those companies well enough to know that we can trust them to put profits before people. They aren't friends to consumers.

In California in the first half of this year, according to data provided by the insurance companies to state regulators, PacifiCare denied 39.6 percent of all claims, Cigna 33 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 28 percent and Kaiser 28 percent. 45,000 people died last year in the United States because of a lack of health care coverage. These are not statistics you see in the rest of the industrialized world. Profits ahead of people, greed ahead of the general good is no way to run a health care system.

The Democrats had better figure this one out. If the public gets the sense that their representatives are being run by the insurance companies, they will take their frustrations out in next year's elections.

CA-10: A Quick Post-Mortem

Just a couple random thoughts from last night's victory for John Garamendi:

• Survey USA has been maligned by some for its robo-polling techniques, but they consistently overperformed other pollsters throughout the 2008 primaries, and they basically nailed the polling in CA-10. The final numbers track almost precisely with the final vote tally. Well done.

• These special elections largely come down to name ID, and there's not a whole lot you can do about that. The challengers certainly tried - Joan Buchanan spent $850,000 of her own money and got a whopping 12% of the vote. But Garamendi really cruised to victory in this one.

• Katie Merrill, last seen yelling at the netroots for daring to consider a primary of Ellen Tauscher, became Mark DeSaulnier's campaign manager, where she devised the craptacular strategy of focusing on Garamendi's residency requirement, which approximately nobody cares about, instead of building a campaign infrastructure outside of Contra Costa County. Despite having a minority of residents, in Solano, Alameda and Sacramento counties, Garamendi picked up over 6,000 votes on DeSaulnier, who finished well back in all those regions. There was no way he could have ever won that back in CoCo, where he lost as well by 2,300 votes. Maybe introducing yourself to people outside your base would have worked better than the "neener-neener, here's this technical non-violation" nonsense that is a proven loser.

• Lisa Vorderbrueggen still doesn't get it.

6. I thought Anthony Woods might break into double-digits. Instead, he ended up with 8.5 percent of the vote. He is a strong candidate who was probably too liberal for the moderate 10th District but he kept the elected officials on their toes. I suspect we will see Woods on a ballot again one of these days.

This "moderate district" thing really has to get flushed down a toilet somewhere. John Garamendi was endorsed by the California Nurses Association, the most progressive organization maybe in America. He's a single-payer advocate. He's strongly liberal and far to the left of Ellen Tauscher. And he won. Woods' difficulty was simply a product of name ID and a quick-strike primary. He didn't have labor ground troops and that was that.

• Just to reiterate, there will now be a general election between Garamendi and David Harmer on November 3. Garamendi will be strongly favored.

Burning The Midnight Oil With CA-10

If you want to follow results and find that the SoS site is too slow, just look to Contra Costa County. They have a much larger slice of the population than any other area. I've added up the preliminary results in each of the four counties for the four main opponents, and Garamendi already has close to a 9,000-vote lead:

Garamendi: 22,345
DeSaulnier: 13,827
Buchanan: 9,955
Woods: 6.872

Furthermore, DeSaulnier is performing horribly outside of CoCo County, so he would actually have to win there and probably by a fairly decent amount to have any shot of catching Garamendi. Which I wouldn't bet on.

UPDATE by Dave: My current numbers are:

Garamendi: 23,151 23,870
DeSaulnier: 14,323 14,925
Buchanan: 10,428 10,722
Woods: 7,191 7,485

Sacramento County (only about 1,500 registered CA-10 voters) is all in, and Garamendi beat DeSaulnier there 179-5. Adriel Hampton pulled more votes than DeSaulnier up there. Alameda is all in too, and Solano and CoCo are over 50%. Garamendi is extending his lead in these numbers. He'll be the next Congressman from CA-10.

CA-10: Garamendi Poised For Victory, Only Woods Has Momentum

As John Garamendi touts in a diary here, the most recent SurveyUSA poll shows the Lt. Governor with a comfortable lead in the CA-10 primary set for Tuesday. I am surprised that another candidate hasn't talked it up as well, however, because the only candidate showing movement from the previous SurveyUSA poll is Anthony Woods.

In fact, this new poll, from 8/26-8/27, has Garamendi at 25%, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier at 16%, Asm. Joan Buchanan at 12% and Anthony Woods at 9%, with 5% undecided. The last poll, from 8/10-8/11 was Garamendi 26%, DeSaulnier 15%, Buchanan 12% and Woods 5%. I don't think there are enough undecided voters to push Woods much further, but he's running the only race drawing undecided voters, if the polls can be believed.

Among those who have already voted, the numbers are similar: Garamendi 27%, DeSaulnier 18%, Buchanan 13% and Woods 10%.

Certainly, Garamendi looks very strong for victory, and there aren't likely to be enough voters Tuesday to favor a late riser, but Anthony Woods is running the only race moving from no built-in support to a credible challenge. As for the relative flatness of the two state legislators, I'd say the choice by Sen. DeSaulnier to decide on a monomaniac focus on Garamendi's residency issue, which simply has not moved voters in numerous other instances, instead of giving voters a reason to support him, would offer some answer. Buchanan has run a self-funded campaign focused mainly on finding female support, but not necessarily a larger message. In an environment with three safe or fairly lackluster campaigns, the expected form is holding. Only Woods appears to be taking in new support, but his uphill battle was perhaps too high to climb.

CA-10: One Week To Go

Just a rundown of events in the CA-10 race with a week until primary day:

• Late last week, fundraising reports were due, showing that over $2 million dollars has been raised by the various candidates seeking Ellen Tauscher's old seat in Congress. By any metric - total cash raised, cash raised in the last cycle, cash raised since June 30, cash on hand, and cash on hand less debts - John Garamendi has the lead, though much of his money comes from big donors. Anthony Woods, and to a lesser extent Mark DeSaulnier, have found a smaller-donor base, though Woods' is mostly out of district. Joan Buchanan has basically not raised money at all; she has given herself as much as $750,000 in loans and is generally self-funded (and what donations she has not given herself have come from such health industry interests as Wellpoint, one of the largest insurers in America). I would say the top four candidates probably have enough money to get out the message within their budgets, however.

• The Contra Costa Times, the main newspaper in the main population center of the district, endorsed John Garamendi for the position. However, their criticism of Mark DeSaulnier, that he "acced(es) to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions," gives you an indication of their orientation and whether or not you find them a trusted source.

• DeSaulnier continues to hammer on the largely irrelevant point that Garamendi doesn't live inside the district. Here's a mailer to that effect. And practically every missive from campaign staff re-emphasizes this point. I would like their research department to find one instance of when a residency issue like this had any impact on a Congressional race. I just really think DeSaulnier has missed his target here. He's better off showing his progressive bona fides on issues like health care, transportation and the environment, IMO. This is such a critical time, and residency issues do not appear to be at the top of the minds of people who want to see this country make good on the change agenda from 2008, particularly Democratic partisans who would vote in a special election primary.

• Anthony Woods held another live chat at AmericaBlog this week. His position in local endorsements always comes at the end and reads something like "we were very impressed with him and think he has a bright future."

CA-10: Garamendi Grabs Newspaper Endorsements, Buchanan Posts Ad

The San Francisco Chronicle, which is not completely the local paper in CA-10 (I would imagine the Contra Costa Times has more readers) but which is a large regional paper with reach into the suburbs, endorsed John Garamendi for Congress today.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi stands out in this crowd because his vast portfolio of experience is so well aligned with the issues of the times and the big concerns of the district.

Garamendi said he withdrew from the governor's race when this seat became open because "these are the issues I've spent my life on." Others might suggest his decision was conveniently pragmatic - his bid for the Democratic nomination was going nowhere - but there is no doubt about his qualifications for Congress, especially in this district. He was an aggressive and effective insurance commissioner (think health care, consumer issues such as foreclosure), deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior (delta, climate change) and a state legislator from 1974 to 1991.

The 64-year-old Garamendi has the confidence and depth of knowledge that would allow him to hit the ground running in Congress - and his history suggests he would be unabashed in doing so.

The op-ed had good words for practically everyone running, particularly Anthony Woods, but went with Garamendi. In a weird example of symmetry, Bruce Brugmann and the SF Bay Guardian wrote almost exactly the same editorial today.

Meanwhile, Joan Buchanan debuted a spot for the last two weeks of the campaign, which looks pretty much like a generic bio spot, although with her being the only prominent woman in the field, an ad just repeating "Joan Buchanan, Joan Buchanan" for 30 seconds would be somewhat effective (and basically that's what this spot does). The three electeds are all up on cable TV now. Will Anthony Woods use some of his money for TV?

CA-10: Is That All You've Got?

I'm baffled by Mark DeSaulnier's decision to run a goofy Jib-Jab attack ad on John Garamendi based on the one thing we pretty much know voters could give a crap about - district residency.

First of all, Jib-Jab ads are to 2009 what using Matrix-style graphics were to 2005 - dated, uncreative and boring. Second, look merely to the north and the election of Tom McClintock, who lived 400 miles away from the district, or to the east of him and at one of the SUBJECTS of the ad, Dan Lungren, who has represented Long Beach as well as the Sacramento area, for evidence that Voters. Just. Don't. Care. They want a candidate who will fight for them and who will make bold stands on big issues. Garamendi has done that and so has DeSaulnier on occasion, and I understand that the campaign must be looking for something to use as an attack in the absence of policy. But this ain't it.

Also, if this is about running where the party needs someone the least, couldn't that also apply to DeSaulnier, attempting to leave the state legislature at a time when the Yacht Party uses the 2/3 rule to hijack state government, and any vacancy in the Assembly or Senate just emboldens them and raises the bar? Why even bother with an attack like this if it can be plausibly turned on its head so easily? Maybe because DeSaulnier reads the polls and figured that he had to go on the attack.

Primary fights are so rarely about issues, but we have tried at Calitics to dig down and see what each candidate in CA-10 believes. You can read those interviews at the CA-10 tag, or educate yourself further by watching this candidate forum.

...by contrast, the ad Garamendi released today is simple and straightforward and issue-based, with him talking to the camera about health care, although I could do without using the same footage of him on the horse twice.

CA-10: An Interview With Lt. Gov. John Garamendi

John Garamendi has been seeking votes in California for well over 30 years. He first took a run for the Governor's mansion in 1982, and was set to do so again in 2010 until the seat in CA-10 opened up, and he was inspired to return to Washington, where he served in the Clinton Administration in the Department of the Interior. He has the most diverse record of anybody in the race, with stints at the federal level, the state legislature, and in two statewide offices, as the Insurance Commissioner and now Lieutenant Governor. In our interview, we discussed health care, lessons learned from regulating insurance, No Child Left Behind, saving the NUMMI plant in Fremont (more on that from Garamendi here), and foreign policy in Iran. I found Garamendi to come at issues in a very comprehensive and thoughtful way, and you can see this for yourself below. A paraphrased transcript follows.

DD: Thanks for talking with me today.

John Garamendi: My pleasure.

DD: So how's it going out there on the campaign trail?

JG: It's going very well. Every day, I feel we're moving along well. You have everything being done that is normally done in these campaigns. We have a strong volunteer grassroots organization committed to getting out the vote. Phonebanking has started, we've hit about 30-40 thousand homes. We're walking in different communities. We just had a meeting in Rossmore, with 300 people turning out. So I think it's going very well.

DD: Your last several campaigns have been statewide, with district-level campaigning being more retail, how are you finding it?

JG: To me, it's exactly the same, only it's done in a smaller area. I've always believed strongly in retail politics. The only difference is that after the event's over, I don't have to get on a Southwest Airlines plane. We did an African-American church out in Fairfield over the weekend, same as any African-American church in Southern California or anywhere else. It's just easier for travel.

DD: OK, let's hit some issues. First off, health care. August is this time where everyone's making their feelings known about health care in their districts. What are you hearing in yours?

JG: I am hearing a strong element for single payer, or Medicare for All. As you may know, I've led that debate in this state for many, many years. I've always found it the most efficient, most cost-effective way you can possibly do this. Just send your premiums to the Medicare office.

So I hear a lot of individuals trending in that direction. And some of the unions, the California Nurses Association, are also trending in that direction. There is also a concern about the complexity of the legislation moving through Congress. And people want to see at the very least a public option to compete with the insurance companies. Also, with a lot of seniors, the drug issues concern them, both with fixing some of the issues with Medicare Part D and also maintaining what they like about Medicare. So that's the range.

DD: Would you vote for any bill that didn't have at the least a public option that's available from day one, without a trigger?

JG: Well, I've always been a strong voice for Medicare for All. The fallback position is the public option. That's already a compromise. And so the legislation had to have a public option, I can't go any further away from that. The other thing I want to express is that I understand insurance reform, which is a lot of this bill. I was the main regulator for insurance companies in the largest state in the union. So I bring a set of knowledge to this debate that not only doesn't exist among my competitors, but doesn't exist in Congress.

DD: Let's talk about that. Right now, insurance companies are regulated in the states, and so the regulations vary from one place to the next, and can be corrupted by local interests. Do you support a federal role in insurance regulation?

JG: This is something that we have to figure out with insurance reform and with respect to financial regulation. The regulatory mechanisms need some clarity. It simply won't work to write a law saying to the insurance companies, "Take all comers." They will not do it. So you need a police force. Someone to enforce that law. Will that be federal, or based where it is now, at the state level? That's the kind of detail that must be worked out. I mean, we've had auto insurance here in California that's supposed to take all comers, and they find numerous ways to avoid that. And of course, this is why I support Medicare for All. You don't have to worry about any of that. But as long as we're going with health insurance reform, I can add something to that process.

DD: What are the pluses and minuses of putting this in the hands of the Feds?

JG: If it's a federal process, you'd have to set up a massive new federal bureaucracy. In the positive sense. But you have to have a police force, because otherwise, the insurers won't do it. That's a major, expensive undertaking for the federal government. There's an advantage to the existing mechanism in that it already exists, like with Medicare or Medicaid. However, you mentioned some of the problems with how the regulation changes depending on the state. So both options have shortcomings. Either way, if we have a bill based on insurance reform, it has to be dealt with. And I've been dealing with these companies for eight years of my life. I know how to do this.

DD: Medicare for All will apparently get a vote now. Is that helpful?

JG: It's enormously helpful. It got pushed to the side of the debate for too long. Medicare provides about 60% of the care in dollar terms already in this country, and it's very popular. If you bring the rest of the population in, on a per-person basis, the cost would decline dramatically. The money in the private system is good enough to get this done and cover everybody. And the other important thing is that Medicare allows individual choice of provider. Whatever doctor you like, you can keep them. Of course, we know that private insurance restricts your choice of doctor. So this is the big lie in this debate, the idea that Medicare would have government telling you what doctor to pick. That's what happens right now.

DD: Let's move on. I noticed on your website you took a lot of time talking about the need to rebuild manufacturing. We're seeing this cash for clunkers program becoming very successful as an economic stimulus for the auto industry. Is that the kind of incentive-based programs that we can use to bring back manufacturing to America?

JG: Not exactly. The auto industry is not central, but it is important. That's why I'm trying to save the NUMMI plant. 1,200 businesses are direct suppliers to NUMMI. The auto supply industry is one of the largest in America. So cash for clunkers will help NUMMI. But what I'm talking about with respect to manufacturing is an economic theory that I developed in the 1980s. Basically, I figured that you need certain things to maintain the ability to lead as an economic power. You need a world-class education system and a commitment to research and development. Through both of those, you can create new things, with a high profit margin, whatever those things are, but new innovations that people find valuable. Eventually, those new things become a commodity, and once that happens, like all commodities, it seeks the lowest-wage place to be made. So those things get pushed off, and you have to create more new things, to keep feeding that engine. So that's what I'm talking about, high-end manufacturing.

DD: Couldn't the NUMMI plant be retooled to serve as a place to manufacture those new things, be they innovations in solar or wind technology or new batteries?

JG: Well, we tried this a few years back. I endorsed a bill in the legislature to provide a specific exemption for sales tax on manufacturing equipment to retool the NUMMI plant for hybrid vehicles. And that probably would have been enough to keep NUMMI open. But it didn't pass. Right now, what we're doing is putting together a package for NUMMI of incentives that will hopefully keep them in California. But it's more complex than that. This is like a divorce. You have GM and Toyota fighting over who owns what widget on the line. So there are legal issues in play now. I think we can get it done, because that's a very efficient plant, one of the most efficient in the country. But we have to manage this divorce.

DD: Education is another issue you talk about a lot. The Department of Education just put out this Race to the Top program to offer money to the states with good outcomes, but they are restricting the funds to states which incorporate student testing into teacher evaluations, and because California doesn't do that, they don't qualify. What are your thoughts on that, and this larger divide between education reformers and groups resisting their reforms?

JG: My question about it is basically, what is the equation between the test and teacher evaluations? Are we talking about just the test score? In that case, do I get to choose the students? Because the students and their backgrounds are a contributing factor to their performance. So it's a complex equation. There's a socioeconomic element to it. And it's very difficult to do to take everything into account. I don't think that testing should be the sole measure of a teacher evaluation. There are multiple factors. My daughter's a kindergarten teacher, and this year she got to school and there were a lot more kids in her class. So is that a factor? I think we need to evaluate teachers, but we must be fair.

DD: Do you support a reform like paying teachers more to go into poor-performing inner city areas?

JG: I've always supported reforms like that. I put up a bill in the 1980s to pay more to math and science teachers, to make sure we were attracting the best of them. And I support sending good teachers into the inner city. We have to pay our teachers better if we want to get the best outcomes.

DD: We are having such a tough time in California, what can the federal government do to alleviate some of the burden here where we are destroying our social safety net during a deep recession?

JG: Well, just to go back to education, one thing the federal government can do is fix No Child Left Behind. It was a great concept, but not good in detail. The reauthorization is coming up, and the Feds had better fund it. You can't place a burden like that on the states and expect them to deliver. So funding, and some reform of the law, has to get done. I don't think testing should be the only evaluation of students. There's a place for it, but we're building a nation of robots by teaching to the test. I have significant concerns about No Child Left Behind that need to be addressed.

DD: What about beyond that. Would you support a second stimulus focused on the states?

JG: I don't know whether there will be a second stimulus. But the problem is pretty elemental. California is the 7th, 8th-wealthiest place on Earth. We have made a decision, and it was a decision, not to invest in education. We have plenty of money to fund it, but we made the decision not to. The leadership has refused to use that wealth in the greatest resource we have, and that's our education system. It's clear to me that the federal government cannot substitute for the effort that California must make for themselves. We need investment, coupled with serious reform, to break the gridlock. Voting to tax students by raising college rates is just insanity. And the regents and trustees refused to support legislation for an oil severance tax to fund higher education. I brought it to them, and they wouldn't support it. We are the only oil producing state with no tax on the natural resources coming out of our ground. The oil companies have been able to take it for free for over a century. It's madness.

So the federal government cannot substitute for California. But I'll fight to bring money back to the state. First by funding No Child Left Behind. And also, there's the issue of medical services. The formula for state participation in Medicaid in California is 50-50, an even split between the Feds and the state. In other big states, that ratio is different. In Illinois, New York, it's more like 60-40, 70-30. Getting a better split in that formula represents a huge amount of money for California. And there are numerous formulas like that. So experience counts in understanding all that.

DD: OK, final question. On your website, I noticed very strong language supporting Israel, and also warning Iran not to continue with their alleged nuclear program. And you advocate for stopping shipments of refined oil to Iran if they refuse to cooperate. Now, I'm assuming that was written before the most recent uprising.

JG: It was, yes.

DD: Do you still believe, given the events over there, that it's a good idea to stop refined oil shipments, when it may hurt not the regime, but the very people in the streets who are resisting it?

JG: There's no doubt that the effect of an embargo would hit the economy and the people. That's what it's designed to do. I've thought long and hard about this, after watching the events take place, and I still believe in the concept. What you have over there is the current government's legitimacy being questioned. Does that mean they are more willing to negotiate on the nuclear program, to bring something tangible to the people? We don't know. So I think you have to pull together the interested groups, and that's Europe, and Russia, Pakistan, the Arab states, they might be more interested than us. And you create a larger coalition to change the behavior of the government. The uprising actually helps in that regard. And like in any negotiation, you have to have a big stick. So I would not drop the embargo possibility. And again, all of this is down the road a piece. Now another big stick would be bombing their facilities, and I think there are some unadvisable consequences to that. So I'd rather use the other stick.

DD: Thanks so much for talking to me today.

JG: Thank you.

CA-10: Endorsements, Endorsements, Endorsements

Lots happening in the CA-10 race: John Garamendi took the coveted Cal Labor Fed endorsement as well as the Napa-Solano Central Labor Council (Solano County is in the district). Mark DeSaulnier keeps picking up local endorsements. Joan Buchanan took the endorsement of EMILYs List, though I thought their principle was that early money is like yeast - aren't we five weeks out at this point? And Anthony Woods, in a major coup, scored the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which should give him lots of money and volunteer support. It was notable that DeSaulnier dropped endorsements of local LGBT leaders right after that announcement - obviously Woods has become a threat. You can see Anthony Woods tonight on Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO. And I have conducted interviews with Woods and DeSaulnier that I will roll out in the next week or so.

...a good rundown of the race, from Roll Call.

CA-10: Quick Sprint For September 1

The primary election in California's 10th Congressional District is set for September 1, with the general election on November 3. If nobody gets 50%+1 on September 1, the top vote-getters in each party advance to the general election, and given the orientation of the district, the top Democrat on September 1 will be the next Congressmember from CA-10.

The New York Times read off the conventional wisdom yesterday:

The lieutenant governor, John Garamendi, is considered the early favorite to replace Ms. Tauscher. Mr. Garamendi, a Democrat who had considered running for governor next year, said he opted instead for Congress in large part because of the abbreviated campaign [...]

Mr. Garamendi’s principal challengers among the Democrats, some polls show, are State Senator Mark James DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan. Both were elected to their current posts last fall [...]

The rest of the Democratic field is not as well known, though one candidate has attracted some national attention: Anthony Woods, a 28-year-old graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and a veteran of the Iraq war who was awarded the Bronze Star for two tours of duty. Shortly after his return from combat, while at Harvard working toward his master’s degree, Captain Woods told military superiors that he is gay, resulting in an honorable discharge [...]

Others in the Democratic field include Tiffany Attwood, a local planning commissioner and self-described “mom who plays soccer” — do not call her a soccer mom — and Adriel Hampton, a former reporter for The San Francisco Examiner who said he was entering politics because of a “Howard Beale moment,” referring to the fictional insane anchorman from the 1976 film “Network.”

We're slowly starting to learn further details. While candidates don't need to announce fundraising totals until July 15, Anthony Woods got the jump by announcing that he raised over $100,000 from 800 donors, which his campaign reports as twice as many as the number of donors John Garamendi announced a week earlier. He's pushing his online efforts:

Woods’ campaign is also leading his CD 10 competitors in online fundraising and online organizing. According to ActBlue.com, Woods is far outpacing the two other Sacramento politicians in the race–State Senator Mark Desaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan—in internet fundraising, and Woods has organized more supporters on Facebook (more than 4,700) than every other CD 10 candidate combined.

Woods has captured some national attention, particularly in the blogosphere, and we'll see if that translates to a quick-sprint campaign. John Garamendi seems not to think so:

Garamendi said it's a three-way race, and he's not counting Woods as a top-tier candidate: "He's a serious young man that's capable, and he's got a national issue and a good story to go with it. And that's to his benefit."

But he said Woods is similar to the half-dozen or so other confirmed or prospective candidates who lack a natural base for their campaigns: "Everybody regards me as the front-runner."

To that end, Garamendi secured a local labor endorsement, from the Alameda County Central Labor Council. There's a small patch of Alameda County in the district, particularly around Livermore. But the dynamic in the race thus far has been that Mark DeSaulnier locked up all the early local support, including Contra Costa County's Labor Council, and Garamendi had roped in the national labor groups. The Lt. Governor getting local labor support helps him with manpower.

I hope to have much more on this race as it moves forward, including some discussions on the issues currently facing Congress.

CA-10: First Major Candidate Forum In Walnut Creek

Given the relative ambivalence in recent special elections in California, where members of Congress have been elected with 10,000 votes or less, I'd consider it an accomplishment that hundreds of people flocked to the Walnut Creek Jewish Community Center last night, on a Friday night, to hear from six of the Democratic candidates who will seek to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10, once she is confirmed to an appointment at the State Department and resigns her seat. Reader dslc has a short on-site commentary here, and Lisa Vorderbrueggen has provided lots of multimedia over at Political Blotter. The audio recording doesn't seem to be working right now, but she had videos of every candidate's closing statement. In case you're just tuning in, those candidates include:

Lt. Governor John Garamendi
State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier
Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan
Adriel Hampton
Anthony Woods
Tony Bothwell

(Bothwell is a San Francisco-area attorney who doesn't yet have a campaign website, but here's his law office site.)

Sadly, this is pretty much the extent of major media coverage that exists of yesterday's event, despite several hundred residents and a Congressional race that impacts hundreds of thousands. Our dwindling press corps is definitely a problem. But based on the closing statements, you can decide for yourself who performed well last night. I'll just throw around some other links as the race really kicks into gear. As a side note, apparently Garamendi brought out the giant golden bear clearly planned as his mascot for a gubernatorial race.

• Luke Thomas interviews Joan Buchanan for the Fog City Journal, and Buchanan comes of as pretty knowledgeable about the challenges we face. She foregrounded her support of mass transit and BART expansion, health care reform (she supports single payer but wouldn't commit to supporting HR 676, and thinks that a plan currently moving through the House with a robust public option could be a "stepping stone" to single payer) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (she generally supports Obama's position).

• Also in the Fog City Journal, Harold Brown has an op-ed about Adriel Hampton, claiming that "SF lefties are missing an opportunity" by not rallying to his campaign.

• Anthony Woods is getting a fair amount of attention on the blogs. AR Dem profiled him in this MyDD user diary, and today, Woods took questions at Firedoglake in a live chat session with Howie Klein. I thought he served himself well.

• There's another Democratic forum scheduled for July 2 in Antioch (Antioch City Hall, Second and H streets).

Arnold Still Wants To Drill Baby Drill

As Brian noted, in the full list of the Governor's slash and burn budget, the offshore drilling proposal in Tranquillon Ridge off the Santa Barbara coast remains. After a key environmental group backed away from the plan, which originally was structured as a compromise proposal to allow an additional rig in exchange for ending all drilling in the channel by 2022 (which the Lands Commission determined was unenforceable), many expected the plan to be scrapped. But it remains, despite the fact that the California Lands Commission spoke out yesterday, calling on the legislature to put a stop to this power grab.

The State Lands Commission on Monday lashed out at an attempt by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to allow the first new oil drilling in California waters since 1969.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, chairman of the three-member panel, called the governor's effort "a naked power grab." At a contentious hearing in Santa Monica, the commission passed a resolution urging legislators not to go along with the plan, which would revive a drilling proposal off the Santa Barbara County coast that the commission killed in January.

The Commission doesn't out-and-out call this illegal. But they hold jurisdiction over oil drilling, and the Governor is simply trying to go over their heads. You can basically shut down the California Lands Commission if this goes through, because they will be rendered impotent.

And of course, while the Administration foregrounds the $2 billion dollars to be gained from allowing the leases in Tranquillon, he does not make a peep about charging an oil severance tax, to actually make the oil companies pay to take California's natural resources out of the ground.

Campaign Update: CA-10, CA-03, CA-47, CA-50

The Internet moves at, well, Internet speed, so parts of my House race roundup were already out of date or incomplete by the time I published it. So here's an update on a few races.

• CA-10: John Garamendi announced a significant series of national labor endorsements for the upcoming CA-10 race, despite Mark DeSaulnier having locked up the Contra Costa County Central Labor Committee endorsement and the local Building Trades (which cover almost 100 local unions) and chairing the Senate Labor Committee. They include:

AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
CNA: California Nurses Association
CFT: California Federation of Teachers
UFCW: United Food & Commercial Workers
CSEA: California School Employees Association
Laborers International Union of North America
International Union of Operating Engineers
CWA: Communication Workers of America

Many of those can provide PAC money, resources and support to Garamendi, leveling the playing field in a race where DeSaulnier captured all the early endorsements.

• CA-03: I passed on the rumor about Phil Angelides and CA-03 in my roundup, but local blogger Randy Bayne dismisses that report and notes that Elk Grove City Councilman Gary Davis will likely run, having met with the DCCC and begun the process of putting a team together. I don't agree with Bayne that a contested primary (Dr. Amerish Bera has also announced) would impact negatively on the race. Especially when the candidates have low name ID, a primary can increase their public profile and show them to be a "winner" in front of the district, at the end. Momentum can build. Primaries don't necessarily have to be nasty and debilitating, and I fail to understand why anyone would reject them out of hand.

Incidentally, I never took much stock in the rumor about Angelides, I simply thought it would be a decent line of inquiry, given his name ID, fundraising ability and progressive profile.

CA-47: One potential challenge to a Democratic incumbent I overlooked yesterday was Van Tran's run against Loretta Sanchez, profiled in Politico.

On the heels of an election marked by a dismal performance among Asian voters, top Republicans are aggressively recruiting California Assemblyman Van Tran, a Vietnamese-American, to challenge Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) next year.

If elected, Tran would be the second Vietnamese-American in Congress, after Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-La.), who won his seat in a 2008 election.

Tran has already been feted at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s March fundraising dinner as a guest of the committee’s recruitment chairman, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and he was encouraged to run by House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor. He also made a trip to Washington after last November’s election to meet with officials from the NRCC.

Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has assisted in the recruitment process, meeting with Tran and offering support for any potential candidacy. Tran was an outspoken backer of McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and helped him carry Orange County over Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary.

What the story fails to mention is that, not only does Tran not have full support among the Vietnamese community in the district, not only does Loretta Sanchez have experience easily defeating Vietnamese challengers, but Tran didn't even do that well in his own Assembly race last year, winning over 55% of the vote against Ken Arnold. If Tran is one of the Republicans' top recruits, they're in even bigger trouble than I thought. Incidentally, Sanchez' voting record has greatly improved over the past couple years.

• CA-50: I should have cited Francine Busby's Firedoglake chat from a couple weeks ago. I don't think I agree with her on this, though:

I’ve alway said that the Latino voters have to organize register and educate from within their own community. I see more activism and organizing going on than I did before. In fact, I will be attending a meeting on Monday of the reconstituted Latino American Democratic Club in Oceanside. We may have a strong Latina running for a state office who can rally the base. Also, Bilbray is their worst nightmare, so I expect that to motivate them to get out to vote. I reach out to leaders in the community as much as possible to maintain good communications and understanding.

Outreach consists of more than "hopefully they'll self-organize." You need to actually engage the Latino community instead of hoping some other local candidate can do it for you. Not a good sign.

CA-10 Impressions

The CDP Convention didn't only kick off the start of the 2010 Governor's race, but the start of the various Congressional campaigns throughout California as well. I'm going to have a full cattle call tomorrow, with my opening rankings for the races, both the potential primaries and the races with Republican incumbents. But I wanted to give the special elections some attention in a separate post. In CA-32, we have an election in just a few weeks on May 19, and Judy Chu has racked up a lot of local endorsements, while Gil Cedillo has made the worst kind of headlines over campaign spending and personal gifts. Given the demographics of the district, I think it'll be a close race either way.

But I wanted to hone in on the upcoming special election in CA-10, because I had the chance to talk with three of the five announced Democratic candidates while up in Sacramento. We don't know when Ellen Tauscher will be confirmed as a State Department undersecretary, and thus when the seat will open up and when the election will be scheduled. What we do know is that there are several good candidates in the race, all of whom offered interesting perspectives at the convention.

Mark DeSaulnier was anointed the successor to Tauscher inside the district by the local establishment, but since other candidates have jumped into the race, he's going to have to work for his victory. And that's absolutely as it should be. But though you would expect someone who appeared to be riding endorsement coattails to Congress to be some kind of creature of the establishment, I and some of my colleagues did not get that impression when we cornered DeSaulnier at the Netroots Nation Party last Friday night. DeSaulnier is an ex-Republican who joined the party as a youth in Massachusetts to vote for Edward Brooke, the first African-American Senator elected by popular vote in the United States. DeSaulnier was a liberal Republican then and grew far more progressive as he went on, eventually leaving Massachusetts to get out of politics (he was the son of a political family whose name was besmirched by corruption charges). But the bug caught him and he returned. DeSaulnier talked to us about revitalizing the public square, about reversing the trends found in Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone, and about how the Internet and blogs can go a long way toward doing that. He talked about how his first instinct with the special election was to tell the Republicans to go hang on their crappy deal. He talked about the importance of transportation in his district, which includes several bedroom communities, and how that can connect to solving our energy problem. He seemed like a serious and earnest public servant who was committed to using public policy as a lever to make progressive change.

On that score, he has a formidable opponent in Lt. Governor John Garamendi, who has been in the policy game for over 30 years. At a late-afternoon meeting, Garamendi reminded bloggers that he created the first tax credits for solar and wind energy in 1978, leading to the windmills in the Altamont Pass that stand to this day. He first looked at cap and trade in the early 1990s when he helped write some of the Clinton Administration briefs (while working in the Interior Department) for the Kyoto Protocols. He recalled his international peace efforts in Ethiopia and the Congo. He threw out dates from 15, 20 and 30 years ago talking about all the legislation with which he has been intimately involved, from energy to health care to the insurance industry to regulatory reform to the environment. He brings a unique and diverse skill set and a deep knowledge of the issues. And he can drill down to particulars. On health care, while he supports a single payer plan as the most efficient and effective policy, he can see a role for private insurance to play, as an add-on or a fiscal intermediary (but "we won't allow them to rip the system off"). However, he wants to make sure that whatever comes out of Congress, which is more likely to be a lesser reform, cannot be gamed by the insurance companies. "ERISA has become a great way for insurers to avoid the rules. A real guaranteed issue (where companies cannot deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition) would be fine, but a sham guaranteed issue would just be ERISA II, which the states wouldn't be able to fix. So the states can help, they can do things, but they cannot get there without real federal action."

Garamendi, as a knowledgeable figure, would be an asset in what he called "preparing the public to deal with" the realities of issues like climate change and rising sea levels. We have to adapt in California to an already-changing climate, and making the necessary changes will require leadership and authority, telling the public that they must "use the wealth of the nation to protect themselves." Garamendi projects a seriousness and a knowledge that would be crucial to this effort - you tend to believe him when he tells you "there are places in this state where we should not be building." On the question of CA-10 being a moderate district, his view is that the district has a set of issues, which you take into account, and then you try to conform those views with the facts and personal opinions, and "try to get the district to see your side - that's the essence of political leadership."

In addition to the establishment endorsee and the policy heavyweight, there's the fresh perspective of an Anthony Woods, who has this amazing bio (two tours in Iraq, biked cross-country for Habitat for Humanity, Harvard's Kennedy School, took a stand by coming out to protest the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy) and yet it new to the political scene. In my interview with Woods you saw that he has a head for public policy. I view him as a compelling story who can mature into becoming a compelling candidate. He has something of a low-key demeanor that will have to change for the stump. But I was definitely impressed with his leadership ability, his confidence, and his expressed desire to ride that wave of change sweeping the country and enter Washington without the baggage of the same old politicians pushing the same old ideas.

There's also Joan Buchanan and Adriel Hampton, and this should be an extremely interesting race throughout the summer, as we may even get a serious policy debate about where to best take the country.

CA-10: Garamendi Enters The Race

You can forget the John Garamendi to CA-03 boomlet, because he is officially announcing his intention to run for the vacancy in CA-10 caused by the departure of Ellen Tauscher, and he'll even do a little campaigning today in Fairfield and Concord, at two one-stop employment centers.
Obviously, Garamendi felt outgunned monetarily in the Governor's race, and thought that the CA-10 special election offered him the best shot at higher office. It's hard to fault him - this is a strategic play that makes a fair bit of sense. While Sen. Mark DeSaulnier has nabbed the early endorsements, the polls show both him and Joan Buchanan with fairly low name ID in the district, so Garamendi's long time in the public spotlight should serve him well. And without question he would improve upon Tauscher in that district, and could emerge as a real leader.

However, I don't see this as a slam-dunk yet. Those DeSaulnier endorsements, including the major local politicians and labor, are all pretty crucial, although I suppose they could be adjusted. Plus, there may be additional new candidates entering the race, which I'll have more about tomorrow.

For today, John Garamendi has the stage.

Campaign Update: CA-04, CA-32, CA-03, CA-10, CA-Yacht Party

Since it referenced me, let me start by shouting out to fellow Calitician Lucas O'Connor, writing on the front page of MyDD:

Since approximately the morning after election day in November, Dave Dayen has been writing over at Calitics about the dramatic Congressional pick-up opportunities in California that were missed in the Obama wave. Specifically, Obama carried 42 of California's 53 districts (I won't even begin right now to get into the state leg breakdown which is also a debacle), including eight districts held by Republicans in Congress. Well all of a sudden this week, the whole world is waking up to the Dayen gospel.

Attention started building about two weeks ago when the DCCC announced it would target all eight of these Obama-Republican California districts. But an announcement of DCCC targeting hasn't always meant a lot, so to really get going it took a new report from California Target Book finding in part:

Not only is the current statewide Republican registration of 31% a historic low, but for the first time there is not a single congressional, state senate or assembly district that has a majority Republican registration.

Apparently Bob Mulholland sent out a press release waking up to these facts last week. Now, I'm not going to hate on Mulholland for finally getting with the program. But let's make ourselves clear - this was true in 2006 and 2008 as well, and yet the state party failed to capitalize, by their own admission. So it's going to take more than one press release to show a commitment. Republicans have obviously become repellent to the broad majority of Californians, and they're too busy trying to recall each other to notice. It's upsetting that we haven't used this unpopularity in the past two election cycles, and I hope that the CDP can catch up with the curve.

They can start with effective recruitment. John Garamendi, who spoke to Greg Lucas as if he's still a gubernatorial candidate but who by all accounts will be running for Congress, ought to be pushed to run in the 3rd District, where he is the largest landowner and where there is currently no viable candidate to beat Dan Lungren in a district that is trending Democratic, instead of the 10th, where there are multiple viable candidates. Recruitment is an often-unremarked-upon but crucial element to winning elections.

Speaking of which...

• CA-04: This CapAlert piece certainly makes it sound like Charlie Brown might challenge Tom McClintock once again.

At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner at the Blue Goose Fruit Shed in Loomis, Brown and his wife, Jan, were honored as photographs flashed of Brown and supporters during four years of campaigning. The production was accompanied by songs from Bruce Springsteen's "No Surrender" to Neil Young's "Long May You Run."

And then Brown stirred huge cheers when he hinted he might have the stamina for one more try for Congress in 2010.

"We'll see what happens over the next few months - and whether you'll have the opportunity to get into any pictures again," Brown said.

In an interview, Brown said he is still mulling his prospects. He said he expects to decide by this fall.

We're big fans of Charlie here at Calitics, and should he run again we'll stand with him. McClintock would have the power of incumbency and a red-leaning district but the rumblings I'm hearing out of there signal that residents and local pols aren't all that enthused by the new Congressman's performance.

• CA-32: The LA Times weighs in with an overview of the 32nd race to replace Labor Secretary Hilda Solis set for May 19. They list Judy Chu and Gil Cedillo as the front-runners (though Emanuel Pleitez is profiled) and suggest that the race is a harbinger of the changing, minority-majority face of Southern California politics. They also mention the Betty Tom Chu controversy, as well as some allegations on the Cedillo side.

Judy Chu supporters suspect that Republican Betty Tom Chu, a Monterey Park councilwoman and a political opponent of Judy Chu, entered the race to confuse voters and harm the chances of her distant relative by marriage. Tom Chu said last week she did not have time to discuss her candidacy, but earlier told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune that she is running because she could not support any of the other candidates and wanted to offer voters an alternative.

Apparently motivated by concerns that the large number of Latino candidates in the race would split the vote in that group and give Judy Chu the edge, there also were signs of jockeying.

Democratic candidate Francisco Alonso, a former mayor of Monterey Park, and a campaign official for Democratic actor/filmmaker Stefan "Contreras" Lysenko each said Cedillo called them shortly before filing closed and urged them to drop out. A Cedillo spokesman said the state senator was merely inviting the others to "work together" with him and did not intend to discourage them from running.

Over the weekend, Cedillo won the endorsement of the LA County Young Democrats, while Chu garnered the endorsement of the state Democratic Party.

CA-10: Report: Garamendi To Run

Capitol Weekly is typically pretty clued in, and today they report that John Garamendi will run for the seat vacated by Ellen Tauscher.

We hear that John Garamendi is getting ready to jump into the Congressional race against Mark DeSaulnier for Ellen Tauscher’s vacant, East Bay Congressional seat. Garamendi has name ID in a race that will likely feature low turn-out, and has to be seen as a front-runner (this from a column that has not seen a lick of polling in the race). So, let’s go to the dominos, shall we? Of course, it’s bad news for DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, who both wanted to run for the seat. Of course, everyone’s got a free run at it, so there’s nothing to stop DeSaulnier or Buchanan from plunging into the race. DeSaulnier already has some top endorsements, and is unlikely to back down now. It’s also bad news for Dean Florez and Alan Lowenthal, who were mounting Lite Gov campaigns for 2010. If Garamendi wins, Schwarzenegger will get to appoint a new lieutenant, and Florez or Lowenthal would have to run against an incumbent. Of course, that didn’t work out too well for Bruce McPherson, so all is not lost.

This probably makes sense for him. While Garamendi arguably had the best policy set among the gubernatorial candidates, he just wasn't gaining any traction. And his experience in Washington will be an asset in this race. I would agree that DeSaulnier stays in, considering that he cleaned up every major endorsement, but that could all be subject to change given this development. Buchanan probably stays put at this point.

More Fear From Establishment Special Election Supporters

Jerry Brown has become the last potential gubernatorial candidate to make a view on one of the propositions on May 19, which is part of a pattern, as Brown has studiously tried to avoid giving any legitimate opinion whatsoever throughout the winter and spring. He supports Prop. 1A, not because he can advocate for its substance, but because it represented a compromise:

The 2010 contender for governor was tepid in his endorsement of the measure, but credited Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders for their effort in crafting a compromise: “The budget thing is complicated and it is daunting,” he said. “They tried . . . and did the best they could to come up with something.”

“You can’t make the perfect the enemy of the possible,” Brown told calbuzz.

It's a ringing endorsement. And I'm thrilled that the leading candidate for Governor finds the budget "daunting" - very reassuring. In addition, he declined to take a position on the other 5 measures because "I have to read them.” And let's be clear that only John Garamendi, among Democratic hopefuls, opposes Prop. 1A. Maybe he read it.

The League of Conservation Voters, similiarly, endorsed the special election ballot measures without telling voters what the propositions would do, but with a healthy amount of fear.

Failure of these measures would open up a gaping hole in the budget and leave critical protections for our health, safety, and prosperous future at great risk [...] The measures are not perfect, but they are our best option to protect critical funding for essential environmental, public health, and education services [...] We need all of these props to pass, or California will lose more than $23 billion over the next four fiscal years–forcing billions upon billions in deeper cuts to education and other popular services [...] When the state was near a complete shutdown this February, a small minority of legislators tried to use the budget meltdown to extract policy concessions on some of California’s most fundamental environmental protections in exchange for budget votes. Thanks to your help, we were able to fight back and defeat the most significant proposed rollbacks. If the Propositions fail in May, the budget deficit for next year will add an additional $6 billion dollars in cuts to essential programs to an already impossible budget.

That's not even true on the merits. The Governor and the Yacht Party GOT those concessions on environmental protections, exacting delays in regulating diesel pollution, to use just one example of the many concessions. The CLCV is shading the truth and appealing to fear.

Calitics will have their special election ballot endorsements early this week.

Campaign Update: CA-Sen, CA-Gov, CA-10

A few campaign items that will hopefully tickle your fancy this morning.

• CA-Sen: According to the San Jose Mercury News, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina is "seriously considering challenging" Barbara Boxer for the US Senate. Yeah, that would be challenging, wouldn't it? What a fearsome figure she casts, as a failed corporate CEO who got a $25 million dollar golden parachute while laying off half her company! Who was 20 points down to Boxer in the last poll! "Corporate CEO who got giant bonus for bad work" doesn't seem to me to be the profile of a political challenger anytime soon.

I'm still holding out the possibility that this is an April Fool's Day joke.

• CA-Gov: When you are having major staff problems 14 months before the primary, I'd say your gubernatorial campaign is in trouble.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi is saying goodbye to his senior adviser today. And whether he likes it or not, he is saying hello to speculation his upstart gubernatorial bid is struggling.

Senior campaign adviser Jude Barry, who formerly managed the 2006 gubernatorial campaign of then-state controller Steve Westly, let his new boss know that he would resign to pursue other opportunities on March 31.

On his Facebook page, Barry thanked Garamendi but didn't exactly offer an upbeat assessment of the campaign.

"I like John Garamendi and appreciate the opportunity to have worked with him and many other good people on his team, both on the campaign and in the lieutenant governor's office," he wrote. "But at this point, I've done all I can to help him. It doesn't feel right to just hang around the campaign. I wish John and the campaign good luck."

According to CalBuzz, Garamendi has yet to find campaign co-chairs or finance co-chairs, and we all know that winning statewide costs a ridiculous amount of money and essentially a two-year campaign, if not longer. I'm toying with the idea that California ought to have a slate of regional gubernatorial primaries, to encourage retail campaigning and keep costs down in the near term, to allow a greater multiplicity of views. Otherwise we will keep getting the same old hacks and rich people running for these seats. The state is big enough so that it makes a decent amount of sense.

• CA-10: Mark DeSaulnier continues to marshal institutional support for his presumed run for Congress replacing Ellen Tauscher, earning the endorsement of Senate leader Darrell Steinberg. Though he hasn't formally announced, DeSaulnier announced plans to walk districts as early as this week. That's probably a good idea, because a new poll shows that nobody has a decent name ID in the district.

A poll commissioned by potential Democratic congressional candidate and former BART Director Dan Richard shows state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier in statistical dead heat with Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan (15 and 13 percent respectively) and Richard trailing at 7 percent.

The poll showed DeSaulnier with a 19 percent favorable approval rating compared with a 9 percent unfavorable while 23 percent did not know. The remaining 49 percent said they had never heard of him. Ouch.

Buchanan received similar numbers: 16 percent favorable approval, 8 percent unfavorable, 29 percent didn’t know and 47 percent had never heard of her.

We just saw a special election in upstate New York where over 150,000 people voted. This special election, like most in California, will be lucky to get half that many.