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.

Overhauling The Primary System

Considering that the Democratic primaries in 2012 won't be much more than a formality, I wondered whether or not there would be a strong urge inside the DNC to just move on and make no meaningful changes to the primary system, despite the epic car wreck of 2008. The other strain of thought is that, because 2012 will have no winners and losers, it's easier than ever to change the system because stakeholders will have less of an impetus to game it. Looks like the reformers won out:

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina will lead the Democratic Change Commission, which is scheduled to report its findings no later than Jan. 1, 2010. The commission, which is largely comprised of Democrats who supported Mr. Obama (and a few who backed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in last year's contentious primary season), will review and streamline the 2008 calendar.

"This commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process," Mr. Kaine said in a statement, "to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate."

Comprised of 37 members, the commission has this mission:

The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system.

Let's break down these issues separately. Kaine is setting a marker that no caucus or primary can be held before February 1 of the calendar year, which I think makes sense. Sadly, he's still holding to this front-loaded structure, where a first wave goes between February 1 and March 1. I'd rather see a rotating regional primary rather than a system which encourages practically every state beyond the first tier to go on March 1. Not to mention the fact that the DNC couldn't get Michigan and Florida to hold to these dictates last year.

On delegates, the wording is a little vague, but the resolution provides for "a significant reduction of the number of unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates in order to enlarge the role and influence of primary and caucus voters in the presidential nominating process." That's a solid principle, and ultimately I'd like to see the superdelegates phased out, or at least not phased in until a second ballot so that the voters rule first. Delegate allocation formulas will get a makeover as well, and good, because one Congressional district shouldn't be favored over another based on whether or not they have even-numbered or odd-numbered delegates.

Finally, on caucuses, there is talk about maximizing "the opportunity for full participation by Democratic voters," and I agree. Maine has an absentee-ballot system for caucuses, and that should be the model. I know many people believe that caucuses are inherently marginalizing and should be abandoned, but they hold value as party-building events, and that decision should be up to the inidividual state parties.

Anyway, I'm glad we're talking about this very early, to allow for the range of debate prior to the next contested primary election.

Christmas With The Candidates

I agree that in the short term, this impending move of primary days by New Hampshire and South Carolina and Iowa, possibly into December 2007, is good for democracy, because it'll weaken the Iowa effect and put some breathing space between it and Super Duper Tuesday. That also helps the current front-runners, who can now better survive early missteps, it should be noted.

But in the long run, having the primary process be over on February 5 and having a 9-month general election is horrible for democracy and for good government. My ideal would be no primaries until April 2008, on the regional rotation platform, or even picked by lot on New Year's Day so that candidates couldn't camp out anywhere before then. This primary system needs to be blown up and we need some innovative ideas to start over.

Regional Primaries

If this is what comes out of the absurd rush to move practically every state's primary up to Feb. 5, then I'm all for it:

The scramble among states to move up their presidential primaries next year has renewed calls from a number of the nation’s chief election officers to end the helter-skelter and move to a slower nominating process, such as by staging four regional primaries.

The National Association of Secretaries of State has dusted off its proposal to divide states into regions – the East, South, Midwest and West – and hold four primaries, each a month apart, between March and June. All states in a region would schedule their primaries on the same day. The order of the contests would rotate every presidential election year.

New Hampshire and Iowa would retain their positions as the first two states to choose a presidential nominee.

The only thing I don't like about that is New Hampshire and Iowa keeping their spots, but you'd practically have to get them to secede before they'd relinquish that.

It's good to see some solidarity among the other states for this kind of plan. They're resisting the urge for self-interest and honestly attempting to improve democracy.

What we're going to see in 2008 will be absolute chaos. Maybe everybody will step back from the abyss by 2012.

UPDATE: Good for Debra:

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) said she has mixed feelings about moves by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Democratic legislative leaders to advance her state's primary to Feb. 5 from early June. The state’s media markets are so expensive that candidates might bypass the Golden State anyway, she said.

On the other hand, she said California voters are frustrated that the only role they now play in the presidential nomination process is that of “cash registers.”

Let's see if she has the juice to move this idea forward.