The concerns about California's "Jungle Primaries" were misplaced.

[MineralMan]

In all of the Congressional districts that were in question, a Democratic primary candidate will appear on the November general election ballot. In none of them did two Republicans win enough votes to stop that.

California has become the bluest state in the USA for a reason. That progress was aided by that "Jungle Primary" system. In eight districts with a Republican incumbent in the House, Hillary Clinton won in 2016. We have eight excellent opportunities to flip seats now, following yesterday's primary elections. Voters won't flip them all, but they'll surely flip some of them.

California's Democratic Party knows what it is doing. We shouldn't second-guess their knowledge of their own state. Instead, perhaps we need to be learning from their overwhelming success in turning that state around.

[Xipe Totec]

1. It served its purpose; create conflict, drama, excitement. Bump the media ratings

It's all about keeping the viewers glued to the tv set waiting for the next reveal.

Reality is that it was a foregone conclusion.

[MineralMan]

6. I suppose. There certainly were a lot of hand-wringing threads on DU.

I lived in California for almost 50 years, before moving to Minnesota in 2004. So, I still follow politics there, since I spent so much time working in California elections as a Democrat.

[Wounded Bear]

2. I always figured that was way overblown...

Kornacki especially can be a drama queen when plying his big board.

[rso]

3. Primaries

Precisely. Unfortunately, the Media need a horse-race and sensationalism, so that even CNN and MSNBC are ignoring your point, but highlighting the fact that Newsom will have a Republican opponent.

[brush]

31. Probably best there will be a Dem v repug in the gov. race.

We dodged a bullet. If it had been Newsom v Villaraigosa, pitting the SoCal Dems against the NorCal Dems, that would've resulted in a Dem. gov. for sure but may have hurt down-ticket House races.

[Caliman73]

4. True

Democrats have been more mobilized in California recently. Hopefully it will last into the general and we can pick up those House seats and keep a super majority in the State Assembly and Senate too.

[brooklynite]

5. No, they weren't

The fact that the worst outcome didn't happen doesn't mean the risk wasn't there:
CA 10 - John Harder made second slot by 1.3%
CA 39 - Gil Cisneros made second slot by 5.4%

Add to the point that, to achieve those 2nd place slots, millions of dollars were raised and spent by the losing candidates; money that won't be available for the nominee.

[MineralMan]

7. And yet, there will be a Democrat on the ballot in

every district. That's my point, and it stands. Now, we move toward the General Election. The primaries are over.

[onenote]

14. Is that true of California District 8?

https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/8

Not that we had any chance of picking up this district anyway, but unless I'm reading it wrong, the two top vote getters are republicans.

[MineralMan]

15. Hmm...I may have missed that one.

Looks like you're right.

[onenote]

16. You and everyone else, it seems.

[MineralMan]

17. I've been looking at the districts with Republican incumbents, but

that were won by Hillary in 2016. That might be why I missed that one. I'll have to go look at 2016 results for CD-8.

[herding cats]

43. It went for Trump 54.7 - 39.6%.

It's not competitive in the least.

[FreeState]

39. I don't think this district was ever in question, its very GOP n/t

[onenote]

40. Right. I was referring to the fact that there have been general statements made

both here and in the media, that the Democrats will have a candidate on the ballot in every district. As I noted, the fact that the 8th District appears to be an exception isn't significant since it was never a likely candidate for a pick-up.

[Skidmore]

8. That advice should go for all states.

Learn yo speak the language of each state.

[MineralMan]

9. For House races, it goes right down to the individual district.

Only candidates who are a good fit, politically, for their district win in November. That has been, and always will be, true. We forget that at our peril.

[wasupaloopa]

10. It wasn't the Dem party, it was the voters. The voters set up the jungle

primary system not parties.

And yesterday the voters set up the primary races for November.

The idea behind the primary system was to take the party bosses out of the candidate selection.


We could vote for anyone on the ballot no matter the party affiliation.

[gratuitous]

11. This time disaster was averted

In some cases, however, only because the party leaned on some lower-tier candidates. The "jungle primary" has certainly been of more service to Republicans than Democrats, and in the future will almost surely fail democracy again. The fact that Hillary Clinton won eight California districts with a Republican Representative can be used to show that the will of the people of that district has been thwarted: When presented with a Republican and a Democratic candidate in the presidential race, the people of those districts chose the Democrat. Deprived of a party choice by the open primary system, they have a Republican representative who doesn't represent them.

[MineralMan]

12. The odds in the political election game are always changing.

When I look at California, overall, I think it's doing pretty damned well, progressively speaking. I have no complaints.

[gratuitous]

23. Again: "This time"

Such has not historically been the case, and while state house and senate slots have been satisfactorily filled, millions of Californians have had to cope with unrepresentative Representatives like David Valadao or Devin Nunes.

[11cents]

18. Exactly! "We averted disaster" in the bluest of states -- this should be taken as a warning, FFS

The jungle primary is indeed a disaster waiting to happen. For Californians, just reading through the booklet of candidates' statements is hugely dispiriting. Dozens of nutcases, some labelled R, some D, some third party, some no party -- running in a system so unpredictable and confusing that one is bound to finish in the top two at some point. And then there's the very conceivable result which was NARROWLY averted this time -- two GOP candidates running in the GE in a district that voted for Clinton in 2016.

The fact that it was the GOP, not the Dems, that got shut-outs from this primary doesn't mean that the system isn't tailor-made for warped results -- and what is gained from it? A platform for extremists and crazies.

[MichMan]

37. You assume that everyone votes by party throughout the entire ticket

Hillary may have gotten Republican votes by many who didn't like Trump and voted for a Republican incumbent or an attractive challenger for Representative. Don't know if you can blame that on the jungle primary or not ?

[krawhitham]

13. No it was not misplaced

Because of concerns the Dems had to dump 7 million in to CA to save the blue wave, 7M that should have been used for NOV not the primaries
Because of concerns some Dems were asked to withdraw from running to save the blue wave, which rightfully so pissed many off

If they had ignores the concerns we would be screwed today with little hope of retaking the House

[ramblin_dave]

22. Agree, concerns not misplaced. System needs reform...

The concept has some appeal since it may keep the loons from winning, especially these days in the Republican primaries.

But reform is needed, such as allowing a first and second choice, or ranked selection. The weakness of the current system arises from having too many candidates.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Yeah, it is still a potentially HUGE problem and is NOT the brainchild of Democrats in the first

place.

[honest.abe]

19. Just to clarify California is not the "bluest state in the USA".

In fact its not even in the top 5 based on a 2015 Gallup poll..

http://news.gallup.com/poll/181475/massachusetts-maryland-democratic-states.aspx

Mass, Maryland, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont are the top 5.. CA is 6th.

Things may have changed a bit since then but I suspect that is still basically correct. California has large sections of Red throughout the state especially in rural areas and smaller towns.

[MineralMan]

20. In terms of the number of Democratic House members, it still is, I think.

Of course, it's also the most Populous state, so, there is that.

New York also has its red areas.

[honest.abe]

25. Sure, if you are basing it on just total numbers..

but by percentage its not the bluest state which is what I would think is meant by the term "bluest".

[BumRushDaShow]

32. Yet ironically

3 of the 5 states that you list have Republican Governors (MA, MD, VT).

[honest.abe]

33. Maryland was due to 2014 midterm Dem voter apathy.

Also, Hogan is a "reasonable" Republican.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. I don't know if there is one state

that is the "deep blue" equivalent of say a "deep red" Oklahoma except maybe Hawai'i.

[honest.abe]

35. Maybe DC.. the pseudo state.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Agree. D.C. SHOULD be a state!

And after what happened with Puerto Rico, you can bet what they would be if they voted for statehood (and it ever came to pass).

[Garrett78]

21. CA isn't quite the bluest state, and the top-2 system wasn't a product of the CA Democratic Party.

It was pushed by a group led by Schwarzenegger.

Locking out Republicans is nice in that it can suppress Republican turnout in the general, but that happens in districts that would have been won by a Democrat anyway. Locking out Republicans is also nice in that less money needs to be spent by the national party, but as others have pointed out, far more money is spent on the primaries in an effort to make locking out Republicans possible.

I'd say the potential negatives outweigh the potential positives. It's not something I lose sleep over, but I'd rather do away with the top-2 system. Regardless, let's not sell this system as the brainchild of the CA Democratic Party...because it wasn't.

[zipplewrath]

24. It ain't the Jungle

In even a moderately blue state, honest districting, instead of gerrymandering, is what is resulting in the shift in California. Pennsylvania is headed that way as well. We need it everywhere and we'll do just fine. This jungle junk really doesn't serve anyone well.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Completely disagree.

[Gothmog]

28. I do not like the jungle primary system but the Calif. party spent a great deal of effort

to avoid being closed out. I have read about the efforts expended to avoid being locked out of key races. The fact that the Democrats were not locked out is also due to a great deal of time and effort (and money) expended by the party to avoid this result.

I hope that California gets rid of the jungle primary system

[MineralMan]

30. I'm not a big fan of it, either, really.

However, it wasn't a disaster in this primary. I don't vote in California any longer, so I'm out of the picture on how that state does things, really.

[awesomerwb1]

29. Disagree

It's playing with fire and can be a drain on resource$.

[Xolodno]

38. A lot of people here don't realize, that this could also work in reverse...

...in districts that are dominated by Republicans. So it is a double edged sword. Imagine if this was in play during the last "red wave".

I get some looking at this at the national level think "OMG the sky is falling!". But note, even if there were notable examples where Democrats were locked out...the Republican that wins is the one who can win over Democratic voters. So you could very easily have a Republican vowing to join the Conservative Caucus and the other vowing to never even entertain the idea.

Granted this isn't ideal, but, it might just bring back the GOP in California at least, to some sanity.

But for the most part, the GOP refused to compromise this time around and they will all face a Democratic challenger. Plus given this was the first "Jungle Primary", I suspect the Democratic Party will be more forthcoming in putting the screws to potential spoilers.

[mulsh]

41. The sheer number of candidates running for some state and federal office was a bit intimidating

however I don't know anyone who hadn't decided who they were voting for before going to the polls or filling out their mail in ballot

[kcr]

42. Dems won despite that system. It in no way is responsible for those wins.

The intent was to help moderate GOP candidates, as well as more moderate Dems. The thinking was extreme polarization of the two party political system was damaging. The jungle primary system was intended to take partisan politics out of the equation. This implies an equal playing field both in terms of the media and funding. In other words, this most definitely does not favor Dems, particularly progressives. Dems had to fight extra hard for any gains.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. 24 Seats MineralMan - that's all

It's just numbers.

Hold onto 194.

Take: 24 Seats. 25 Seats are in Clinton Territory.


The California Democratic Party knows precisely what they are doing.

I trust them just as much as I do my district in NJ.

As a point of reference for anyone who questions that number:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/26/us/elections/house-races-midterms.html

Solid Democratic: 182
Likely Democratic: 7
Lean Democratic: 10

199 Seats

Democrats are likely to target the 25 G.O.P. districts that voted for Clinton, plus the 12 red districts where they’ve raised the most money.

Lookie looky - looks like 200
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/03/lance_finds_himself_in_an_even_more_competitive_race.html

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Leonard Lance is in a more competitive race and is now the New Jersey incumbent most in danger of losing his seat in November, according a Washington-based publication that tracks congressional races.

The Cook Political Report, which had rated Lance a slight favorite for re-election, now calls his race a tossup in a state where President Donald Trump's job approval ratings sit in the low 30s.

"White-collar central New Jersey is now questioning its allegiance to the GOP in the era of Trump much more" than when Lance first was elected in the Democratic year of 2008, said David Wasserman, who follows House races for Cook. "If voters see this race as a referendum on Trump, Lance's moderate reputation may not save him."

And yesterday - Democratics cast 5K more votes in our closed Primary than Republicans. That number for this very red district - is astounding. Tom Malinowski for the win. Mark me.

[ollie10]

45. The chamber did not fire this time....

....doesn't mean playing Russian roulette is a wise policy.

Have we forgotten something? Primaries are PARTY ELECTIONS. During the progressive era this was one of the reforms that sprouted up to give the people more direct say in their government, replacing the old ways of smoke filled rooms, etc. It is still a way for political parties to choose their nominees.....

To me, it is a real eye roller to come up with a reform that makes it even possible for the choice in November to be between two Rs or two Ds. Some choice that is!

We dodged a bullet this time. Even a 1 in 6 chance of craziness is not a risk worth taking.

[Gothmog]

46. Crisis averted: How the Democrats avoided disaster in California

The DNC and others spent a great deal to avert a crisis https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/democrats-california-primary-crisis/index.html?sr=twCNNp060618democrats-california-primary-crisis0559PMStory&CNNPolitics=Tw

It didn't come cheaply.

The committee spent millions in the California primary -- cash that now won't be there in November when Democrats make their final push in critical races across the country. But Kelly called it money well spent.

"We have set ourselves up to win multiple seats in California in November, and we wouldn't have been able to go to the final match if we hadn't gotten Democrats through," she said. "It would have been over."

The strategy was simple, in theory: Prop up certain Democrats while knocking down the second- and third-tier Republicans who threatened to take advantage of a split vote on the left and slip into the top-two.

More challenging would be the execution: Pulling it off without doing more damage to the organization's already fraught relationship with the progressive grass roots, which often criticize the committee for untimely interventions and candidate recruitment tactics, would be more difficult.
California's 48th Congressional District was perhaps the stickiest wicket. The committee angered some local Democrats in May when it endorsed businessman Harley Rouda over scientist Hans Keirstead. The decision caused heartburn in the district's well-off seaside communities, which had been pretty clearly divided between the two candidates already, and led to new accusations that the national party was overstepping its bounds.