As The Media Obsesses Over New York Special Election, It Ignores Leftward Lurch In California Special Election
As The Media Obsesses Over New York Special Election, It Ignores Leftward Lurch In California Special Election
In the past few weeks, conservatives and their allies in the press have obsessed over the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district. Pundits have claimed that the rise of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman as the likely winner in that race is a “referendum on the Obama-Biden spending agenda” and evidence of a rightward shift in the nation’s politics, despite the fact that this particular district in New York hasn’t elected a Democrat in a century.
While pundits have obsessed over the special election in New York, they’ve completely ignored another race that evidences a progressive resurgence. Today, voters in California’s 10th congressional district will go to the polls to elect a member of congress to replace former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who was brought into the Obama Administration to serve as the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.
As The Nation’s John Nichols notes, CA-10 is a far more competitive district than NY-23:
If [NY-23] elects a Republican Tuesday – and, though Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party line, he is now backed by local, state and national GOP leaders and organizations – the district will hold to the pattern it has been on since Ulysses Grant was president. On the other hand, California 10 was represented by a Republican until Tauscher beat him in 1996 – and in the past century, Republicans have represented the core counties of the district more frequently than Democrats. In other words, California 10 is the more historically competitive turf.
Despite the competitiveness of his district, Democrat John Garamendi leads Republican David Harmer by ten points in the latest polling.
What makes Garamendi’s lead all the more impressive is his progressive stances. While CA-10 was previously held by a Democrat, Tauscher legislated as a centrist. A member of the business-friendly “New Democrat Coalition,” Tauscher was a supporter of rolling back the estate tax, tightening bankruptcy rules, and expanding free trade agreements. Following the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2006, she famously warned her colleagues to not run “over the left cliff” by passing too much progressive legislation.
Garamendi, on the other hand, is an unabashed liberal. He is a strong supporter not only of a public option, but of a single-payer Medicare-for-all health care system, supports the creation of an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and actually defeated the hand-picked candidate for the Democratic endorsement.
If he is elected, and he likely will be, it will mark a dramatic leftward shift in CA-10. But with all the media coverage of NY-23, most Americans may never know that.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Leftward Lurch in California
It’s been said that where California goes, so follows the nation. Let’s hope this saying stays true to form.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmGO GARAMENDI !!!!!!!!
California District 10 sounds like it might be a great place to live and be properly represented ……….
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmGlad someone is making note of this.
I wonder if Turdblossum will give us one of his in depth analysis of this district.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pmWell, so much for going rogue. Heh.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pmBut with all the media coverage of NY-23, most Americans may never know that.
I bet the Americans that watch MSNBC will know this, and that the Americans who watch Fox News Channel will not even know an election was held there. Especially since we know that several MSNBC hosts read TP. Hi, Rachel! Hi, Keith! See ya later on the TV machine.
(I freely admit that this will still likely mean that most Americans will not know that.)
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pmYou cant be a Palin rogue while taking money from the same interests as before…
despite the fact that this particular district in New York hasn’t elected a Democrat in a century.
But but but its a referendum!! A political mandate, well maybe more like a Bromance.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pmEh. I think TP’s exaggerating the effect here, a bit. The CA-10th has a Cook Rating of D+11, Obama won by 31, and Ellen Tauscher won re-election by 34.
Though nominally a New Democrat…Tauscher voted for Waxman-Markey, supported same-sex marriage, backed strict gun control laws, was fervently pro-choice, and backed impeachment of Bush.
Still, Garamendi’s a welcome addition and will be a strong voice out in Cali.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pmCurrently Garamendi is leading in the polls by 8 or 9 points. District 10 is in the East Bay, over the hills and it is not a liberal district even though it’s close in to the SF Bay Area.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pmEnnuiDevine: “Eh. I think TP’s exaggerating the effect here, a bit. The CA-10th has a Cook Rating of D+11, Obama won by 31, and Ellen Tauscher won re-election by 34.”
I don’t think a Democrat ever held that district before Tauser won in ‘96. And, local Repubs were sure they were going to be able to take the district back.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pmAnd here we thought (Or MSM told us) that the only important election was in NY. Hmmm… MSM is going on and on how this is a referendem on Obama’s performance. Funny how they negleted to tell us about this particualar race? And these election are more about local and state politics. MSM is full of sh*t. The elections in 2010 are the important ones. And MSM knows it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pmThis is the race to watch. I’m not surprised the MSM is ignoring this one. Afterall, it gets in the way of the meme that NY 23 is a referendum on Obama’s Leadership (or lack thereof according to the Cancervetives).
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pmEnnuiDevine, the other thing to keep in mind is that Garamendi is more liberal than Ellen Tauser. The fact that the voters of that district are not only NOT going back to a repub, but going for a Dem who is even more liberal is significant because this is not known as a liberal district.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:03 pmEven CNN has a story up right now on the 10 races to watch in this country.
No mention of this race in California.
I guess it doesn’t fit into their storyline they want to portray.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:04 pmI’m not sure it matters a whole lot whether or not the LIVs hear about this. The progressive revolution will be like genetic evolution to them – not believed but real and operating nonetheless.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pmIt boggles that mind that it has only been 1 year since our “shift to the left,” now the media is pushing the imaginary “shift to the right” because of these fringe 20 percenters are getting SO MUCH airtime.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pmIt boggles the mind that it has only been 1 year since our “shift to the left,” now the media is pushing the imaginary “shift to the right” because of these fringe 20 percenters are getting SO MUCH airtime.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:07 pmResidents of New York are represented in Congress by 29 Representatives . There are currently TWENTY SIX Democratic Congressmen and women representating the great state of New York , with only 2 Republicans (Chris Lee and the moron , Peter King) ; another crappy GOP/conservative Congressman indicates a repudiation of the Obama Administration ?
I find it equally fascinating and even more hilarious that I’m being told these elections are referendums on Obama by people who never supported Obama in the 1st place ……….
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:07 pmsorry for the double post- thought i caught it in time.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:07 pmAnd of course Fluffington Post has the AP story up about NY, NJ and VA.
Nothing about CA.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pmSome good news. Lovely! Hope he wins.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pmAll of MSM seem determined to knock this President down. I find it fansinating how Bush got treated with kid gloves by the press and Obama is constantly knocked. Just look how much MSM does polls. Every friggin week there is a poll out judging his performance. During the Bush years polls on him were few and further between. Unreal. Big Business loves Repugs. And MSM is Big Business. It’s as obvious as John Bohner’s fake tan.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pmBob Somerby calls tonight “The Night of the Over-Interpreters”.
Remember. The closer the races, the more political ad money made by the networks. Political advertising is one of the networks’ greatest sources of revenue.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pmAryanna and HuffHo are crap ; they ban Liberals/Progressives constantly (especially yours truly here) , while allowing GOP leg humpers to infest and to post nonsensical and inflammatory shit , constantly…………
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm“Pundits have claimed that the rise of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman as the likely winner in that race is a ‘referendum on the Obama-Biden spending agenda’ and evidence of a rightward shift in the nation’s politics…”
____________________________________________________________
Um…no. It’s just evidence of a deep schism within the Republican Party — one that will doom them if the extremists win.
When a wingnut like Doug Hoffman manages to grab Jim McDermott’s district in Seattle, Barney Frank’s district in Massachusetts, or Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco, I’ll start believing in a “rightward shift”.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pmGaramandi also has mass name recognition, has been a player in state legislative politics for thirty years…
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pmPD: “I find it fansinating how Bush got treated with kid gloves by the press and Obama is constantly knocked.”
By pure coincidence, the last time the press was this aggressive in its questioning and prodding of a president was when the last Democrat was in office.
Remember the mainstream media rules of order:
Carter (Democrat): weak and inexperienced.
Reagan: The Great Communicator!
G.H.W. Bush: War hero! Grown-up!
Clinton (Democrat): weak, inexperienced, out of his element
GW Bush: The Common Man! You’d love to go to a barbecue with him!
Barak Obama: weak and inexperienced, out of his element.
Somehow, the American public has come away with these perceptions even in the face of a relentless “liberal media conspiracy!”
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:17 pmThe most ‘liberal’ senator was elected President with the most votes ever for that office and the rightwingnuts were saying how it proved the nation is center-right. It was bs then and it’s bs now.
Just because the Detroit Lions win a game, it doesn’t mean they’re Super Bowl contenders and everyone’s a fan.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pmThe CA-10th is an interesting district. It sent Progressives to Congress in 1912 and 1914, the GOP held the district for about a half century with a few interruptions. Dems held the district from 1976-1990. Bill Baker took over, and Tauscher eked out a victory in ‘96.
It’s not as progressive as the Bay Area, but the district definitely has a streak of left-wing populism to it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 pmDamn Librul media…. why aren’t they talking about this? Oh, right… I forgot it’s just the corporate media in control of our news now…
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 pmNiner@26, Yeah, And I think a lot of people are waking up to what is going on. Jon Stewart slammed CNN AND Faux News for their pro-Repug bent. The way he let his viewers see how CNN always cuts of Dems and NEVER quetion a Repugs fraudulant numbers. And Faux? Everyone knows they are as Right-wing as you can get. That’s why young people flock to MSNBC and Stewart and Colbert.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pmP.D. says: @30
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pmCaught Stewart for a few seconds today on comedy Central. He slammed both sides in that election. Makes a sad commentary on the news when the most impartial viewing of the days events can be found on a COMEDY show.
I mean The New Jersey election. completely missed my own point there
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pmUSN@31, MSM has let Americans down. Remember when Bush grabbed Andrea Merckel? MSM never reported it. Remeber George Allens ‘Muchaca’ moment? It took MSM DAYS to report that and only after it was on the Web for nearly a week. Just the other day, Virginia Foxx said something outrageuos and it barely gets a mention. It truly pisses me off.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pmHasn’t FAUX called all the elections yet?
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pmP.D. says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 pmYou’re close, but I think what you meant to say was Mainstream news reporting has let us down. The profit motive has reduced the bulk of television journalism into infotainment and talking point regurgitation.
Of course no one is following this race.. because there is no ‘liberal media’.. it’s all slanted to the conservatives.
This one looks like an easy win
so we have – one Democrat win, A new new jersey toss up, a new york drop out of the GOP, and one virginia Repub win.
It hardly looks like a referendum on anything.. except the further splintering of the GOP.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pmRepublicans are soooo yesterday.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 pmThe story of this election will bubble up to the surface but most likely only as a footnote.. ‘oh and .. this Democrat won in California.. hey look over here at New York!’ It’s all media sleight of hand..
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 pmP.D. says:
USN@31, MSM has let Americans down. Remember when Bush grabbed Andrea Merckel? MSM never reported it. Remeber George Allens ‘Muchaca’ moment? It took MSM DAYS to report that and only after it was on the Web for nearly a week. Just the other day, Virginia Foxx said something outrageuos and it barely gets a mention. It truly pisses me off.
I’m convinced that the Mission Statement of the corporate media is to mislead Americans and keep them stupid and ill-informed.
A nation of suckers is so much easier to fleece.
Relying solely on the corporate media for information is almost guaranteed to make one stupider.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm@39
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pmMust be why I stopped paying attention to it. Too much BS floating around the airwaves. Might seem a little much, but I think I’ll get my news and perspective from TP. I haven’t quite got my head around how to beat the spin.
*elsewhere.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pmThe corporate media want to turn America into an Idiocracy.
I really liked that movie.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 pmIt’s scary how close our corporate media and political reality are to it.
Leaning Left a tragic error in common sense.
Detroit’s Socialist Nightmare Is America’s Future: One of the most important things to remember about socialism … http://bit.ly/3dlNVj
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pmMr. Duke, that’s just your religious dogma again. What people like you don’t seem to register is that corporations take away people’s “liberty” all the time. They exert much more control over the average American than government. And, when we are at the mercy of corporate power, we are at the mercy of an institution that has absolutely no concern for our well-being. Civil government, on the other hand, is there to try to insure our well-being.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pmMr.Duke says: Leaning Left a tragic error in common sense.
Did the quarter in your pocket tell you that?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm“Garamendi, on the other hand, is an unabashed liberal. He is a strong supporter not only of a public option, but of a single-payer Medicare-for-all health care system….”
Garamendi knows the insurance game very well. He is a former California Insurance Commissioner.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pmMr. Duke, does the fact that deregulation led to the Savings and Loan disaster in the same way that deregulation led to the Banking disaster ever tend to make you re-examine your libertarian philosophy? And, if that doesn’t make you re-examine, why? After all, even Allan Greenspan admitted that he had to re-examine his libertarian assumptions after the financial collapse last year. How about you? Is there anything that could happen in the real world that would make you question your libertarian dogma?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pmSo, Dukie, you would rather have unregulated corporations running things based on their profit motive than an elected government that can see more than a bottom line?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pmI think Mr. Duke absentmindedly forgot to read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” Strange for such an avowed capitalist. Maybe he DID read it, but his reading comprehension skills are less than satisfactory.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 pmAfter all, even Allan Greenspan admitted that he had to re-examine his libertarian assumptions after the financial collapse last year. How about you?
As I recall, he said that he thought that the markets could effectively regulate themselves. He concluded, “I was wrong.” Ayn Rand devotees are the last ones who should be in government. No one can be sure if they intend to inprove government or try to dismantle it from within.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pmflavorino – Is your handle the name of the goo in “Idiocracy?” I LOVE that movie! “When Joe spoke in a normal tone, they thought he was pompous, and faggy…” Damn! :)
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 pmrecent news article headline:
Divided Republicans hope for big victories in Virginia, New Jersey
they don’t even see the problem in that statement?….
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:33 pm#50.. I agree Wayne..
Ayn Rand’s motives are either questionable.. or clearly transparent… I’m having trouble figuring out which..
I just know I always get an uneasy feeling from them..
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:36 pmour moronic media seems completely unaware this race is even happening —
they are salivating over the opportunity to tie some conservative/GOP three-sweep around Obama’s neck.
Even Ed Schultz is buying into it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:12 pmI understand I am on a progressive website, and I am providing a FACT, so this will most likely be scrubbed…
BUT…
in the opening paragraph, you mention that the NY-23 district hasn’t elected a Democrat in over a century.
Where did you get your fact?
Perhaps I’m overlooking something, as I am admittedly imperfect, but a quick wikipedia search shows that not only have Democrats served in that district in the past century–13 of the 20 that served since 1913 in that district were Democrats.
The ONLY way your ‘fact’ holds water in my feeble mind is if by ‘in a century’…you meant, ’since the turn of the century’.
The last Democrat to serve there was elected in 1989.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:07 pmThose are just pesky FACTS though.
We wouldn’t want to pay attention to THOSE.
This also may come to a surprise to you, since you communists–sorry, progressives– tend to commandeer a locale, incestuously proliferate your socialist ideals, then refuse to even listen to rational logic or facts…..
BUT…
The ‘adults’ of our country have written off California YEARS ago as a lost cause.
Your beautiful state has been hijacked by gangs of hypocritical-scumbag-hippy-stoner-lookin’ for my next orgasm-morons with little common sense and a head full of half-baked ideas.
You’ve already destroyed one of our best states with your liberal agendas and entitlement attitudes. We’re focused on damage control.
You keep your progressive leadership and socialist policies within your borders.
Just tell me one thing…does your McDonald’s dollar menu accept I.O.U.’s yet?
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pmjdmh1982,
I checked your link, and I think you failed to note the history of what constituted the 23rd Distrct of NYS. At times, our 23rd was in parts of NYC, which tends to vote Democratic. What TP, and the media, mean is that this part of NYS has not elected a Democrat to Congress since the 19th Century. NYS did not always have the same number of Congressional seats, and this particular part of NY has fallen into different numbered districts throughout our state’s history.
Does that help you understand it better?
Not for nothing, but if you show up with an antagonistic attitude, you should expect some blowback from that. Just some friendly advice.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 pmAs to your following comment, go screw yourself.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 pmWayne,
Thanks for the friendly advice.
That is why I asked to have sense made of it for me.
Thank you for doing so.
As for inserting that into the article, I found it to be very misleading. Forgive me, as I am new to politics, I fail to understand how that statistic/fact bares relevance to the argument, considering all of the redistricting/jerry-mandering that makes it seem that a Democratic leadership is UNHEARD OF in that area.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 pmAs to your suggestion of screwing myself…
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 pmthank you.
I might take your suggestion and jerk-off tonight while replaying the outcomes of the New Jersey and Virginia elections.
jdmh
What you MEAN is the MORONS of the rightwing have written off California since the state is too smart to elect any of you ignorant rightwing dipshits. It has 55 electoral votes so feel free to write them off. It is nice when the REALLY stupid people like YOU drop by and remind us that MORONS dominate the rightwing
November 4th, 2009 at 2:29 amJDMH
New to that worthless brain of yours too I see. Well get used to it you are going to be pathetically stupid your entire life
November 4th, 2009 at 2:31 amThe Democrats won both of the available Congressional seats, one of which was in an up-for-grabs district and one of which was in an extremely Republican pocket district. State politics may be specific to local issues, but the national legislative elections were a referendum on President Obama.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm