Tuesday, October 27, 2009

HORSERACE

David Harmer Might Be Running the Right Race at the Right Time

In the other special House election this year, in California’s 10th district, Republican David Harmer and Democrat John Garamendi squared off in a debate last night. One of my readers who was there noted, “Garamendi was stiff and pasty, he was not happy that Harmer supporters were there 5-1. Harmer was smooth and in his element. Will be posted on YouTube later tonight. Good moderator.”

I can’t quite come out and say Harmer’s going to pull out an upset, but it feels like the ingredients for one are starting to come together. First, it’s a special election, and so most of the traditional turnout models don’t apply.

Second, John Garamendi feels like the wrong candidate with the wrong biography for the Democrats to run at this moment. He was first elected to the California state assembly in 1974, when, for perspective, Barack Obama was 13 years old. He first ran for governor in 1982. He’s run for statewide office in 1986, 1990, 1994, 2003, and 2006. This doesn’t feel like the year to run as the Old Guard who will bring to Washington all of the common sense, productivity, and cooperation voters have seen in Sacramento. Garamendi’s campaign doesn’t feel particularly fresh, energized, or anything but cookie-cutter; the top of his campaign web site still thanks voters for their hard work and participation in the September 1 primary election.

Much of the perception of the district's being heavily Democratic comes from its Cook partisan voting index, which is D+11. Wikipedia explains:

The index for each congressional district is derived by averaging its results from the prior two presidential elections and comparing them to national results. The index indicates which party's candidate was more successful in that district, as well as the number of percentage points by which its results exceeded the national average. The index is formatted as a letter + number; in a district whose CPVI score is R+2, recent Republican presidential candidates received 2 percentage points more votes than the national average. Likewise, a CPVI score of D+3 shows the Democrats received 3 percentage points more votes than the national average.

Usually that’s pretty worthwhile, but maybe we ought to note that neither the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign nor the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign put much effort into California. Sen. Barbara Boxer cruised to victory in her 2004 reelection bid, too, and the previous occupant of this House seat, Ellen Tauscher, won easy victory with more than 65 percent of the vote in every election since 2002 (thank you, redistricting). Yet in the last two gubernatorial races, Arnold Schwarzenegger won this district both times; in 2006, he won every community in the district. Yes, he’s not popular now, and yes, most Republicans now swear a bit when they mention his name, but Arnie carried 42.2 percent in the recall and 56.2 percent in the 2006 gubernatorial race. So it’s not like the district is full of voters who vote for the candidate with the “D” after his name no matter what.

The district consists of parts of Alameda, Solano, and Contra Costa counties; the September 2009 unemployment rate was 11.3 percent in Alameda, 11.5 percent in Solano, 11.2 percent in Contra Costa. Garamendi’s not a congressional incumbent, but he’s a high-ranking state official when the approval rating of the Democrat-controlled state legislature is 13 percent.

The argument that Democrats will hold this seat tend to begin and end with the perception that it’s just a heavily Democratic district, and that’s that. But what happens if Democrats aren’t all that enthused about their candidate, while Republicans are mad as hell about what’s going on in Washington?

10/27 11:02 AMShare