California Election 2018: Updates and Analysis
In less than two weeks, Californians decide who will lead public education in the state. Tony Thurmond and Marshall Tuck, both Democrats, are vying to be the next Superintendent of Public Instruction, in a race that has drawn tens of millions of dollars in campaign money and evolved into a proxy battle between organized labor and education reformers.
Thurmond, a current member of the Assembly and former social worker, is backed by the state’s teachers unions. And Tuck, a former executive at a nonprofit public school partnership and a charter school network, has the support of nonprofit charter school advocates.
CALmatters’ reporters interviewed both candidates for our in-depth voter guide. Here’s a video comparing their positions on charter schools, teacher tenure, why they’re qualified for the job, and the issues facing California’s public schools.
All of this in less than 10 minutes.
Candidates Tony Thurmond and Marshall Tuck discuss the future of California schools and why they are best qualified to be the next Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Learn more about the candidates and watch their full interviews on our in-depth elections guide.
You know what they say: If at first you don’t succeed, run to be the chair of a major California political party.
Perhaps that explains the case of two runner-ups from the 2018 election season. State Sen. Kevin de León of Los Angeles—the former Senate Democratic leader who in November failed to unseat a fellow Democrat, veteran U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein— says he’ll decide within a few weeks whether to run for chair of the California Democratic Party. That follows former Republican gubernatorial candidate and state Assemblyman Travis Allen, who was defeated in the June primary and later announced he will be running to be the next leader of his party.
In a telephone conversation today with CALmatters, de León said that he has been asked to take up the California Democratic Party’s mantle by “a lot of activists and elected officials” within the party and is giving the matter serious thought. “My phone has been blowing up,” he said. He declined to say who has been calling and texting without first getting their permission to share that information.
De León won the endorsement of the party’s executive council for his Senate challenge last July. He ultimately lost to Feinstein in the general election by more than 8 percentage points.
If he does decide to run, de León would be seeking to replace Eric Bauman, who resigned in late November after being accused of sexual harassment. Allen hopes to replace current California Republican Chairman Jim Brulte, who decided not to seek re-election.
Neither job is uncontested. In the Republican camp, Allen would be running against the party’s vice chair, Trump-skeptic David Hadley, as well as party activist Stephen Frank. If de León decides to run, he’d be facing off against Kimberly Ellis, the progressive activist who narrowly lost the chair race last year in a bitter contest with Bauman. Ellis has plenty of support across the more left-leaning elements of the Democratic base, but de León said that he could unite “the Bernie and the Clinton folks.”
That is, if he decides to run in the first place.
Californians may have just voted overwhelmingly for more of the same—boosting Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Legislature and replacing one Democratic governor with another for the first time since the 1880’s—but many are still eager for major changes to state policy. And a majority are downright pessimistic about California’s future.
Half of all respondents, and 60 percent of respondents identified as likely voters, predicted that children growing up today in California will face a bleaker financial future than their parents. That impending decline could arrive sooner than we think. Asked if California should expect an economic downturn in the next year, respondents were split. And like the state’s economic growth, that optimism was not evenly distributed: majorities of coastal city residents foresee good times ahead, while pessimism clustered in the Inland Empire and Central Valley.
The number of Californians who believe “the good times might be over” was “decidedly different than even a few weeks before the election,” said Mark Baldassare, president of the institute.
The rising pessimism could be the result of a waning stock market or news of the county’s still-unresolved trade war. But a general sense of economic anxiety is also in keeping with a long-term trend since the last decade’s Great Recession, he said.
“We’re at this point in the recovery which should have given people more of a sense of economic security and there are a lot of people who feel insecure,” said Baldassare.
Evidently: 67 percent of respondents said that the state was divided into haves and have-nots—and 45 percent considered themselves have-nots.
Among them, African Americans, Latinos, people without any college education, non-citizens and renters were disproportionately represented. Many of those groups are also more likely to be non-voters. Sure enough, 59 percent of those not registered to vote considered themselves on the losing end of the state’s economic fortunes, compared to only 36 percent of likely voters.
That grim economic assessment seems to have translated into higher support for expanded social programs. Fifty-seven percent of adults said they want lawmakers to spend some of the state’s multi-billion dollar budget surplus on increasing education, health and human service funding. One in six wanted universal healthcare to be a “high” or “very high” policy priority for incoming state lawmakers. A majority said the same of tuition-free community college.
But only 48 percent said there should be such focus on statewide universal pre-school, one of Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom’s top priorities.
This week, with California’s 2018 midterm behind us, we’ll be offering insights into the results with five charts—one per day. Today, Friday, we published our final installment. About 416,000 ballots await tabulation, so we’ll update these posts as warranted.
Skim how California voted on various ballot propositions—”yes” to more borrowing for affordable housing, “no” to the gas tax repeal, “yay” for bigger chicken cages—and you might think people across the state feel pretty much the same way about these things.
Which, of course, they don’t.
Proposition 6, which sought to nix a gas tax increase and thereby cut transportation funding about $5 billion per year, failed. But not everywhere. A majority of voters in most of the state’s inland counties voted for the measure. They did so despite the fact that many of these large, sparsely-populated counties receive a disproportionate amount of state road funding per person. Chalk it up to a combination of car dependence, tax-aversion and support for the Republican Party backing the measure.
So looks can be deceiving. Prop. 6 won a majority of the state’s landmass, but elections aren’t won by acreage. Overwhelming opposition in the state’s big cities (83 percent of San Franciscans and 61 percent of Angelenos voted “no”) dragged the ballot measure to defeat.
Then again, sometimes looks say it all.
Prop. 10, the unsuccessful attempt to repeal statewide restrictions on rent control and another one of the most controversial propositions on the ballot, went down just about everywhere. The two exceptions were San Francisco and Alameda County. Those two counties were also alone in opposition Prop. 11, a paramedic breaktime initiative.
For the record, those were not the most geographically lopsided outcomes among the 11 ballot measures. Tiny Alpine County was the only county that supported Prop. 8, the profit cap on dialysis clinics. But it was close: 283 people voted yes while 269 opposed.
No county carried Prop. 5, the measure to allow older homeowners to carry their Prop. 13 property tax benefits when they move.
But that’s where the unanimity ended. Looking at which propositions received the most “yes” votes in each locale, counties were split across six measures: Prop. 2 (housing/mental health bond), Prop. 4 (children’s hospital bond), Prop. 6 (gas tax repeal), Prop. 7 (to start the process of ditching the biannual switch from Daylight Saving to Standard time), Prop. 11 (paramedic breaks) and Prop. 12 (requiring larger cages for hens and other farm animals).
Sadly for the seven counties that loved the idea of repealing the gas take hike, that was the only measure on the list above to fail.
As for which propositions received the most “no” votes, counties split their disdain three ways.
The gas repeal measure, as noted, was largely rejected by the coast. Likewise, in nearly every county not touching the Pacific, the measure to allow more rent control was the proposition that received the highest number of “no” votes. That more than canceled out the support that the measure received in the Bay Area.
And Prop. 5? While no county much liked it, ell, Yolo, Sacramento, Humboldt and Mono were especially down on the property tax break.
The resignation of California Democratic Party chairman Eric Bauman comes at a particularly emotional moment in California politics—on the heels of historic wins for Democrats and after a year of bipartisan reckoning over the apparent culture of sexual bullying within the political class.
Bauman became the latest casualty of the #MeToo movement when he resigned Thursday, hours after Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom called on him to step down over allegations that he harassed staff members and party activists with numerous lewd comments and incidents of inappropriate physical contact. Bauman said he has a drinking problem and would seek treatment.
“I have made the realization that in order for those to whom I may have caused pain and who need to heal, for my own health, and in the best interest of the Party that I love and to which I have dedicated myself for more than 25 years, it is in everyone’s best interest for me to resign my position as chair of the California Democratic Party,” Bauman said.
That Bauman’s alleged behavior persisted even as the public gaze focused so heavily in the last year on rooting out sexual harassment may be a testament to the counterproductive role alcohol too often plays in Capitol culture. Or it may point to the declining significance of political parties—how important can a party leader be, after all, if he can decree “zero tolerance,” as Bauman did, for sexual harassment and then openly proceed to harass his staff?
But most of all, Bauman’s resignation is a sign that the #MeToo story is far from over.
“There are a lot of untold stories, and frankly, a lot of bad actors who haven’t been held accountable yet,” said Samantha Corbin, a lobbyist whose public letter last year kicked off the anti-harassment movement in the state Capitol.
During the past year of tumult and introspection, three legislators resigned, facing harassment allegations, and several others were publicly reprimanded for behavior ranging from using vulgar language to giving unwanted “noogies.” On the very day Bauman resigned, the Assembly released records saying Democratic Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia violated sexual harassment policy by acting “overly familiar” with a staffer when, in a drunken state, she grabbed him at a legislative softball game. Throughout this year, the Legislature passed dozens of laws to combat harassment in workplaces statewide, and formed a special committee that crafted a plan to improve the culture inside the Capitol.
Bauman, who is gay, spoke out last year in favor of legislation to give Capitol staffers whistleblower protection if they report misconduct. The Democratic convention he organized in February included new precautions to keep participants safe, such as extra security and a hotline for reporting harassment and assault.
Now Bauman himself will be the focus of an inquiry by a new Commission of Inquiry and Recognition being formed by a Democratic party activist in Los Angeles who says he’s been a victim of Bauman’s inappropriate advances. The commission includes former state schools superintendent Delaine Eastin.
“There is going to be a lot of focus on who enabled this. There are still people in party leadership who enabled this to persist as long as it has,” said Hans Johnson, president of the East Area Progressive Democrats club.
“They are part of the breakdown in governance in the party that contributed to the worsening and widening of the hurt (Bauman) has been allowed to inflict.”
Johnson said Bauman doesn’t deserve credit for California Democrats’ electoral victories this month—which included flipping seven seats in the House, capturing every statewide office and gaining supermajorities (and then some) in both chambers of the Legislature.
Political scientists and campaign strategists agreed that party leadership seemed to be only one factor among many in the blue wave this election. Democrats, they noted, also were buoyed by Californians’ deep dislike of Republican President Donald Trump, as well as a strong push from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and numerous labor and activist groups that raised huge sums of money and organized campaign volunteers.
“The state party did not have a major role in what happened in regards to Congress,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a retired political science professor at the University of Southern California.
“What the state party is, by and large, is a way for donors to launder money,” she said, because the law limits how much they can give to individual candidates but not how much they can give to the state party.
The party hired an employment lawyer to investigate the accusations against Bauman. That process will continue despite his resignation, said acting-Chair Alexandra Gallardo Rooker, and an executive summary of the findings will be made public.
Rooker will continue to serve as the party chair until delegates elect a new leader, likely at their convention in May. What’s not clear, however, is how many more political figures will fall before the #MeToo story is over in California.
This week, with California’s 2018 midterm behind us, we’ll be offering insights into the results with five charts—one per day. Today, Thursday, about 442,000 ballots are still waiting to be tabulated, so we’ll update these posts as warranted.
No doubt you’ve heard about the blue wave: the electoral tsunami of left-of-center enthusiasm that slammed into California on election day, flipping seven of 14 GOP-held congressional districts to the Democrats. But that was just the wave’s frothy cap.
For every single congressional district that featured a face-off between a Democrat and Republican in this midterm and the last, the California electorate shifted further blue. The average Democratic gain was 9 percentage points since 2014.
As the sea of leftward pointing arrows above shows, Democrats amassed a larger share of the vote in all but five districts this year, including several that stayed in GOP hands. In 2014, for example, Central Valley Republican Rep. Devin Nunes won 72 percent of the vote. This year (at last count) he snagged a slim majority of 53 percent.
There was a leftward shift in most solidly blue districts this year too. Take Rep. Ted Lieu in Torrence. In 2014, he won his seat by a little less than 60 percent of the vote, leaving 41 percent of the vote for his Republican opponent. This year, he won by an even more resounding 70 percent.
The only districts that proved immune to the national wave of anti-Trump energy that swept the country—and swept Democrats back into the House majority—were districts where a Democrat and Republican did not square off against one another in one of the two election years (those districts are indicated by dashed lines above).
In California’s 8th congressional district, which covers much of the state’s eastern desert, two Republicans, Rep. Paul Cook and former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, made it into the top two. That sole GOP shutout in the primary allowed the Republicans to rack up 100 percent of the vote there this year.
The other exceptions are true blue enclaves such as Burbank or San Jose where Republicans were shutout in 2014. This year, Republican candidates in those districts were able to improve upon their party’s prior vote share of 0 percent—but only modestly.
Democratic districts such as the one based in San Pedro didn’t see a Republican compete in either year. Not much room for Democratic improvement there.
If the graphic above looks familiar, it’s because we’ve run a similar version before. In a post from earlier this summer, we showed how the share of the vote going towards Republican candidates in the June primary fell dramatically in most seats between 2014 and 2018. The title of that article was “California’s Blue Wave watch: Why this graphic should worry Republicans.”
In retrospect, that sounds about right.
This week, with California’s 2018 midterm behind us, we’ll be offering insights into the results with five charts—one per day. Today, Wednesday, about 442,000 ballots are still waiting to be tabulated, so we’ll update these posts as warranted.
Some races are more popular than others.
Sure, even the least engaged voters pick one of the candidates running to fill the state’s chief executive. This year, some 12 million cast their vote for either Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom or Republican businessman John Cox. But as voters work their way down the state’s super-sized ballot, within which they were asked to weigh in on the more obscure positions of California governance, many had a habit of shrugging and moving on.
In fact, a closer look at the statewide races that received the fewest votes this year underscores how California’s electoral system is leaving Republican and GOP-leaning voters with few good options.
First, let’s start with the most popular races.
At last count, the governor’s race received the highest number of votes, followed by the contest for secretary of state and attorney general. Among the statewide ballot measures, voters were most likely to weigh in on Proposition 6 (which would have repealed an increase in the gas tax) and Prop. 10 (which would have nixed state restrictions on rent control).
At the bottom of the list are four races for statewide office: insurance commissioner, U.S. Senate and state schools superintendent and lieutenant governor. The race for the state’s second-ranking executive officer received just shy of 2 million votes—16 percent fewer votes than those cast for governor.
The lackluster enthusiasm for the school chief race may come as a surprise to the various donors and interest groups who poured more than $63 million into that race, making it the most expensive on the ballot. (That works out to a little over $6 per vote, for those counting at home).
What do all those least-popular races have in common? There wasn’t a Republican to be found competing in any of them.
That’s thanks in large part to California’s top-two election system, which allows only the first- and second-place candidates from the primary to compete in the general election, regardless of which party they belong to. In the contests for U.S. senator and lieutenant governor, only Democrats made the cut. In the insurance regulator race, Steve Poizner, a former Republican, ran as a political independent. And though the race to be California’s schools superintendent is nonpartisan by law, it so happens that both candidates were Democrats.
One argument in favor of the top two is that it strips political parties of power to pick and choose nominees. It also, in theory, drives candidates and voters to the ideological center. In a race with two Democrats, for example, centrist and right-leaning voters theoretically will be more likely to choose the moderate in the race.
But the numbers suggest that in the face of two blue choices, many Republican-leaning voters opted not to choose at all.
An analysis of county election data shows that the voters most likely to leave the double-D races for lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate blank on the ballot live in counties with more registered Republicans than Democrats.
For example, in San Francisco County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by over 50 percentage points, there was only a modest 2.6 percent drop off in votes between the race for governor and the race for U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, in Lassen County, one of the state’s most conservative, nearly one-quarter of voters who cast their ballots for governor skipped the U.S. choice.
Presumably, some Democratic voters were turned off by the partisan uniformity as well. The competing “D”s and “R”s on the ballots make the process of choosing a candidate relatively easy for most voters who already lean one way or another. Between two progressives like Eleni Kounalakis and Sen. Ed Hernandez, the two lieutenant governor candidates, it’s possible many Democrats were stumped.
But the results suggest that the drop-off mostly came from Republicans: Rather than choose a “lesser of two evils,” many right-leaning voters simply didn’t choose at all.
This week, with California’s 2018 midterm behind us, we’ll be offering insights into the results with five charts—one per day. Today, Tuesday, about 580,000 ballots are still waiting to be tabulated, so we’ll update these posts as warranted.
After the shellacking that California Republicans took in this year’s midterm elections, many figures within the more pragmatic wing of the party establishment had hoped that the party would turn away from the divisive politics of President Donald Trump and seek to become a more diverse coalition.
But in the short term, the midterm election whittled away all the purple sections of the state now represented by the GOP, leaving only the scarlet-red core. With striking losses in Orange County and the Central Valley, the Republican Party’s diminished congressional delegation will now represent a less diverse and less well-off subset of Californians—and an electorate that was most enamored with the president. It will also be a much smaller portion of the state.
This year, 26 percent of Californians are represented in Congress by a Republican. Next year, it will be down to 13 percent.
Prior to the election, the average Californian living in a Republican-held district earned $65,634 per year. That’s slightly above the state average of $63,783. The average district was also slightly less educated than the state as whole (19 percent have bachelor’s degrees compared to 20 percent statewide) and significantly whiter (49 compared to 38 percent).
But in an election that cost them seven of their 14 seats, the party was driven inland, losing every seat that touches the Pacific Ocean and tossed out of its former stronghold in Orange County. It also lost the suburbs north of Los Angeles and (assuming Democrat T.J. Cox maintains his lead over Rep. David Valadao in Hanford) two seats in the Central Valley.
And so come January, when only half of the Republican delegation will return to Washington D.C., the average income of the new, diminished GOP-represented electorate will be nearly $5,000 lower. It will also be majority non-Latino white. Only 16 percent of the population will have a college degree. And notably, every district in which less than a majority of voters supported Trump in 2016 abandoned the Republican brand this year. Only Trump country remains.
This could make it all the more difficult for Republicans who want to rebuild the party. While the GOP’s broader electoral viability in California may depend on its willingness to disassociate itself from the politics of the president, the remaining Republican members of Congress, representing the most fiercely Trumpian corners of the state, may have little incentive to do that.
Check out yesterday’s post on how much each ballot measure campaign spent per vote here.
This week, with California’s 2018 midterm behind us, we’ll be offering insights into the results with five charts—one per day. Today, Monday, up to 700,000 ballots still need to be counted. We’ll update these posts as more votes are tallied.
Ballot propositions are an expensive business in California. In the lead-up to November’s election, advocates spent an eye-popping $409 million for or against 11 ballot measures. Among these were a mix of earnest policy initiatives of broad public interests (say, making daylight saving time permanent) and narrow proposals that sought to benefit a narrower interest or allowed unions and businesses to beat up on one another (in case you wondered why we were asked to vote on break times for paramedics).
So who got the best deal at the ballot box?
The award for priciest victory goes to the dialysis clinics that successfully opposed Proposition 8. Private medical companies such as DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care spent more than $111 million in defeating the union-backed initiative that would have placed a cap on their profits. That comes out to over $16 per vote.
Was it worth it? Perhaps it’s all relative: DaVita raked in $73 million last quarter alone.
The opponent of Prop. 8 (the Service Employees International Union) not only failed to shackle the profits of the state’s dialysis clinics as planned, they ended up spending more than any other losing campaign—$38 million or $8.49 per vote. Still it wasn’t a total bust for the union. Many saw Prop. 8 as an effort by the union, which has been trying to organize clinic employees for years, to bring the for-profit dialysis companies to the bargaining table. If this was all a pressure tactic, forcing the other side to spend $111 million is a lot of pressure.
The second most expensive victory goes to the opponents of the gas tax repeal effort, Proposition 6. A coalition of labor unions, business groups and Democratic Party allies spent nearly $51 million, or $7.81 per “no” vote. That success will guarantee that the state keeps spending an additional $5 billion of transportation projects each year.
Meanwhile, supporters of Proposition 5, which would have allowed older and disabled homeowners to take their low property taxes with them when they move, spent more than $13.2 million for the property tax break. Much of that funding came from the California Realtors. For that $2.88 per ballot investment, proponents came home with a grand total of nothing. That may be especially galling given that the opponents of the measure were able to convince over 6.7 million voters to swat it down for a mere $3.4 million. That’s just 50 cents per vote.
Still, nobody got a better deal than the opponents of Proposition 3. While supporters of the $8.9 billion water bond spent $6 billion arguing the case for canal upgrades, wetland restoration projects and water quality upgrades, opponents of the failed ballot measure spent nothing at all.
On election night, Susannah Delano, executive director of Close the Gap CA, a group focused on increasing the share of women in the state legislature, made a prediction: “2018 will be the biggest single leap for women in state history.”
Now the numbers are in.
Sure enough, the 2018 midterm election in California was a high-water mark for women seeking elected office. But it was also a reminder of just how male-dominated our politics remain.
Though not every race has been called, it appears 54 women were elected at the state and federal level across California this year. That includes 29 members of the Legislature and 19 members of Congress, as well as three statewide constitutional officers—Lt. Gov.-elect Eleni Kounalakis, Treasurer-elect Fiona Ma and state Controller Betty Yee.
That’s a higher number than any other election this century. It’s also a record-high rate: one-in-three winning candidates this year were women. Or, to put it another way, men hit a record-low, winning a measly two-thirds of all state and federal races across the state.
Many saw this coming. Since our last federal last election, we’ve seen the inauguration of President Trump and two rounds of nation-spanning Woman’s Marches; we’ve seen the downfall and prosecution of Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein and the emergence of the #MeToo movement; we’ve seen the resignation of lawmakers in Washington D.C. and California in the face of sexual assault allegations and the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice despite them.
And while many have dubbed 2018 the second “year of the woman,” a redux of 1992 when a record number of women were elected to federal office including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, it might be more accurate to call 2018 the “year of the Democratic woman.”
Just 7 percent of the female candidates who won this year in California were Republicans—a total of four women. That isn’t simply because there are fewer Republican women candidates. Republicans in a blue state like California are less likely to win than Democrats, but male GOP candidates were much more likely to win than their female counterparts.
Of all the candidates who ran, including those in the primary, only 10 percent of Republican women went on to win in this year’s general election (compared to 17 percent of Republican men). Meanwhile, 40 percent of Democratic women won their races (compared to 35 percent of male candidates).
In concrete terms, the 2018 election results mean that many more of the state’s residents will now be represented by women. Or, at least, by one. The two maps below offer a before and after picture, with orange showing those regions with at least a female congressional representative, assemblywoman or state senator. Viewing the two maps side by side, you can see the large strides toward something approximating gender equity in our state politics. You can also see how much more work there is to be done.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this post stated that 53 women won their state or federal elections this year. The number is actually 54. We have revised text and graphics to reflect the correction.
President Donald Trump is largely to blame for the GOP wipeout in California’s midterm election, two of the state’s most prominent pollsters said Monday. He’s so widely disliked in California that his Republican presidency motivated voters to help Democrats flip at least six House seats, which appears to have had the ripple effect of flipping about seven GOP seats in the state Legislature.
“As one of the most polarizing figures in modern U.S. politics, Trump really did set the table for the potential blue wave that eventually swept the state. He gave Democrats and the Democratic Party here an historic opportunity and they exploited it to the fullest,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies poll.
He offered some numeric evidence to back up his conclusion. Before the election, DiCamillo conducted polls for the Los Angeles Times in eight contested House races, all represented by Republicans. In six of those districts, Trump’s approval rating was below 50 percent. Democrats flipped all six. In two districts—held by GOP Reps. Duncan Hunter and Devin Nunes—Trump’s approval rating was, respectively, 54 percent and 56 percent. Both Republican incumbents won re-election.
“There was this extremely strong correlation between how voters were rating the job that President Trump was doing as president and who they were supporting in their district for Congress,” DiCamillo said.
He compared Democratic successes in the Trump era to Republican wins under Democratic President Barack Obama, and said the GOP strategy to boost Republican turnout with Proposition 6—a ballot measure to repeal the gas-tax increase—“really didn’t pan out.” Nearly 57 percent of voters rejected the repeal, and Democrats have won six of the seven GOP House seats they targeted. The seventh, held by GOP Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, is still too close to call, with Democratic challenger TJ Cox of Fresno pulling to within less than 1,000 votes by the end of today.
Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, said Trump deserves “a lot, but not all” of the blame for Republican losses in California. The GOP has been in decline in the state for many years, and now makes up just one-quarter of registered voters. Republican House members also were hurt, Baldassare said, by votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act and pass the GOP tax bill, which raised taxes for many Californians by limiting the deductions they can take. Not to mention their party leader’s rhetoric on immigration.
“Almost any time that Donald Trump talks about immigration he’s offending a large number of people in California,” Baldassare said.
Altogether, he said, Trump created strong enthusiasm among Democrats that contributed to higher turnout and steep GOP losses.
The nonpartisan pollsters, who spoke today at the Sacramento Press Club, echoed conclusions similar to those expressed by Dave Gilliard, the Republican political consultant who was the strategist for several losing GOP candidates.
“I can say with complete certainty that Democrats would not have flipped a single GOP House seat in California this year if Trump was not in the White House,” Gilliard told CALmatters. “He was the reason the Dems were able to out-raise and outspend us by large margins and why they were able to blow past historical turnout averages.”
In a rare case of bipartisan agreement, a Democrat who worked on a campaign to flip several GOP House seats in California also pinned her success largely on the man in the White House. Nationwide, the president had low approval ratings in most districts that switched from red to blue, said Democratic consultant Katie Merrill.
“You’ve got a national political environment that is insane,” she said. “It was a vote against Trump.”