![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahwyguy
It’s that time again. We’re closing in on the general election. Sample ballots are starting to go out. As people are already starting to make up their minds, I figured I should try to get this out as early as I could. Every election, I do a detailed ballot analysis of my sample ballot. This is where I examine each candidate and share my conclusions, and invite you to convince me to vote for the other jerk. Because this is a long ballot, I’m splitting this analysis into a few chunks
Note: I’m posting this first part a bit earlier than the other parts, because it might impact other states that have started voting. The links to Parts 2 through 5 will not work until those parts have been posted.
- State and National Offices (excluding judges)
- County and City (Los Angeles) Local Offices (excluding judges)
- Local and State Measures (nee Propositions)
- Judicial Offices (County and State)
- Summary
Note: This analysis is NOT presented in the same order as the Sample Ballot (the ballot order makes no sense). I’ve attempted instead to present things in more logical order.
This part covers the State and National Offices (i.e., the President and Congress):
- Federal: President ❦ US Senate (two elections) ❦ US Representative, 32nd District
- State: State Senator 27th District ❦ State Assembly 40th District
️
President
Most of the time, for the general election, for most of the offices, writing this post is just cutting down what I had for the Primary (especially with California’s jungle primary). That’s not the case this year. The Presidential ballot is the traditional party-only selection at the primary, meaning all the non-Democratic Party candidates are new to the review. And on the Democratic side, although I voted for the Biden/Harris ticket, Joe Biden had a horrible first debate, showing how much age has slowed him down. He stepped aside, and VP Harris stepped up to take his place on the ticket (and at the top of the fundraising committee). So we have a bunch of new selections to look at. This should be fun to write.
⚫ Kamala D. Harris / Tim Walz (Democratic)
At the Primary, I wrote: “Ah, Uncle Joe. How I wish you can kept to your word and limited yourself to one term. You’re too old, and in a contrast based on age, you present a poor image. You should have been grooming your replacement over the last four years. But you didn’t. Plus, you bring a lot of baggage that may influence those on the edges, and that isn’t good.”
Guess what? He must have heard me. He stepped aside, and we learned that he had been training his replacement. Further, she brought youth and enthusiasm and joy and optimism back to the campaign. She then went an chose as her VP not someone we expected, but someone whom I can best characterize as “America’s Dad”: A common sense governor and public school teacher from Minnesota. The best VPs always come from Minnesota (yes, I’m old enough to remember Hubert Humphrey).
So if I return to what (for me) was the deciding factor at Primary time: Will I wake up each morning going, “So what did that $#@*() do today?”. I can confidently say, with the Harris/Walz ticket: “No”. I won’t have to think about the President doing stupid stuff. I won’t have to think what the President was tweeting/truthing, or who the President was insulting. I can relax and have confidence that our country was being led by someone who knows what they are doing. I can relax and trust that the team she has chosen is competent, working in the best interest of the country, and (most of all) that the President is actually listening to and following their advice.
In Kamala Harris, we have someone who was a career prosecutor. We have someone who works for the people. We have someone with a clean criminal record. We have someone experienced in foreign policy through her work as VP. We have someone who knows the Congress and how it works. We have executive leadership. We cannot say the same for the experience on the other side.
She also have one of the broadest coalitions I’ve seen. Not only do we have the progressive and liberal sides of the Democratic Party behind her. We have traditional Conservative Republicans coming out behind her. I’m not talking just the ones you expect, like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Chaney. I’m talking folks like Dick Cheney. I’m talking most of the folks that worked in the first Trump administration. I’m talking about many Reagan Republicans. There is a broad group saying that Harris is better than Trump, and that America won’t last another Trump term.
But let’s talk about some of the areas of interest for this candidacy. Harris does have a page summarizing her positions on her website.
✸ Border Security. The Trumpublicans say the border is screwed up, and it is all Kamala’s fault because she was border czar. That’s not true. She wasn’t in charge of the border; her portfolio was going to other nations to improve conditions there so that people wouldn’t want to leave. She did that. Border crossings are down. She was also involved in the negotiations for a border security bill that is the strongest Democrats have ever written; one that was cosponsored by Republicans. It would have significantly improved the system, so much so that Trump told his supporters in Congress to kill it so that he would have something to campaign on. The border will be better under Harris/Walz.
But the discussion of border security is a misdirection from the real issue: Since he first came on the scene, Trump has created the fear of the other, of the immigrant. He has claimed that immigrants are both taking our jobs AND they are sapping our social services. Both can’t be true. So let’s set this straight: Legal immigrants are what made this country great (really, just immigrants, as the legal/undocumented distinction is less than 100 years old). As with any population of folks, almost all are great, hardworking folks, caring for their families. As with any groups, there are outliers; the MAGAites take these exceptions and make you fear they are the norm. They are not. Do not fear the legal immigrant; do not fear the other. Trump also creates the fear that other countries are sending us their insane rejects, because he confuses the notion of asylum with mental asylums. An asylum, in general, is an institution that grants shelter. Political asylum is shelter from places that would kill you just for your politics. Mental asylums (an outdated term) were places where those mentally issue could get shelter while they were treated. There is no connection between political asylum and mental asylums. Lastly, for all the fear about undocumented (“illegal”, although that’s a poor term) immigrants, the number is low, and such border crossings have gone down under Biden. Biden (and Harris) had a bill to close the border more, but it was shot down by Trump for an election issue. But illegal border crossings have happened under all Presidents, and in fact the big problem right now is at the Northern border, with people coming from India and Pakistan. But Trump really only cares about the Southern border, because, well, brown people.
That goes to the real reason why Trump has created this fear: Short and sweet: He is a racist. Look at his early days in New York, where he refused to rent to African American folks. Look at his racial bias to the Central Park 5, and even today, towards folks like Obama and Harris. His belief goes back to colonial times, when only white, landed people had power. He has groups working to de-naturalize people and strip them of their citizenship, and then have mass deportations. This is where his rhetoric is leading. That’s what “Make America Great Again” is code for. Is that the America you want? Harris’ America recognizes the strength in diversity, and a key part of that is legal immigration. Fix the broken processes. Make the current processes work in a timely fashion; don’t have punitive delays. Illegal immigration happens because our current process is slow and broken, not because immigrants are bad.
✸ Economy. Republican’s like to make people look back and think the economy was better under Trump. That only works for people that don’t understand economics or calculus. First and foremost: Prices never go down in the long run. The only time prices go down is in a significant economic downturn, when the demand curve has tanked. When was the last time demand tanked? Oh, right, during COVID when people couldn’t go out to shop. Who was President then? Trump. So prices were lower because the economy was in poor shape. Biden/Harris got in and righted the ship, and the economy boomed. Perhaps too much, as that led to faster inflation. That’s one reason why prices seemed high. There was also price gouging and profit taking by corporations. But the inflation rate has come back to where is should be, so prices are stabilizing and not going up as fast (and for some goods, are even dropping). Further, Trump promises to lower prices, and that will actually make the economy WORSE, as people will then hold off buying waiting for the lower prices. Trump claims he will also install more tariffs. But who pays the tariffs? Hint: It’s not the foreign countries. It is the American companies that are doing the importing, and they pass that cost onto the consumer. So, when do tariffs make sense? Look at what Biden/Harris is doing: They are applying it to the components that go into electric vehicles. This encourages American industry to start such manufacturing, and encourages people to buy American-made vehicles because the prices are lower. When there is American competition for a good, that’s when tariffs make sense.
✸ Abortion and “Moral” Issues. Trump and his minions want to impose their “claimed” moral values onto all of America. No abortion for any reason. Anti-LGBTQA legislation. Turning back the clock on advances in those areas. Their basis for those views is nothing more than a claimed religious morality. But here’s the thing: America guarantees freedom FROM religion, and freedom for individuals to practice their religion. A fundamental tenet is for the government to not impose a particular religion’s views, which is what Trump wants to do. If you don’t believe in abortion or gay marriage, don’t have one. But otherwise, as Tim Walz says, “Mind your own business.” That, essentially, is the Harris/Walz stance: Preserve the freedom to practice; preserve women’s control over their own bodies. Give people the personal freedom to decide not to do something, don’t have the government impose a particular view on everyone.
A PS on this issue for those who are worried about “late term” or “post-birth” terminations: Harris/Walz is pushing for a restoration of the Roe v. Wade compromise, which allowed abortion prior to the point of viability, typically around 20 weeks. After that, abortions are only to save the life of the mother. So this notion of late-term abortions, implied to be “for convenience”, is bunk. Late-term abortions occur when the foetus has already died and must be removed to save the mother, or there are medical complications. MAGAites don’t recognize the nuance, just as they didn’t recognize the nuance of IVF. As for “post-birth abortions”: Once a child is born, there is no more pregnancy, and therefore it isn’t an abortion (right: abortions terminate pregnancies). Post-birth, it is murder, and that is against the law in all states. What the MAGAites are calling “post birth abortion” in order to incide is really the situation where a child is born near death, with immediate and critical life threatening medical conditions. The decision then — just as with the elderly — is whether to take heroic measures, or just make the child comfortable. That is the parent’s decision, is tragic, and often depends on the potential quality of life. But it isn’t abortion.
✸ Gaza and Israel. This is a complicated situation, and not one that will be resolved by America. The parties in the area have to want to resolve it, and right now, neither side does. Israel wants Hamas gone. Hamas has never recognized Israel’s right to exist. The position that Harris/Walz is taking is the right one: Support Israel’s right to exist and defend herself, as the only Democracy in the region. That is in our national self interest, as Israel is an ally and helps to defend against the other nations. Work for a two-state solution, where the Palestinians can have their own nation in the West Bank/Gaza without Israel occupying it. Will that happen? That depend on Israel, the Palestinians, and Hamas. We can just facilitate. But Trump’s position has no nuance, and is distinctly worse for the Gazans.
✸ Criminal Justice. C’mon, a prosecutor vs. a convicted felon. Still… in many ways, criminal justice is a local issue. DAs and AGs work at the state and local level, and most criminal law is state and local. But there are key differences. Harris was a prosecutor and an AG, and understands justice and how the law works. She has the backing of AGs, and plans to work with them to enforce the laws, and ensure that nobody is above the law. Trump, on the other hand, views himself as above the law, and views the legal system as his play toy, to be exploited in whatever way he can to ensure that he escapes justice for what he does (because, of course, if he does it isn’t wrong). He also wants to abuse the legal system for his personal gain, quasi-joking about locking up opponents, or investigating anyone he doesn’t like. That’s what they do in authoritarian regimes, not nations with working and just legal systems.
✸ The Economy and Opportunity. Trump’s positions, if you look at them closely, benefit only Trump and people like Trump: those with excessive wealth. It benefits the large corporations. His policies are designed to give them tax breaks and ways to hide income. Harris’ policies are designed to benefit the lower and middle classes. They are designed to give opportunity to small business, to first-time home buyers. They are designed to give tax breaks to families and the lower/middle class. Oh, and regarding student debt relief: The issue is not paying back the specific amount borrowed (unless there was fraud); the issue is paying back the excessive interest that is charged. Many students ending up paying 3-5 times their original loan amounts due to that interest and the way it is calculated, and how the payments are designed to benefit the loan processors vs. the students.
✸ Healthcare. We’ve already talked about Trump’s attitudes towards women controlling their bodies. But more broadly: Trump is against what Biden and Harris have done to lower drug costs; he is against continuing the ACA, Harris wants to negotiate lower drug costs and expand the notion of an out of pocket maximum. Trump wants to get rid of Medicare; Harris’ wants to make sure it survives.
✸ Foreign Policy. Trump likes to say he projects strength, but he wants America to go it alone without allies, unless they pay for the privilege. Trump’s strength comes from being a bully, from being like a pufferfish: pretending to be big and strong. Harris’ strength comes from alliances. Not only is America strong, but that strength is backed up by a number of other strong nations–and an attack on one is an attack on all. That’s much stronger.
I could go on and on. The basic notion is that Harris’ policies are for the people. They lift up the people. They keep America strong and America growing. But most importantly (and here I circle back): I don’t have to worry about craziness or lunacy or weird people. I can rest assured that Harris’ will do the rational thing, and will consult with rational and talented people to come to her decisions. I can trust that her backup knows how to govern, and will make plain common-sense decisions for the nation as a whole. I can wake up in the morning and not have to worry about listening to the news.
◯ Donald J. Trump / JD Vance (Republican)
Sigh. Whereas I indicated that Harris was for the people, if there was catchphrase for Trump, it would be for himself. It is clear Trump is running this election to protect himself: As President, he is immune from lawsuits. With the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, he can do what he wants. He’s even told us what that is: To be a dictator on day 1. He is a convicted felon (in charges brought by NY State, not the Feds, and adjudicated by a jury he helped select). He is on record for sexual assault. He lies. He misdirects. He cannot form coherent sentences. He insults. He bullies. He threatens. He belittles.
He is in many ways the stereotypical hateful American, caring only about himself and what can bring him more money. And this is what the Republican party claims is the best they have to offer. Nixon and Reagan and Goldwater and Bush must be horrified from their graves. Well, perhaps not Nixon.
He has designed a campaign that is clearly targeted to a white male audience that hates women, or sees them only as sexual vessels. He speaks to and cavorts with white supremacists. He wants to push women’s rights, and LBGTQA rights, and even civil rights, back to the 1940s or earlier. He talks about making America great again, when what he really wants to do is turn back the clock to when women were property, under the thumbs of their men, and minorities were to be abused and exploited and taken advantage of. Guess what. We’re not going back.
The man has talked about being a dictator from day one. He has talked about abandoning the constitution. He has talked about prosecuting or jailing his enemies. He has talked about working only for his supporters. That is not the behavior of an American leader; it is the behavior of a third-world dictator. That’s not making America great. Trump makes people “SMH” over America.
He has also designed a campaign around hate. If you listen to his campaign, the message is hateful. Hate of his enemies. Hate of the people whom he perceives has done him wrong. Hatred of liberals, minorities. Hatred of women. There is very little that is positive or hopeful in what his campaign says. There’s just anger and resentment, and strong desires for revenge and retribution for those that have done him wrong. That’s not America. America looks forward, and always strives to be better, and more just, and to be that shining beacon on the hill (and that beacon doesn’t have gold-plated toilets or membership dues).
Trump does have a platform; you’ll see it is written to incite and anger (e.g., “stop the migrant invasion“, like they were vermin). It refers to the 2024 GOP Platform. But you’ll find these are all echoes of most, if not all, of the notions in Project 2025, later retitled Agenda 47. Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation, and the folks behind it are many of the folks in the Trump campaign, and working with him to establish policy. They claim there is distance, but if you believe that, you believe the Federalist Society wasn’t involved in picking Supreme Court judges. Hint: They were. You can read Project 2025 here. Trump, while claiming he knows nothing about Project 2025, says there are many parts he likes and thinks it is a good thing. Note that he never says what parts he doesn’t like; for all we know, he likes the worst and most authoritarian parts of the agenda. After all, it is those policies that benefit him.
By now, you’re probably figured out that I find the man repugnant, and I find his lackey, Vance, weird (and lacking sufficient background to take over for Trump when Trump passes). I find their policies repugnant and scary. There is absolutely no way I can support this team. But I’m also of the belief that one should understand the opposition. One should listen to them. I’d say they deserve that courtesy (even though they don’t show it to the Democrats), but I think the real reason is that we we need to understand their positions in order to convince them why Harris is the better choice. So why do people support Trump?
♦ It could be because he’s a white purportedly Christian man, and she’s a minority woman. In that case, they are racist, closed minded, and stupid. One can’t argue with stupidity; all one can hope is that they can’t figure out how to get to the polling place. But seriously: There is a base of Trumpublicans for whom “Make America Great Again” is code for “Make America What it Once Was: Where White Male Propertied People Ruled”. Those times are gone, and good riddance to them. Trump has enabled these haters to come out of the woodwork, under the flag of Grumpy Cat, hating anything and anyone that isn’t like them or tinged with their nostalgic views. Their mind is made up; nothing we do will change it. We have to write off that base.
♦ It could be because they are aggrieved, and they want revenge against those who have aggrieved them. Trump pushes this notion, wanting revenge for those who he believes has harmed him. That’s not a political philosophy; that’s a toddler’s reaction. More importantly, it is not a notion that moves THE NATION forward; it is all about a person. It is self-centered. I’m not sure if we can convince these folks, and get them to see past their anger. The worst part, for many of them, is that their grievance is “liberals” or “Democrats” or “progressive”, with blinders on, and no thinking or further articulation on their position. The brainwashing and anger here is strong. Primitive notions often overpower, and are not rational. Again, I’m not sure there is much that can be done here.
♦ It could be because they believe that Trump is like them: he has suffered at the hands of the government and wants to fix it: I’d tell them to look again. Trump came from inherited wealth (not like them). Trump has retained his position by excessive use of lawyers (which they can’t use). The problems he is facing legally are of his own making: He chose to break the law, and is being judged by a jury of his peers, based upon evidence. He has all rights — indeed, the courts have bent over backwards — to present evidence countering the narratives. He has failed to do so. For example, he claims to have won the 2020 election, but in four years has been unable to present a single scraps of evidence (to multiple jurists) that prove his case. So, losing in real court, he turns to the court of public opinion and does what a toddler does: blames someone else for his troubles. Now, let’s look at Harris. Harris is much more like everyday people. She started without wealth, and worked her way in public service to her position. She used opportunities that the government provided her to move ahead, and hasn’t broken the laws. Here’s a great example of that: Trump is at his happiest on the golf course, beating others (often by cheating). Harris is at her happiest when she’s in the kitchen, cooking and sharing love through food. Which is more like you: Do you live for the golf course, or live to be breaking bread with your family and friends?
♦ It could be because they believe Trump will help their financial position: Nothing will be further from the truth. He will institute tax breaks, yes: but for the very wealthy and the corporations, not the lower and middle classes. He plans to institute more tariffs, which are paid by the American taxpayers through increased prices on goods and services. He wants to work against higher wages, and he is against unions, which help ensure workers have rights and get benefits they deserve. He wants to get rid of social security and medicare, and make medical insurance harder to get.
♦ It could be because they think Trump will help further their moral causes: Think again. First, he is a decidedly IMMORAL man. He cheats on his wives. He lies. He steals. He doesn’t pay workers their honest wages. But more importantly: Government instituting one religion’s ideas of morals and behavior is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Our founding fathers had it right: Religion is a personal matter, exhibited in personal behavior. Government has no place in insisting on one religion’s values. Don’t like abortions: Don’t have one. Use your free speech rights to convince someone not to have one. But don’t legislate. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one. But don’t deny someone else who believes differently the right to express their love. Don’t like trans folk. Fine. But don’t prevent them from getting the treatment they need. Don’t like drag queens? Don’t go to a drag story hour. But recognize that dressing up has a long tradition in the acting field, and is not a form of recruitment. In other words: Mind your own business, and keep the government out of the morals business. Hmmm, that sounds like something the Republicans used to say.
In short: I cannot think of a single rational reason to vote for Trump/Vance. Sure, the Harris/Walz ticket may have some areas with which I disagree. Sure, the Harris/Walz ticket has flaws. But even with that, they are markedly better than Trump/Vance. I cannot vote for Trump/Vance, and I cannot vote for anyone that would enable his policies.
◯ Jill Stein / Rudolph Ware (Green)
For the minor candidates, my analysis is the same: A vote for one of them is essentially a vote NOT for Harris/Walz, which effectively gives additional power to any Trump vote. I cannot enable the election of Donald Trump. Period.
◯ Chase Oliver / Mike ter Maat (Libertarian)
For the minor candidates, my analysis is the same: A vote for one of them is essentially a vote NOT for Harris/Walz, which effectively gives additional power to any Trump vote. I cannot enable the election of Donald Trump. Period.
◯ Claudia De la Cruz / Karina Garcia (Peace and Freedom)
For the minor candidates, my analysis is the same: A vote for one of them is essentially a vote NOT for Harris/Walz, which effectively gives additional power to any Trump vote. I cannot enable the election of Donald Trump. Period. Note that this ticket, although aligned with Peace and Freedom, is the Socialist ticket.
Conclusion
For me, the choice is clear: ⚫ Kamala D. Harris / Tim Walz .
I’ll note, back in the Primary, I wrote: “My faults with Harris are not her experience or her political positions. She’s just not as dynamic a speaker and motivator. She comes across much softer; Klobachar was better on the stump. Her positions are good, and I believe her positions align with mine. So I have every confidence that she could fulfill the role of President, and would grow in gravitas in the position.”. Having heard her convention speech: She’s improved as a speaker and motivator, and I have 100% confidence that not only can she do the job, she can excel as President.
️Note: If you cannot stand Trump, and yet cannot bring yourself to vote for Harris (despite all the traditional Conservative Republicans encouraging you to do so), please leave the top of the ticket blank. Yes, you can do that.
❦
US Senate
This is our second anomalous Senate election in California in a row. This time, it is anomalous because Dianne Feinstein passed away while in office. This means we get to vote someone in for the “partial term” of two months, and then someone for the full term position. Laphonza Butler, whom the Governor appointed, is not running, so it is a wide-open field. So, remember, there are two senate elections: one for the full term (2025-2031), and one for the remainder of the current term (11/2024-01/2025).
US Senator (Full Term and Partial Term)
The primary winnowed out a large field to just two candidates: a Democrat and a Republican. Given the nature of the state, the result will be predictable.
⚫ Adam B Schiff (D)
Schiff represents California’s 30th Congressional District, and has since 2001; before that, he was in the California State Senate from 1996 to 2000. Schiff serves as a senior member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and is on a leave of absence from the House Appropriations Committee, where he remains an ex officio member. Prior to this assignment, Schiff was on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2011-2012 as a rank and file member, Ranking Member from 2015-2018, and Chairman from 2019-2022. In addition, he also served as a member of the House International Relations Committee from 2001 to 2006, the House Judiciary Committee from 2001 to 2011, and the House Committee on Appropriations from 2013 to 2015. Of the three candidates with experience, he’s in the middle (Lee has more, Porter has less).
Reviewing his positions: He has an extremely strong set (and I agree with them). He’s staked some remarkable positions in terms of ethics: prohibiting stock trading, getting rid of Citizens United, expanding the Supreme Court, ending voter suppression, getting rid of the Gerrymander, He has great positions on making things more affordable. He’s also done a hell of a lot while in office. Lastly, he gored Trump’s Ox while being on the House Select Jan 6 Investigation committee. That’s a plus.
With respect to Israel, The Hill noted that Schiff said: “I don’t know how you can ask any nation to cease fire when their people are being held by a terrorist organization. It’s not, in my view, incompatible with human nature to grieve the loss of both innocent Palestinians as well as innocent Israelis. We can’t leave Hamas governing Gaza. They’re still holding over 100 hostages, including Americans.” The Guardian says Schiff has emphasized that “there are no both sides to the attack” by Hamas. Israel has a right to defend itself, and the US must do all it can to assist Israel as it protects its citizens and takes all necessary steps to recover the hostages taken. Hamas is a terrorist group mass-murdering hundreds of innocent Israelis and taking women and children hostage.” Schiff has rejected calling for a ceasefire, a position in line with that of the Biden White House. He seemed to imply that any ceasefire is dependent on getting the hostages back. Again, a position I tend to agree with.
I took a look at his endorsements. What I really want to get a sense of who wants to work with him, and where is the preponderance of support. Pelosi and the LA Times endorse him. He has the endorsements of over 20 union organizations in California, and close to 60%, of the California House Democrats. His total is over 200.
◯ Steve Garvey (R)
Garvey has the name recognition from his Dodger Days, but this is his first time running for office. The front page of his campaign site says little about his positions, but emphasizes his fame and business skills. Hmm, political neophyte, selling himself on fame and business skills. I think we’ve been here before.
Looking at his vision, he seems to be promoting centrist Republican ideals with nary a dogwhistle or coded statement. It all seems carefully tailored to get him that second place position in the California Primary to get Republicans a chance, whereas a MAGA R would turn off the Centrists and make this a Dem vs Dem for the general election. So let’s dig a little deeper. Garvey has supported Trump in the past, but refuses to take a position on support for Trump in 2024. He’s against abortion personally, but doesn’t want Federal legislation on the subject. He has indicated that Reagan was a role model in the past, and he is much like Reagan: Running on fame, broad conservative positions, and very little specifics on the record.
He is also hypocritical. He touts family values and integrity, but he’s also screwed up his family and his kids don’t talk to him. Does that disqualify someone from the Senate? Probably not.
I can see Garvey’s appeal to the centrist Republicans in California. I can also see why the MAGA Republicans are deriding him as a RINO, because he is not explicitly touting MAGA coding and support for Trump. But to me, he is running on fame and platitudes. He doesn’t know the Senate; he doesn’t understand politics. He doesn’t have the right skillset for the Senate. He should stick to baseball, and leave politics to the politicians.
Lastly, I don’t want to do anything that might tip the Senate majority to the Republicans. That would serve to enable Trump if Trump wins, and I cannot support or enable that in any way, shape or form.
Conclusion
I cannot support a Republican in this position. If Harris wins, she needs a Democratic senate to achieve her goals. If Trump (God Forbid) wins, we need a Democratic Senate to push back against his worst tendencies. There is only one choice: ⚫ Adam B Schiff (D)
❦
US House of Representatives, 32nd District
For our house district, which includes the city of Malibu and the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades, Beverly Glen, Bel Air, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, Woodland Hills, West Hills, Canoga Park, Winnetka, Reseda, Encino, Chatsworth, Northridge, Brentwood, North Hills, as well as the south side of Granada Hills, our incumbent is Brad Sherman. We have been very happy with Sherman, and so any challenger will need to really impress us. Further, the challenger has to be strong enough to overcome Sherman’s seniority in the house. The district is a very Democratic district, with a Cook PVI of D+20.
◯ Larry Thompson (R)
Thompson is an “acclaimed Hollywood talent manager and veteran film producer, lawyer, book packager, author, Broadway Producer, and motivational speaker”. He has the endorsement of the GOP establishment, probably because the other Republican candidate was worse. His position statement is … interesting. He’ll support Trump if he’s the nominee. He wants to close the border, and keep the government out of abortion (i.e., not make it legal at the national level). He wants to stop printing money, is in favor of gun rights, and strongly supports cryptocurrencies. More concerning to me is his line “the increasing dangers of living in West LA, and yes, even the many pot holes in our streets including Ventura Boulevard and Topanga Canyon Boulevard, plus the traffic and safety on Malibu’s Pacific Coast Highway. ” This makes me think he’ll be more of a candidate for the West LA side, and not the valley.
This fellow doesn’t come off as stronger than Sherman. He certainly doesn’t have the experience, and he doesn’t seem to represent the valley well. Further, I cannot empower Republicans at the National level in case Trump wins. This seat must remain Democratic.
⚫ Brad Sherman (D) Inc
Brad Sherman has been representing this district (or the neighboring district, as two were merged a few years ago) since 1997. That’s a long time. He serves on three major House Committees. He is a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, and a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. In 2019, Sherman was elected to serve as Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets. He previously served as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Asia Subcommittee.
I have generally agreed with his actions in office, and he has been an effective communicator with his constituents. As his campaign page notes, this would be his 14th term (i.e., he’s been in office for over 25 years). That also means he has the seniority (esp. if Democrats are in power) to make a difference. That’s something that wouldn’t be true for a clueless newbie. I agree with him on the issues. So I would need good reason to replace someone I like.
Conclusion
I cannot support a Republican in this position. If Harris wins, she needs a Democratic House to achieve her goals. If Trump (God Forbid) wins, we need a Democratic House to push back against his worst tendencies. Further, I actually like Brad Sherman. So, again, there is only one choice: ⚫ Brad Sherman (D) Inc
❦️
California Legislature
The 27th Senate District includes Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Moorpark, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, part of Santa Clarita and the following Los Angeles communities: Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Encino, Porter Ranch, Reseda, Lake Balboa, Tarzana, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills. Stern has been in office since 2016, and can serve a max of 12 years in the Assembly and Senate combined. Per Wikipedia, the district breakdown is 43.46% Democratic; 27.28% Republican; and 23.45% No party preference.
Member of the State Senate, 27th District
⚫ Henry Stern INC (D)
During the primary, Stern didn’t have a campaign website. He had his State Senate site, and a Facebook page. Perhaps he listened to me: He now has a campaign website. I haven’t been that impressed with him. My wife reports that his office is not responsive, sending folks directly to voicemail asking for what staffer they want to talk to. He does appear to be effective at the State Senate level. He’s on a fair number of committees and has introduced a lot of legislation. He took office in 2016. According to the State Senate website, “During his or her lifetime a person may serve no more than 12 years in the Senate, Assembly, or both, in any combination of terms.” 2026 would be 10 years, so he has one more four year term (2024-2028).
Now that he has a campaign website, that also means he now has an issues page. I’ve read through it: and I like what he has done so far, and what he is proposing to do.
◯ Lucie LaPointe Volotzky (R)
Volotzky ran for Congress in 2022, when she wrote during the primary: “No transgender should participate in our women’s sport!”. No explanation, no background. That says everything about an attitude towards transgender (the right answer, by the way, is to eliminate the distinction between men and women’s sports, and instead use strength/weight categories). She’s in favor of gun rights. She states “Let’s bring back business from China.” without providing any reason for those businesses to come back. Does she want to underpay and abuse our labor? Does she want to weaken environmental law? That’s why labor goes to China. So she’s naïve. She states “We have the highest inflation in 40 years. It was caused by printing too much money”. No, it was caused by supply chain issues, combined with unexpectedly high demand. So she doesn’t understand economics either. She’s not the right person for this job.
Revisiting her congressional website in October 2022, she wrote: “who will put America first and stand strong to defeat the radical progressive agenda hijacking our country”. That level of partisanship really doesn’t convince me, but it will play great to the Trumpublican base. I also looked at her endorsements. Our city councilman, John Lee, has endorsed her. This makes me think twice about re-electing Lee at the next election, given the endorsement indicates he agrees with her values. Other than GOP organizations, there are no other real endorsements for this race.
So what about now? This time, she writes: “She will stand against the deceitful Green New Deal, the attacks on fossil fuels, the open border, illegal immigration, human trafficking and drugs, rising crime, defunding of the police, the unconstitutional COVID-19 closures and mandates, the “woke” sexualized school system, a weakened military, the censoring of conservative speech, and foreign companies buying U.S. land.” Back in December, she used the “America First!” phrasing, a Trumpist dogwhistle.
Her experience? According to LinkedIn: “owner at bedsunlimited”. She’s a MAGA-ite, with no experience. She was wrong for Congress in 2022; and she’s wrong for state level government.
Conclusion
Back in November 2020, I wrote: Oh, how I wish Henry Stern had a campaign website touting his experience, and summarizing his positions on the issues and his legislative goals. He does now, and reading his positions and what he has done, it makes it easy to support him. Further, I will not vote for a Trump-ish Republican. So Volotzky is out.
Conclusion: ⚫ Henry Stern INC (D)
️❦
Member of the State Assembly, 40th District
The 40th Assembly District includes Santa Clarita and some northern parts of the San Fernando Valley, particularly portions of Granada Hills, Northridge and Chatsworth. Its makeup is 42.27% Democratic, 28.73% Republican, and 22.24% No party preference. Schiavo was first elected in 2022.
◯ Patrick Lee Gipson (R)
Gipson is a Deputy Sheriff. His platform is definitely a law and order platform. He wants to suspend the gas tax (bad idea — how do we fund roads?). He touts parental rights, and Second Amendment support. He has the expected GOP endorsements, including John Lee. Looking at his X page, he seems to be mostly a one-issue “tough on crime” person. The Five Thirty Eight website notes that Gipson was one of those folks who denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election. So he’s aligned with Donald Trump.
⚫ Pilar Schiavo INC (D)
As I wrote in 2022: Schiavo is a Small Business Owner and Nurse advocate, with 20 years in the labor movement, 13 of those with the California Nurses Association. She currently lives in Chatsworth. She doesn’t appear to have prior political experience. During the primary, I didn’t like her issues page. The problem was not her positions. At a high level, they are solidly in the Democratic camp. However, they don’t show a depth of understanding of the issues, and everyone seems to be targeted with an endorsement (“… and this is why she’s endorsed by …”). Water conservation is a good example of this. Here’s what she says: “And finally, drought continues in California, with 2022 on track to be the driest year in California history. AD40 has been struggling with severe drought. We face a real threat that there may not be enough water for our local communities. Pilar will fight for state investment to ensure our community has the water we need – in water table infrastructure, rainwater capture, and water reuse. That’s why Pilar is endorsed by the Sierra Club and California Environmental Voters.” But the issue is much more complex in the district, from groundwater contamination from the Santa Suzanna labs, to the need for water for fighting brushfires. I fear she really doesn’t understand the issues well enough, but her heart is in the right place. She has strong Democratic, labor, and union backing.
Since then, she’s done OK for a newbie. She communicates well. She’s on a fair number of committees: As her page notes: “Upon her election, she was appointed as Assistant Majority Whip. She currently serves as Chair, of the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee and the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure, and serves on the following Committees: Emergency Management, Public Employment and Retirement, Utilities & Energy, Water, Parks & Wildlife, and on the Select Committees on LA County Homelessness, Regional Transportation Solutions, Social Housing, and Mental Health Accessibility within Non-English Speaking Communities.” She seems responsive. She still has a large list of endorsements.
I don’t currently see problems with her.
Conclusion
I cannot support someone who is aligned with Donald Trump (i.e., denying the legitimacy of the 2020 election). Schiavo has been doing a good job with the district. The answer is clear: ⚫ Pilar Schiavo INC (D).
This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Nov 2024 General Election Ballot Analysis (I): Intro + State/National Offices by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.