CA-48 Statistics

Onward! The Big Dog reports on the dates of the next special election for Congress: The Primary will be held either on
a. October 4th or
b. October 18th. (October 11th is a holiday.)

The Special Elections General voting day will be one of three days;

1. November 29, 2005
2. December 06, 2005
3. December 13, 2005

All of these fall in our favor and the later it is scheduled the better. We'll see what date the Governor picks based on when he picks it. Remember, he has 14 days from Monday August 1 to make his choice and that choice must be from 112 to 119 days from the date of that choice.

Thus, the general election will take place a few weeks after the two important elections in New Jersey and Virginia this year, thus once again allowing us a chance to place a lot of individual focus upon the race. Let's hope we can get a candidate as strong as Chandler, Herseth or Hackett, because we are going to need it (sources here (PDF), here, here and here):
Partisan Voter Registration As Of February, 2005:
Republican: 50.28%
Democratic: 27.18%

2004 Congressional Election: Cox 65.5, Graham 32.2
2002 Congressional Election: Cox 68.5, Graham 28.4

2004 National Presidential Vote: Bush 50.7, Kerry 48.3
CA-48: Bush 58.5, Kerry 40.4
District National Partisan Index: RNC +15.6 (7.8% swing to tie, 6% less than OH-02)

2000 National Presidential Vote: Gore 48.4, Bush 47.9
CA-48, 2000: Bush 57.8, Gore 39.5
District National Partisan Index: RNC +18.8

2004 California Senate Vote: Boxer 57.8, James 37.8
CA-48: James 51.4, Boxer 43.7
Partisan Index: RNC +27.7

2003 California Recall Gray Davis: Yes 55.4, No 44.6
CA-48: Yes 72.9, No: 27.1
Partisan Index: RNC +35.0

2003 Governor: Schwarzenegger 48.6, Bustamante 31.5
CA-48: Schwarzenegger 48.6, Bustamante 31.5
Partisan Index: RNC +31.8

2002 California Governor: Davis 47.3, Simon 42.4
CA-48: Simon 59.4, Davis 32.8
Partisan Index: RNC +31.5

District California Partisan Index Two Year Mean: RNC +31.5

Race / Ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic: 68.0%
Latino: 14.7%
Asian-American: 12.8%
African-American: 1.5%

Median Income: $69,663 (17th wealthiest in nation)
Poverty: 6.3%
Geography: Entirely within Orange County
Urbanization: 99.9% urban, 106 farms

District Map
Social Security Recipients: 73,662
Social Security Recipients as a percentage of voting population: 14.4%

Current polling, via Swing State Project, shows a close Republican primary. There is no polling on the democratic side.

Quick impression: This is district is nothing like the rural areas of OH-02 where Hackett did well. This is, instead, almost entirely like the rich, suburban areas where Schmidt did well. Despite it's slightly better partisan demographics than the OH-02, this might be an even more difficult nut to crack than OH-02 because of its wealth. It is all going to start with a candidate who fits the district.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)



this won't be easy to win...
I think it is going to be  though for a Dem. to win here however it could happen if a good candidate and Wave of money support comes in. and out of wondering are the other 23% Independents?
by Liberal 2005-08-05 03:35PM | 0 recs
Do you have data for Feinstein?
I'm not surprised that the liberal Boxer did poorly here, but how does Feinstein do here?  How does it compare to the rest of the state?
by Abby 2005-08-05 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have data for Feinstein?
The Feinstein election was in 2000 before redistricting. While some sites recalculate the Persidential numbers for new districts, I have never found anywhere that recalibrates for previous Senate contests.
by Chris Bowers 2005-08-05 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have data for Feinstein?
Wouldn't it be great if instead of having to shell out 75 dollars to a Republican aligned group one could instead pay NCEC to give you information like that? /hint
by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-08-05 04:24PM | 0 recs
"It is all going to start with a candidate who fits the district."

and of course hundreds of thousands of dollars...

by NCDem 2005-08-05 04:08PM | 0 recs
That comes later...
...after we see a candidate that we like, and make the judgement to 're-up' from the Hackett struggle.

But yes... the plan is clearly to throws coin into the good fight.  What's your problem with that?  Seems to me to be the best way for individuals to contribute nationally.  Of course we still have to act locally, too.  But it's not like they are mutually exclusive!

I don't think the small amount of money that I gave to Hackett would have gone to better things if I hadn't given it to Hackett.  It would have gone to some random fast food outfit, or Wal Mart, or on some random, impusive eBay buy.  I still don;t get how any of those is better than kicking in for a campaign.

Even if you boil it down to 'a media conglomorate,' it's a WORST a wash.  And if that ad buy has any effect WHATSOEVER on the electorate, it's a net win.

by teknofyl 2005-08-05 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: That comes later...
"It would have gone to some random fast food outfit, or Wal Mart, or on some random, impusive eBay buy."

And that's my point... maybe you should plan your giving ahead of time... and your impulse purchases... but keep buying on eBay.  I own stock and want to retire early.

by NCDem 2005-08-05 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: That comes later...
And don't bid on that Kinky Friedman book that I'm bidding on.  I'm just going to outbid you.

P.S. Kinky's looking like a possibility for Texas guv.  I'm just sayin... I might be tempted.

by NCDem 2005-08-05 04:39PM | 0 recs
I love that name... Kinky!
My kids are lucky that I never heard of that dude before they were born!

And I probably should plan my giving and spending ahead of time.  In fact, now I am... I am scoping out the CA-48 from way afar.  I'm putting some cash back (a little jar that gets my change and a bonus when something on the tele pisses me enough that I can;t even bitch about it verbally).

But all that aside... it was the Dean and Hackett losses that made me start watching closely, with a partisan-like interest.

I just think that the buy-in you get from giving to these campaigns is worth a helluvalot more than the $20 you throw in.  And both of those count are much better than some other random shit my low-class spending habits are gonna get me.

But I can appriciate that contributions and outlays should be planned.  Still though, even though I wouldn't call OH-2 a victory (for obvious reasons), I surely think it was a net plus.  instead of a sure victory, they got a fight.  They got poked in the damn eye.  They're gonna pour money into all the other special elections.  And now we all have something to lose.

We showed that numerous small contributions can help, not to mention generate national media coverage and spur the Party aparatus to act on opportunities it may have missed.

And we get to see that wrinkly old bitch try to say that her squeaker doesn't mean a damn thing.  Hell... that was worth my $20!  It's priceless... and there is nothing like Jean Schmidt advocating a positiopn for tearing that position to shreds.

by teknofyl 2005-08-05 05:55PM | 0 recs
Constitutional Party Canidate?
I remember hearing that there was a canidate of the Ultra-rightwing Constitution Party.  That would help us out greatly since third party canidates tend to draw more votes in special elections.  I don't see a Democrat getting 50% in this race, so I think a rightwing third party canidate will be nessecary to win.
by Painter2004 2005-08-05 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Constitutional Party Canidate?
  There's a real possibility that fromer Rep. "B-1 Bob" Dornan is going to run as an American Independent Party candidate (the CA affiliate of the Constitution Party). He would be more of a factor if the Greedy Old Party nominates a social issues moderate like former Assemblymember Marilyb Brewer. If the GOP ends up with another theocon, then Dornan won't matter much.
by Zack from the SFV 2005-08-05 09:29PM | 0 recs
Which Democrats
At the state and local level represent areas within the district?
by Drew 2005-08-05 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Which Democrats
  CA-48 is hardcore GOP territory. There are no Dems in the legislature from this area. There are some from farther north in the OC, like Sen. Joe Dunn and Assm. Tom Umberg, but the most you could find here would be a city councilmember or two. Not that I'm an expert on south OC--I'm from a part of LA where there are no GOP electeds. (The beauty? of CA redistricting--few swing seats anywhere)
by Zack from the SFV 2005-08-05 09:34PM | 0 recs
The easiest way to cause problems in this race is to run a candidate who is as straight talking on immigration as Hackett was on the war. Indeed, the "call a spade a spade" strategy might be incredibly effective nation-wide next year.

But since most liberals and posters here are conflicted about illegal immigration, the important thing is to do as Hackett did...state what the problem is with no sugar-coating and suggest solutions to the problem. The key is not to be railroaded into some term like "amnesty" or "appeasement".

The crucial link is to say that Bush is unable to veto the wishes of Congress. Therefore, since Bush is unable to do this, it's vital that Congress be composed of people who can speak and act authoritively. And since little has been achieved on Social Security, immigration, etc... it's clear that Christopher Cox and any Republican successor won't be able to act decisively.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-05 06:29PM | 0 recs
Good point!
Immigration is a big issue all aong the boarder, and everyone tippytoe-ing around it clears the way for a candidate to distinguish him/herself.
by teknofyl 2005-08-06 03:31PM | 0 recs
The name of Boxer's opponent in 2004 was Jones
Not James.
by Geotpf 2005-08-06 11:42PM | 0 recs
We should certainly challenge Cox, but...
I think that there's a better target seat: Rep. David Dreier.

There are corruption issues making him vulnerable, as well as the war.  

And there is one other issue that could make him vulnerable, if cleverly exploited, in Rove-ian style.  You knooooow what I mean.  

by Dumbo 2005-08-16 04:52AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads