I think (i.e. my unsupported opinion is) that the great majority of voters in California don’t actually expect single-payer health insurance at the state level. And I don’t think it matters much to any candidate’s likelihood of winning. It’s a campaign talking point that will be set aside for more immediately practical matters, such as how to get all the federal money to which California is entitled but which is being withheld by Trump, and coincidentally how to close the (up to) $35 billion budget shortfall for next year. Any governor who isn’t working on those sorts of things first will deserve to be recalled.
Neither has any candidate outlined how California could fund a lack of comprehensive health coverage.
But that’s already being demonstrated every day!
I saw the weirdest anti-Mahan commercial today, on local TV. First reason why it’s weird is, why spend your money that way, he’s a distant fourth among the top four Democrats, with less than 3 weeks to go. Second reason is what they said: their big accusation is that he’s a “tech bro,” that he’s not in favor of taxing billionaires, and the tag line was something like “he’s just a piece of AI bullshit” (not sure if they used an actual swear, it went by pretty fast).
So is someone paving the way towards blocking Mahan from future offices? Someone/group who hates tech bros on principle (I have a friend like that)? It seems weird to me, but then I am kind of naïve about political machinations.
Suppressing votes of a trailing candidate when a leading candidate might be a viable alternative for those votes is a logical strategy in a jungle primary. You want the maximum percentage. Pushing Mahan down to say 3% instead of 5% so you can get some of those and end up with 15% instead of 14% in a six person race unfortunately makes sense.
Is it a tad ruthless and a bit dirty? Sure. But all’s fair in love, war and politics 
.
Final debate is tonight
True, and I hadn’t thought of that. Now let’s see, who has lots of campaign money to spend and is desperate to win? Hmm, I just can’t think of, um, who that might be…
I hope that tonight’s debate focuses a little on budget-crafting. I think that’s what some experts call it but am not sure of the entire concept. I don’t think anyone got very specific about it in debates but I feel it’s important.
Sent in my ballot today. This nonpartisan primary is a travesty. In a primary, I should be able to vote for the candidate in my party who I genuinely prefer. I should not have to vote tactically for the one who seems to have the best shot at winning. Bring back partisan primaries!
People: Eric Swalwell’s Wife of 9 Years Feels Blindsided by His ‘Double Life’ After Sexual Assault Allegations (Exclusive)
Steyer alleged to have paid off influencers to promote him without proper disclosure. $10k apiece. If true, what looked like legitimate grassroots endorsements was paid advertising.
Maybe, but that only makes sense if you think that that candidate’s voters will mostly shift to you, not to your opposition. In other words, if your candidate is mostly like them except for the tech-bro-ness. Who would that be? Is that even an answerable question?
Doesn’t that happen in partisan primaries, too? In pretty much every primary, I hear people saying “I like X better, but Y has a better chance against Z in the general”.
Not by me, but I don’t have a team of researchers at hand and I assume folks that could pick up liberal/progressive votes like Steyer and Becerra do. It doesn’t matter if you don’t get all of them or even a majority of them - just that you get a plurality. So it comes with a calculated risk, but if the team says you might pull that off it becomes a risk worth investing money into.
Especially if you have enough money in your campaign that you can just add this on, rather than switching funds from some other strategic effort to this one.
(I may have already said this before, sorry) California could easily solve this problem by having the top four vote getters qualify for the general instead of the top two. Then using ranked choice voting in the general.
Alaska has given us the template.
That’d be acceptable to me, but I don’t think the current system is actually a problem. At least, not a problem the state needs to fix. It is a problem for the Democratic Party, which is not organized enough to limit how many candidates can run as a Democrat. Now I don’t have a problem with the state making it easier for Democrats to make it through to general elections, just recognizing that the state doesn’t have a duty to help parties figure out their candidates.
Yes, it’s not at all unique to this kind of primary.
Ranked choice seems like a way to go if people understand it. If el donald can cultivate enough ignorance and spread enough disinformation to discredit ordinary, traditional vote counting, imagine what he could get the cult to think about ranked choice.
Just to be nitpicky: Ranked choice isn’t a voting system; it’s a whole category of voting system. It just means that you put the full list of candidates in the order that you prefer: “So-and-so is my first choice, then this other person, then this one, then that one”. Once you have that information on everyone’s preferences, there are a lot of possible ways to use that information to determine a winner. Practically speaking, it’s usually IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), just because that’s the easiest one to explain, and it’s important for voters to understand the voting system. But it could also be a Condorcet system, or a point-value system, or a variety of other possibilities.
No voting system is perfect: A mathematician named Arrow rigorously proved that. In any voting system with more than two candidates, there will be situations where, if each individual voter votes in such a way as to maximize the expected value of the outcome to them, the final winner will nonetheless not reflect the highest total value to the voters. But some are better than others. IRV is better at reflecting the will of the voters than plurality-wins, the system we usually end up with in the US, but it’s worse than Condorcet (whose main problem is that only nerds understand it).
Another option that doesn’t get nearly enough attention is approval voting. There, you have a check box in front of every name on the ballot, and you can check off as many or as few as you like. The candidate who’s approved of by the largest number of voters is then the winner. This system also does very well at reflecting the true views of the voters, while also being even simpler to understand than IRV.
The city of St. Louis has been using approval voting in its primaries since 2021 (top two advance) and it is indeed a good system for a crowded primary.