Considering how unpopular the U.S. Congress is these days, it’s kind of surprising that anyone wants to join its ranks. Last month, Congress’ job-approval rating reached a historic low-water mark of just 10 percent, according to a Gallup survey. And yet here on the North Coast we find ourselves in the midst of the most exciting — and crowded — Congressional primary race in more than a decade.
To some extent, that excitement has been foisted on us. Given the opportunity we probably would have kept electing Rep. Mike Thompson for as long as he chose to represent us. But Humboldt County and Thompson have been forcibly divorced. Last year, a voter-initiated citizens committee redrew California’s boundaries for congressional, state Senate and Assembly districts, putting the North Coast in bed with our wealthy neighbors to the south. For the purposes of congressional representation, Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties are no longer attached to an easterly dogleg jutting into the portion of wine country that includes Thompson’s hometown of St. Helena. Instead, the new 2nd congressional district extends from Marin County north to the Oregon border, skirting Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park.
Our new representative likely would have been resident 20-year incumbent Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, but the 74-year-old announced last year that she’ll retire rather than seek reelection. As of early this week, 13 candidates had filed paperwork hoping to fill Woolsey’s vacant seat — nine Democrats, two Republicans and two independents, which makes sense given the district’s political makeup: More than half of registered voters here are Democrats while fewer than one in four is Republican. (The candidate filing period ended Wednesday.)
Population distribution is similarly lopsided. Together, Marin County and Sonoma counties have 251,796 registered voters. Humboldt comes in a distant third with 75,081 while Mendocino, Trinity and Del Norte combined have just 67,415.
Whoever wins the election, he or she will almost certainly hail from either Marin or Sonoma County. Only three of the 13 candidates don’t — Earth First! veteran Andy Caffrey of Garberville, Mendocino seaweed farmer John Lewallen and Mendocino pot doctor William Courtney — and they’re distant longshots.
One more difference this year is the new “top-two” electoral system, which will send the first- and second-place vote-getters from the June 5 primary into the November general election, regardless of party. We could see two progressive candidates facing off in November, or, if the progressive vote gets spread thinly among the 10 lefty contenders, a Republican could easily slide into one of the finalist slots.
With so many progressives in the field, the differences between candidates are more about style than policy positions. The Democratic contenders all agree that our government is wasting billions on imperialist wars; marijuana should be decriminalized; corporations and the ultra-rich should pay more taxes; universal health care is the way to go; corporate personhood should be repealed; Wall Street needs reforms; and our environment is in peril. On other issues, such as our need for more jobs and a balanced budget, all candidates are in agreement.
And so the race — like most contests in contemporary politics, some would argue — has largely been reduced to the crafting and selling of personas. Personal rough edges and philosophical subtleties have been burnished or hidden away, leaving a lineup of easily understood characters.
Much is required of a successful Congressional legislator. You must be a persuasive raconteur, a savvy negotiator, a dogged opportunist, a reliable bacon-supplier for your constituents and more. But winning an election? That’s mostly salesmanship.
In recent weeks, the Journal interviewed the five most formidable contenders in the 2nd district congressional race. Four are Democrats; one is Republican. Three are men; two are women. And all five have established simple personas: the Nurse, the Anointed, the Entrepreneur, the Republican and the Activist. Here they are, in alphabetical order.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Candidate: Susan Adams
Persona: The Nurse
Hometown: Marin
Day job: Marin County Supervisor
Campaign contributions through Dec. 31: $113,642
Susan Adams, a “happily single” mother and grandmother with a warm smile and shoulder-length, graphite-gray hair, earned her doctorate in nursing from UC San Francisco in 1998. For 33 years she’s been a women’s health nurse practitioner, and more recently she has parlayed that caregiver identity into a political metaphor. The front of her campaign brochure says “Fighting for healthy communities,” and in a sit-down interview at the Fortuna Starbucks she elaborated on that theme.
“My philosophy has always been ‘healthy planet, healthy communities,'” she said. “And that doesn’t just mean the physical body health. That means a healthy economy and healthy ecosystem and healthy watersheds and clean air.”
Predictably, Adams is on firm ground discussing the health care industry. She’d like the country to move toward a “Medicare for all” public option, and thinks that President Obama’s Affordable Care Act made some good steps but was ultimately a boon for insurance companies.
Less predictable is the ease with which Adams holds forth on a wide range of other topics, including Humboldt-specific issues like the Shell wind energy project outside Ferndale and the rail banking proposal around Humboldt Bay. (Her politically safe position is that she supports both projects so long as they’re done “the right way.”)
Adams’ brother and sister-in-law live in Carlotta, a fact she’s made sure to mention frequently during local appearances, and she promises that, if elected, she’d spend half her time living in the northern part of the district.
During her 10 years on the Marin Board of Supervisors, Adams helped to establish the Marin Clean Energy Authority, the state’s first community choice aggregation program, which allows the county government to purchase power from clean, renewable sources then transmit that power over PG&E’s lines. Adams said PG&E opposed the project and even helped finance a challenger’s campaign for her seat on the board. But the authority was established in May 2010, and Marin County now gets 50 percent of its energy from clean, renewable sources. The goal is to reach 100 percent within 10 years.
“We’re way ahead of schedule,” Adams said, adding that she’d like to achieve the same goal district-wide. “My vision is that the 2nd congressional district is off the fossil fuel grid in the next 10 years, showing the rest of the country how you do it.”
Marin managed to keep its finances out of the red in recent years, and Adams said she’d fight to raise federal revenues by “getting out of the $10 billion-a-month war effort in the Middle East” and eliminating corporate welfare.
Though her agenda is solidly progressive, Adams said she has garnered strong bipartisan support. She’s certainly managed to assemble some unlikely bedfellows locally. Staunch liberal Richard Salzman, the disgraced former campaign manager for District Attorney Paul Gallegos, has joined the Adams cause, as has conservative Eureka mortgage consultant (and husband of Humboldt County Supervisor Virginia Bass) Matthew Owen, who contributed $500 to Adams’ campaign.
Most of the $113,642 Adams raised through the end of last year came through individual contributions of $500 or less. Most of those donors live in San Rafael, San Francisco and other Bay Area communities.
Between sips of coffee at Starbucks, Adams sounded like an eager job applicant. “I do my homework and I work hard and I’m not afraid of taking on the tough battles,” she said. “And I’m successful more often than I’m not. So we’ll see. I’m having a good time with this.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Candidate: Jared Huffman
Persona: The Anointed
Hometown: San Rafael
Day job: State Assemblyman
Campaign contributions through Dec. 31: $586,131
Jared Huffman grew up in Independence, Mo., Harry S. Truman’s hometown, and as a kid he’d sometimes see the former president walking around the town square. “He was really a hero of mine from a very young age,” said Huffman, who was 8 years old when the ex-president died. Just a boy and already he idolized Truman, a Democrat who championed civil rights, battled Joseph McCarthy, supported workers’ unions, cut defense spending and advocated for national health insurance — in 1948.
That’s the type of shining credential that makes Huffman seem like The Chosen One in this race. The assemblyman from California’s 6th District has already perfected the demeanor of a congressman. He looks the part. He acts the part. And the Democratic hierarchy has evidently chosen him for advancement.
As a civil rights attorney, an environmental attorney and a legislator, Huffman has made friends in high places while assembling an impressive résumé. He has passed more than 60 pieces of legislation including ocean and fisheries protections, renewable energy bills and health care industry reforms. He loves fishing and home winemaking, has a beautiful family and once played on the World Champion USA Volleyball team. With blue eyes, perfect teeth and the dulcet voice of a network news anchor, Jared Huffman may as well have been dreamed up by the Democratic Party and assembled in a lab.
Huffman claimed frontrunner status early in the race by nabbing endorsements from Mike Thompson, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, fellow Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, numerous civic and community organizations and literally hundreds of elected officials.
Sitting in a window seat at Ramone’s in Old Town Eureka, Huffman spoke at length about numerous policy issues. He supported Prop. 19 and said marijuana legalization should be a long-term goal. He’d like to see loopholes closed in the corporate tax code and supports a transaction tax on Wall Street. Asked about jobs he said that consumer demand and consumer confidence need to be restored. “One of the biggest things holding back consumer confidence is this lingering mortgage foreclosure crisis.” He suggested perhaps charging banks that are “sitting on a record amount of cash at the Federal Reserve” and assessing fees on lenders that refuse to work with underwater borrowers.
There’s an Obama-like polish to his oratory, an offhanded eloquence that allows him to unroll long, artful sentences, using phrases like “creative debt-equity sharing arrangements” and “a more nimble estate tax” without sounding pretentious. The downside, as with Obama, is that his polish can be read as detachment. Huffman may seem like the perfect politician, but right now politicians aren’t especially popular.
His opponents, particularly Norman Solomon, have pointed to certain campaign contributions. The top donor to Huffman’s congressional campaign is the Fisher family, which owns The Gap as well as Mendocino and Humboldt Redwood companies. He also took money from two professional lobbyists, though he says they don’t lobby him directly. While running for Assembly in 2008 Huffman accepted donations from large corporations including PG&E, AT&T and Chevron, and from political action committees (PACs) representing the insurance industry, an oil marketers association, Wells Fargo and more.
Huffman argued that his legislative record proves he’s not beholden to corporate interests, adding that he has supported campaign finance reform throughout his career. He coauthored the California Disclose Act, which would have increased transparency in political ads had it not been shot down by Republicans earlier this year. And he supports a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates for corporate political spending.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Candidate: Stacey Lawson
Persona: The Success
Hometown: San Rafael
Day job: Entrepreneur/teacher
Campaign contributions through Dec. 31: $455,959
Stacey Lawson’s campaign has emphasized job creation, relying heavily on her own rags-to-riches narrative. Born and raised near the Washington mill town of Port Angeles, Lawson went on to attend Harvard Business School, graduating in 1996 with an MBA and $80,000 in debt. In short order she raised $7 million in venture capital to fund her first business idea, an Internet-based catalog of machine parts displayed in 3D. Called InPart, it was marketed to industrial clients like John Deere, Caterpillar and Boeing, and it was a success. Shortly after launching InPart, Lawson sold it to a multi-billion-dollar software company called Parametric Technology Corp., or PTC, and was hired there as a senior vice president. Just 28 years old, she’d become a multi-millionaire (a fact she generally leaves out of her campaign narrative).
Lawson, who went on to cofound and teach at UC Berkeley’s Center for Entrepreneurship & Technology, describes herself as the ideal candidate to bring middle-class jobs back to North Coast communities. Her campaign website calls her a “progressive-minded woman who has actually created jobs [and] promoted high-wage American manufacturing.” She produced a snazzy-looking, 49-page jobs plan (available for download on her website) called “Making More in America.” Among its many suggestions: Make credit more available to small businesses and manufacturers; retrofit buildings with green energy; boost funding for education and infrastructure; and raise taxes on the ultra-rich.
In a phone interview, Lawson continued to emphasize her business credentials, saying that she’s the only candidate who has “been in the trenches.” This type of rhetoric generally comes from Republicans, not Democrats, but Lawson said it’s important not to cede that ground: “We’re the party that takes care of people, and we’re the party that’s going to rebuild our middle class.”
Lawson has quickly gone from total unknown to serious contender largely thanks to her prolific fundraising, which is second only to Huffman’s. Her opponents point out that much of that money comes from outside the 2nd District, and several of her largest contributors work in the financial industry. She received a donation of more than $5,000 from an advisor at Citizens Bank, for example, and $1,000 from an executive at JP Morgan Chase.
Lawson countered that she’s a vocal proponent of financial reform. She supports reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act to protect ordinary investors from the vagaries of investment banking, and she said she’d crack down on risky practices like credit default swaps.
“Anyone who has given money to me from the banking sector are good Democrats who understand my position that we need very substantial banking reform,” Lawson said.
Another criticism of Lawson concerns a period of her life that seems to have been erased from her personal narrative: In 2004, having achieved professional success, Lawson went on a spiritual pilgrimage to India, where she practiced meditation at an ashram with a renowned swami. She continued to pursue yoga, meditation and spiritual enlightenment after returning to the U.S., and in 2007 media mogul Arianna Huffington recruited Lawson to write a spirituality blog for the Huffington Post. Lawson wrote at least 20 blog entries in 2007 and 2008, but search for them now and you’ll get a message that reads, “Editor’s Note: This post has been removed at the request of the blogger.”
The posts are retrievable through the Internet Archives, and while there’s nothing particularly incendiary, you can see why she might want them hidden. “I’ve played, for a few brief moments, in the field of oneness with you,” Lawson writes. “I’ve seen you naked, revealed, and beautiful … and I’ve touched your deepest Self, where you and I dissolve into one and walk on this earth together as in heaven.”
She also describes her upbringing and career rather differently than in campaign materials. She calls the Port Angeles area “the boonies” and remembers her “despondence at being stuck there.” Her early career was like “gorging on a meal with no nutritional value. I was being sustained by success while my soul was shriveling.”
She wraps up her brief autobiography this way: “I could have told the story a dozen different ways, yet none would have revealed who I really am.” Not exactly a campaign slogan.
While certainly a bit woo-woo, Lawson’s writings are actually quite thoughtful, and the themes she addresses — interconnectedness, the divinity of all living things, etc. — describe a worldview shared by millions of people. Trouble is they don’t fit the narrative that American voters demand of their political representatives. We distrust ambiguity, we reject all but the most superficial (and Christian) expressions of spirituality, and we punish those who question the sanctity of capitalism.
It says something about Lawson that she felt it necessary to hide her spiritual writings from voters. But it says something about us, too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Candidate: Dan Roberts
Persona: The Republican
Hometown: Tiburon
Day job: Investment banker
Campaign contributions through Dec. 31: $113,851
At a March 1 candidates’ forum inside Fortuna High School’s gymnasium, Dan Roberts sat with his arms folded across his chest wearing a navy blue suit and red, white and blue bowtie. Even without the bowtie it would have been easy for Roberts to stand out. As the lone Republican on a nine-candidate panel, he was the only person that night to say, “I don’t agree.”
“We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem,” he said into the microphone. Rather than raising taxes on “the so-called rich,” Roberts proposed a 15 percent flat-rate income tax across the board. “I think we should stop this class warfare that’s going on,” he said, prompting scattered applause from the crowd.
Founder, president and CEO of San Francisco investment firm Roberts & Ryan, Roberts had driven his convertible black Pontiac Solstice up Hwy. 101 to attend the event. Before participating in the forum he sat down at the Fortuna Starbucks to talk about his priorities, his reasons for running and his campaign strategy.
He’d barely sat down before an older woman approached him bashfully and said, “Hi, how do you do. You’re the Republican candidate?” Yes, he replied. “I think that lady over there would like a chat with you at some point,” the woman said, pointing at two more gray-haired women seated nearby. They waved.
As strategies go, simply being a Republican is enough to earn Roberts some loyal support, and he’s keeping his platform simple. Under the “Issues” tab on his campaign website only one issue is addressed: federal spending. Asked his opinion on other topics, Roberts said he needs to put everything aside except “one issue: fiscal conservatism. Cut the deficit, balance the budget, stop the spending. It starts there. All of our unhappiness begins with progressive liberals not doing that.”
What would he eliminate? “Cut departments,” he said. “You pick ‘em. Could be Energy, could be EPA.” Perhaps Defense?
The Journal asked about a claim made in a campaign video: “$787 Billion Stimulus Plan equals 2.4 Million Jobs LOST.” Where did that figure come from? “It probably comes off the press, the published articles on the subject,” he said. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal stimulus created between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs in the fall of 2010 alone. “Depends on who you want to believe,” Roberts countered. “I pick the Republican source.” He couldn’t recall what that source was.
Roberts was born and raised in San Francisco, where his business is now located. Is that a disadvantage given how rural most of the 2nd District is? “Why do you say that?” he challenged. “Where I live, down there it’s not [rural]. It’s rural up here. I don’t know how I’m gonna represent this [district] — it’s polar opposites, frankly.”
Good point. People up here are worried about just that. “You know what? Don’t worry about it,” Roberts said. “The votes, frankly, are down south. Are they not?” In that case, why even bother driving up here? “Because I want to learn the fishery issues, environmental issues, the forestry — I don’t know those issues.”
His visit to Humboldt County was a listening tour, he said, and he doesn’t see his unfamiliarity with local issues as a disadvantage. “I’m a businessman. I care about families. I care about small businesses perhaps more than about the environment … probably more than some theoretical heating or cooling issue.” He called global warming “unsettled science” and a bogeyman that’s served primarily to give Al Gore “a billion dollars … and 200 extra pounds.”
Roberts’ campaign is almost entirely self-financed — $110,000 of his $113,851. Perhaps that helps account for his bluntness. This refusal to answer in safe generalities was, among other things, refreshing. “I’ve given the voters a different message and a clear choice,” he said.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Candidate: Norman Solomon
Persona: The Activist
Hometown: Inverness Park
Day job: Journalist/media critic/activist
Campaign contributions through Dec. 31: $311,817
In one of the most liberal/progressive congressional districts in the country, author and activist Norman Solomon has positioned himself to the left of his main rivals in this race. He’s done so by taking a hardline stance against nuclear power, the wars in the Middle East and corporate influence on politics, and by calling for a “Green New Deal,” an injection of public money for environmentally friendly infrastructure development and job creation.
Solomon, who expressed admiration for both Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has been “walking the talk” of his political ideals for years, in a variety of public forums. Author of more than a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death and The Trouble With Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh, Solomon has appeared as a media critic on several national news programs. He even managed to get the better of Glenn Beck in a 2007 CNN segment about the corporate parenthood of major media companies.
Solomon took three fact-finding trips to Baghdad and one to Afghanistan, and he argued against both wars on national TV. On the campaign trail he has been joined by former talk show host Phil Donahue and movie star/Marin County resident Sean Penn.
In a long phone interview and a follow-up conversation over coffee, Solomon was unapologetic in his call for increased government spending. “As a liberal/progressive/whatever-you-want-to-call-me, I believe in public investment,” he said. Specifically he argued that we should be spending more on rural health care, rural broadband access, education, public transportation, infrastructure, a federal jobs program and social services.
How would he pay for such programs? Through “massive cuts in military spending,” for starters. He’d also call for a carbon tax on polluters, the end of Bush-era tax cuts for anyone earning more than $250,000 per year and closing loopholes in the corporate tax code. And he supports a jobs bill currently wending its way through Congress called “The Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act,” which would establish a 0.25 percent transaction tax on Wall Street. Add these together, Solomon said, and “you’re talkin’ real, real money.”
He supports full legalization of marijuana, “and in the next breath I say legalization is not enough. … It’s crucial to couple legalization with a policy to protect the small growers. We must put policies in place to prevent the Wal-Martization of cannabis.” At the same time, he’d take a firm stance against cultivation on public lands, he said. Criticizing the recent federal crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries, Solomon suggested that a dramatic gesture might be in order — something along the lines of the stunt by Rep. Mike Thompson in 2002, when the congressman dumped 500 pounds of dead salmon on the steps of the Interior Department to call attention to a massive salmon kill in the Klamath basin. “I can’t say exactly what I’m gonna do, but the day may well need to come when Congressman Solomon dumps some cannabis on the appropriate front steps in Washington.”
Not that Solomon models himself on Thompson. The Blue Dog Coalition supports policies that are “very friendly to Wall Street,” he said. Solomon would rather join forces with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Embracing his far-left agenda, Solomon sees himself as a perfect match for the 2nd District.
“This new district is a very liberal district overall, and it can stand for and fight for and accomplish in Congress what many districts aren’t able to do,” he said. Then, as he has done numerous times throughout the campaign, he took dead aim at the frontrunner. “Frankly, if Jared [Huffman] was going to represent a district in Kansas or Mississippi in the U.S. Congress, I would say that seems fine, a step forward. But we can do better in this district, and I think there’s a very good chance we will.”
This article appears in Congress: The Dating Game.
“Considering how unpopular the U.S. Congress is these days, it’s kind of surprising that anyone wants to join its ranks. Last month, Congress’ job-approval rating reached a historic low-water mark of just 10 percent, according to a Gallup survey”. (Ryan Burns).
Considering how half the potential voters are unregistered, “it’s kind of surprising” that mainstream media, (and the NCJ), literally NEVER mention it!
Gallup surveys are skewed by all those disenfranchised, non-registered citizens! Of course they’re dissatisfied with politics corrupted by the highest-bidders!
The interviews are interesting, but heavy on the editorializing. Huffman voted on 60+ bills that passed. He didn’t “pass 60+ pieces of legislation”. He only co-authored one?
If Adams, “does her homework” she would have chosen an independent-owned coffee shop for a media interview, as Huffman had!
If you’re going to publicly claim a member of this community is “disgraced”, there ought to be some explanation. But then, using others names to publish letters to the editor is a laughable “disgrace” against the backdrop of unparalleled media censorship.
At least our next democratic member of congress will offer some local solace from generations of political corruption by our good ol’ boys and girls backed by the usual development community…making sure profitable, poverty-wage big box malls and McMansion sprawl can continue beyond social service, infrastructure, and home affordability limitations…
“If Adams, “does her homework” she would have chosen an independent-owned coffee shop for a media interview, as Huffman had!
Actually, Susan Adams and Dan Roberts did choose an independent-owned coffee shop — Hot Brew in Fortuna — but it was closed when we arrived. The Starbucks happens to be nearby.
We totally self-censored that fact.
“Huffman voted on 60+ bills that passed. He didn’t ‘pass 60+ pieces of legislation’. He only co-authored one?”
You can find a list of Huffman-authored legislation on his website.
Thanks for “the rest of the story”.
I’m glad it provided you some solace from your self-censorship!
After all, pretending that U.S. elections are legitimate, (while never mentioning that more than half the eligible population abstains), means billions of dollars in ad sales for mainstream media…aka , the “free press”.
Before you mock self censorship again, you might want to subscribe to “Top 25 Censored Stories” or the international magazine “Index on Censorship”. Prepare yourself.
Thank you for the Huffman link, although, it would appear to be a small disservice to only mention a single co-authored bill when he’s authored about 20 per year. I couldn’t find the same info, on Chesbro’s page.
You are correct, all these Dem. candidates support the same progressive causes…that’s why I’m supporting Solomon…he spent the last generation effectively advancing fundamental democratic values. I’d love to have his calmly delivered, knowledgeable debating skills in D.C. where they are desperately needed.
Funny, the caricature drawing depicts local candidate Andy Caffrey along with four other candidates. Then it goes on about how most of the candidates are from down south, way down south of here. Yet Andy was given absolutely no coverage and he is a local candidate. Is the NCJ biased against local candidates? Are their special interests in representing out of area candidates? I wonder if Andy can file a lawsuit against the NCJ for misrepresenting his likeness?
If there were to be a lawsuit from this article, it would rightfully belong to Richard Salzman.
For those that want more on the candidates than the bias this journalist placed on the other candidates by not interviewing us for this article, please visit my website. I’ve spent 20+ years working for Sonoma County and the Bay Area on regional numerous regional boards. I’m currently Vice Mayor of the largest city in the new 2nd Congressional District. You can view my positions at http://www.TiffanyReneeForCongress.com
I’m running a right-sized campaign, working hard to protect the interests on the vast and beautiful district. I’m not spending my time dialing for dollars while in public office. I want money out of politics. Instead, I’m working hard for the people I represent and earning the support of those in the new Congressional District through good old fashioned, grassroots campaigning.
That wouldn’t be Stockton, would it?
Norman Solomon is spot on.
Ryan: At some point consumers have to control the “Wal-Mart” ideals in our society. If consumers don’t want to buy from Wal-Mart they should voice their opinions with their pocketbooks because that is the most powerful voice of all at this point in our society. Consumers can protect the small businesses in their own community faster than any legislation going through Congress. Buy Local.
http://solomonforcongress.com/index.php/bio
Dean W’s comment is hilariously stupid. Perhaps the Republicans can draft him to run in the 2nd Congressional District.
“…consumer’s pocketbook is the most powerful voice of all at this point in our society.”
Unfortunately, without a real public-interest community media, they’ll never know why it’s important.
Hi everybody! Here’s my response to this silly article. This form only allows me to put up 1/4 of the article. I’ll try to post all four parts in sequence. Not sure if the form will let me post comments four times in a row. I’ve got the entire response up at http://www.caffreyforcongress.org/new-math/
And Jeff, that was supposed to be Dan Roberts with the hat on the cover. Note the beard.
“The New Math in California’s 2nd Congressional District”
It’s a shame when a writer lets an outdated overgeneralized presumption get in the way of facts. It’s said that when Columbus’ ships appeared on the horizon, the native American Arawak didn’t see them because they had never seen 3- and 4-masted sailing ships before.
Likewise, common political presumptions are rarely reconsidered by the punditry. Something new that will work but has never been seen before is presumed to be impossible because it hasn’t happened yet. However, beginning with the Howard Dean for President campaign and peaking with the successful election of the first black President, the internet has become a new and powerful X Factor for the precocious and inventive campaigner.
So everything is predictable until it is not.
However, in this 2012 2nd District Congressional campaign we have actual data that rocks many of those presumptions to their core and show that something very new and profound is happening here on the North Coast right now. There are evidentiary tests that can be evaluated. I have six months of polls conducted by consultants to the Caffrey for Congress campaign which show that I’m one of the four frontrunners in this race. In fact, until January, of all the candidates without public office experience I’ve been in first place (3rd place overall)! In November I was tied for 2nd place overall with Marin Supervisor Susan Adams. Norman, with his $300,000 is only now slipping ahead of me.
There is such an outdated presumption underlying your article “Congress: The Dating Game” that money always wins Congressional elections. If that is still so, then explain to me why my $10,000 campaign is crushing the Marin Millionaire’s half million dollar campaign. Our March 15 polI reveals that currently I have support from 6% of the district’s voters who say they will vote for me. Stacey Lawson has 1%. I have six times the votes as the millionaire! The Republican Dan Roberts has been completely abandoned by the Republican party and is at 4%. So I’m ahead of the Republican too.
Further, our March 15 poll shows that 73% of the 2nd District will vote for a Democrat for their Congressional representative. Only 10% for a Republican! Considering that the Top Two vote getters in the June primary will probably need to top 30%, and that now there are two Republicans in the race, the Republicans don’t have a chance in Hell of electing one of their own to this House seat.
Hi everybody! Here’s my response to this silly article. This form only allows me to put up 1/4 of the article. I’ll try to post all four parts in sequence. Not sure if the form will let me post comments four times in a row. I’ve got the entire response up at http://www.caffreyforcongress.org/new-math/
And Jeff, that was supposed to be Dan Roberts with the hat on the cover. Note the beard.
“The New Math in California’s 2nd Congressional District”
It’s a shame when a writer lets an outdated overgeneralized presumption get in the way of facts. It’s said that when Columbus’ ships appeared on the horizon, the native American Arawak didn’t see them because they had never seen 3- and 4-masted sailing ships before.
Likewise, common political presumptions are rarely reconsidered by the punditry. Something new that will work but has never been seen before is presumed to be impossible because it hasn’t happened yet. However, beginning with the Howard Dean for President campaign and peaking with the successful election of the first black President, the internet has become a new and powerful X Factor for the precocious and inventive campaigner.
So everything is predictable until it is not.
However, in this 2012 2nd District Congressional campaign we have actual data that rocks many of those presumptions to their core and show that something very new and profound is happening here on the North Coast right now. There are evidentiary tests that can be evaluated. I have six months of polls conducted by consultants to the Caffrey for Congress campaign which show that I’m one of the four frontrunners in this race. In fact, until January, of all the candidates without public office experience I’ve been in first place (3rd place overall)! In November I was tied for 2nd place overall with Marin Supervisor Susan Adams. Norman, with his $300,000 is only now slipping ahead of me.
There is such an outdated presumption underlying your article “Congress: The Dating Game” that money always wins Congressional elections. If that is still so, then explain to me why my $10,000 campaign is crushing the Marin Millionaire’s half million dollar campaign. Our March 15 polI reveals that currently I have support from 6% of the district’s voters who say they will vote for me. Stacey Lawson has 1%. I have six times the votes as the millionaire! The Republican Dan Roberts has been completely abandoned by the Republican party and is at 4%. So I’m ahead of the Republican too.
Further, our March 15 poll shows that 73% of the 2nd District will vote for a Democrat for their Congressional representative. Only 10% for a Republican! Considering that the Top Two vote getters in the June primary will probably need to top 30%, and that now there are two Republicans in the race, the Republicans don’t have a chance in Hell of electing one of their own to this House seat.
Humboldt Journal Dating Game Skips Sonoma Candidates
Halstead’s March 9, 2012 Marin IJ report notes “Eleven people have filed to run in the primary election for the new 2nd District congressional seat” and continues:
At this point, two Republicans have filed in the congressional race: Michael Halliwell of Cotati, a retired sociology profes-sor who ran as the Republican candidate against Woolsey in 2008; and Daniel Roberts, a Tiburon investment adviser who mounted a write-in campaign against Woolsey in 2010 as an American Independent nominee.
Halstead’s list of Democrat 2nd CD candidates includes Vice-Mayor of Petaluma (like Woolsey in 1992), Tiffany Renee:
Petaluma Councilwoman Tiffany Renee, who was elected to the Petaluma City Council in 2009, earned a master’s in philosophy and religion from the California Institute of Integral Studies and works as a website designer.
The Humboldt County Journal does not explain why it left Sonoma County’s candidates out, in its 2nd CD contest analysis:
In recent weeks, the Journal interviewed the five most formidable contenders in the 2nd district congressional race. Four are Democrats; one is Republican. Three are men; two are women. And all five have established simple personas: the Nurse, the Anointed, the Entrepreneur, the Republican and the Activist.
The Journal thus excludes both Sonoma 2nd CD candidates.
The Journal sets forth its view of the office being sought:
Much is required of a successful Congressional legislator. You must be a persuasive raconteur, a savvy negotiator, a dogged opportunist, a reliable bacon-supplier for your constituents and more. But winning an election? That’s mostly salesmanship.
Neither Tiffany Renee’s nor Mike Halliwell’s campaign fits The Journal’s complaint about the state of the 2nd CD race:
And so the race — like most contests in contemporary politics, some would argue — has largely been reduced to the crafting and selling of personas. Personal rough edges and philosophical subtleties have been burnished or hidden away, leaving a lineup of easily understood characters.
The Journal does explain why it included Dan Roberts:
One more difference this year is the new “top-two” electoral system, which will send the first- and second-place vote-getters from the June5 primary into the November general election, regardless of party. We could see two progressive candidates facing off in November, or, if the progressive vote gets spread thinly among the 10 lefty contenders, a
Republican could easily slide into one of the finalist slots.
With distinctive campaigns, Renee (with a City Council
leadership position) and Halliwell (with a clear record from his 2006-2010 campaigns against the retiring incumbent Lynn Woolsey) are NOT trying to slide into the final round.
The Journal identifies the key factors it considers important.
More than half of registered voters here are Democrats while fewer than one in four is Republican. (The candidate filing period ended Wednesday.) Population distribution is simi-larly lopsided. Together, Marin County and Sonoma counties have 251,796 registered voters. Humboldt comes in a distant third with 75,081 while Mendocino, Trinity and Del Norte combined have just 67,415. With so many progressives in the field, the differences between candidates are more about style than policy positions.
The Journal also leaves out the local favorite son candidates:
Whoever wins the election, he or she will almost certainly hail from either Marin or Sonoma County. Only three of the 13 candidates don’t — Earth First! veteran Andy Caffrey of Garberville, Mendocino seaweed farmer John Lewallen and Mendocino pot doctor William Courtney — and they’re distant longshots.
The Journal provides ample discussion of who isn’t running:
Considering how unpopular the U.S. Congress is these days, it’s kind of surprising that anyone wants to join its ranks. Last month, Congress’ job-approval rating reached a historic low-water mark of just 10 percent, according to a Gallup survey. And yet here on the North Coast we find ourselves in the midst of the most exciting — and crowded — Congressional primary race in more than a decade.
To some extent that excitement has been foisted on us. Given the opportunity we probably would have kept electing Rep. Mike Thompson for as long as he chose to represent us. But Humboldt County and Thompson have been forcibly div-orced. Last year, a voter-initiated citizens committee redrew California’s boundaries for congressional, state Senate and Assembly districts, putting the North Coast in bed with our wealthy neighbors to the south. For the purposes of congressional representation, Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties are no longer attached to an easterly dogleg jutting into the portion of wine country that includes Thompson’s hometown of St. Helena. Instead, the new 2nd congressional district extends from Marin County north to the Oregon bor-der, skirting Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park. Our new representative likely would have been resident 20-year incumbent Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, but the 74-year-old announced last year that she’ll retire rather than seek reelection.
The Journal’s headline, In a wide-open race, candidates sell charming personas to romance the electorate, provides the focus of this article by Ryan Burns and its Dan Roberts interview. The Journal starts off its account of its interview, saying;
At a March 1 candidates’ forum in Fortuna High School’s gymnasium, Dan Roberts sat with his arms folded across his chest wearing a navy blue suit and red, white & blue bowtie. Even without the bowtie it would have been easy for Roberts to stand out.
As the lone Republican on a 9-candidate panel, he was the only person that night to say, “I don’t agree.”
“We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem,” he said into the microphone. Rather than raising taxes on “the so-called rich,”
Roberts proposed a 15 percent flat-rate income tax across the board. “I think we should stop this class warfare that’s going on,” he said, prompting scattered applause from the crowd.
Few in the crowd had a recent income tax return with them.
Redwood Times (January 19, 2012) “Range of incomes was astonishing” reports candidate’s answers re “last year’s income,” when asked at a 1/15/12 candidate debate: Stacey Lawson $30,000 (when campaigning full time), Solomon $55,000 (also spent most time campaigning), Jared Huffman $85,000 (Assemblyman’s salary), Susan Adams $90,000 (Supervisor’s salary), Dan Roberts $300,000 (brokerage earnings). Let’s do a bit of tax computation.
Basic 2011 Federal Income Taxes for a couple filing jointly:
Personal Exemption (0% of first $7,400): $0
Standard Deduction (0% of next $11,400): $0
Bottom Bracket (10% of taxable $18,800 to $35,800): $1,700
15% Bracket (next taxable $35,800 to $87,800): $7,800
25% Bracket (next taxable $87,800 to $158,150): $17,588
28% Bracket (next taxable $158,150 to $231,100): $20,426
33% Bracket (next taxable $231,100 to $397,950): $55,060
35% Bracket (taxable $397,950 to $1,000,000): $210,718
Tracey Lawson’s $30,000 has a tax liability of no more than $1,120; under the Roberts Plan it would be $4,500. Norman Solomon’s $55,000 has a tax liability of no more than $4,580; Roberts would collect $7,500. Jared Huffman’s $85,000 salary requires sending no more than $9,080 to the IRS; the Robert’s plan would cost $12,750. Susan Adam’s $90,000 salary requires no more than $10,050 for Uncle Sam; the Roberts plan would cost $13,500. The $300,000 earned by Dan Roberts has a basic tax liability of $70,251; under his own plan Roberts would pay $45,000. A married stockbroker successful enough to earn $1,000,000 would have a basic tax liability of $313,292; under the Roberts plan this couple would owe only $150,000.
Michael Halliwell’s most recent federal income tax return (couple filing jointly) shows a gross income of $108,588 with deductions for: a) personal exemptions $7,300, b) property taxes $4,200 c) mortgage interest $4,746 d) Books for Peace $17,000 e) mostly religious charitable contributions $2,806. The resulting tax was $9,794. Under the Roberts plan we would owe $16,288. The $6,494 difference would wipe out nearly half of the Halliwell’s charitable 501(c)(3) Books for Peace contribution, which pays for shipping donated books to Peace Corps school and library projects in the Philippines and Ukraine.
Thus, when one considers that the cited incomes of his opponents are a reasonable cross section of the voting public, Dan Roberts goes forth in his 2012 campaign for Congress under this inspiring banner: “Let’s redistribute America’s income: more for me, less for you.”
Ryan Burns’ 3/15/12 “Congress: the Dating Game” observes:
As strategies go, simply being a Republican is enough to earn Roberts some loyal support, and he’s keeping his platform simple. Under the “Issues” tab on his campaign website only one issue is addressed: federal spending. Asked his opinion on other topics, Roberts said he needs to put everything aside except “one issue: fiscal conservatism. Cut the deficit, balance the budget, stop the spending. It starts there. All of our unhappiness begins with progressive liberals not doing that.”
Had Tiffany Renee been part of The Journal’s comparison group, Roberts’ August 11, 2011 response to “Renee joins race for Woolsey’s seat” (www.watchsonomacounty.com) would have been an obvious contrast. Here Dan Roberts wrote:
For the first time in years, I plan to give the Sonoma County voters a clear choice for congress: fiscal conservative – moderate on all social issues. As opposed to Tiffany I had prior federal service when it mattered and long financial experience when now it matters. For a change I will run as a Republican [he joined the GOP in 2011] look for my position pieces which will run in the local press. Please look at http://www.danrobertsforcongress.com.
The Journal next asks Roberts, What would he eliminate? “Cut departments,” he said. “You pick ‘em.” Roberts lists three:
1) Could be Energy [Roberts opposes key energy programs.]
E-11 (2012) HR 3408 Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act. Supports Keystone XL Pipeline Linking Canadian oil sands production areas with American refineries. (Woolsey & Thompson = NO, Halliwell = YES) Roll Call #71 (237-187) All but 21 Republicans voted YES, all but 21 Democrats voted NO. Dan Roberts would apparently vote with Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson.
2) Could be EPA, [North Coast pollution also threatens us.]
Bill Van Bonn’s “The Marine Mammal Center reflects on events in 2011” (quoted in the 3/8/12 Fort Bragg Advocate-News) cites environmental links between animal and human welfare:
Marine mammals have been dubbed the “canaries of the sea.” Many of the illnesses they are facing can affect humans, too. Toxins such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), banned in the U.S. in 1979 and domoic acid poisoning (DAP), also known as “amnesic shellfish poisoning,” also affect humans. Domoic acid has been associated with harmful alga blooms. If a creature, such as a mollusk or other bottom feeder, is consumed from an area with a harmful alga bloom, the person, or animal, could get domoic acid poisoning. This nuerotoxin affects the hippocampus in the brain, the part that controls memory and spatial navigation. Bonn said some sea lions with DAP will be found in odd places, having lost their sense of navigation.
3) Perhaps Defense? [Roberts would make deep cuts.]
M-11 (2011) HR 1540 Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012. (Woolsey & Thompson = NO, Halliwell = YES) Roll Call #375 (322-96) shows 97% of Republicans and a majority of Democrats voted in favor. Dan Roberts would apparently vote with Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson on this issue.
Ryan Burns’ 3/15/12 “Congress: the Dating Game” observes:
The Journal asked about a claim made in a campaign video: “$787 Billion Stimulus Plan equals 2.4 Million Jobs LOST.” Where did that figure come from? “It probably comes off the press, the published articles on the subject,” he said. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal stimulus created between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs in the fall of 2010 alone. “Depends on who you want to believe,” Roberts countered. “I pick the Republican source.” He couldn’t recall what that source was.
What Roberts has done is to convert a Republican claim that the CBO estimate was FALSE (2.4 million is the mid-point of the CBO range), into the concept that jobs which were not created were actually LOST. Mike Halliwell’s December 6, 2011 analysis of President Obama’s false claims of job creation, notes:
The reason why various “stimulus packages” have had no NET impact, is people diverting much more of their earnings into savings, to be better able to protect themselves when government support for living standards based on printing press currency debasement collapses, as it becomes no longer possible to “kick the can down the road.”
Ryan Burns’ 3/15/12 “Congress: the Dating Game” discusses the apparent main focus of Roberts’ Humboldt County tour:
Founder, president and CEO of San Francisco investment firm Roberts & Ryan, Roberts had driven his convertible black Pontiac Solstice up Hwy. 101 to attend the event. Before participating in the forum he sat down at the Fortuna Starbucks to talk about his priorities, his reasons for running and his campaign strategy.
He’d barely sat down before an older woman approached him bashfully and said, “Hi, how do you do. You’re the Repub-lican candidate?” Yes, he replied. “I think that lady over there would like a chat with you at some point,” the woman said, pointing at two more gray-haired women seated nearby. They waved.
Roberts was born and raised in San Francisco, where his business is now located. Is that a disadvantage given how rural most of the 2nd District is? “Why do you say that?” he challenged. “Where I live, down there it’s not [rural]. It’s rural up here. I don’t know how I’m gonna represent this [district] — it’s polar opposites, frankly.”
Good point. People up here are worried about just that. “You know what? Don’t worry about it,” Roberts said. “The votes, frankly, are down south. Are they not?” In that case, why even bother driving up here? “Because I want to learn the fishery issues, environmental issues, the forestry — I don’t know those issues.”
His visit to Humboldt County was a listening tour, he said, and he doesn’t see his unfamiliarity with local issues as a disadvantage. “I’m a businessman. I care about families. I care about small businesses perhaps more than about the environment … probably more than some theoretical heating or cooling issue.” He called global warming “unsettled science” and a bogeyman that’s served primarily to give Al Gore “a billion dollars … and 200 extra pounds.”
Ryan Burns sums up his March 15, 2012 Roberts analysis:
Roberts’ campaign is almost entirely self-financed — $110,000 of his $113,851. Perhaps that helps account for his bluntness. This refusal to answer in safe generalities was, among other things, refreshing. “I’ve given the voters a different message and a clear choice,” he said.
Humboldt County voters will have an opportunity to decide for themselves on the viability of candidates Renee and Halliwell.
The March 20, 2012 Eureka Times Standard reports: “Congressional candidates to be at forum on aging and disability.”
This year, North Coast residents will be voting to select a congressional representative with no incumbent running. When the Redistricting Commission redrew the congres-sional districts in California, previous representative Mike Thompson found himself outside the new boundaries. Thompson decided to run in his new district. The open seat in the new Second Congressional District has attracted many candidates. Two will survive the primary and one will win in November.
The March 20, 2012 Eureka Times Standard notes:
To find out what the candidates know about aging and disability issues like Social Security, Medicare, Federal support for long-term care and programs that allow aged and disabled persons to preserve their independence and remain in their own homes, attend the Congressional Candidates Forum on March 30 at the Humboldt Senior Resource Center, 1910 California St. in Eureka. Doors open at 1:30 p.m. The forum begins at 2 p.m. and ends at 4 p.m. The League of Women Voters will be moderating the forum, and attendees are encouraged to ask questions.
god forbid y’all should ever have the misfortune of being represented by Susan Adams. You’ll be miserable. I live in Adams’ district in Marin but I’m visiting your area this weekend, and I’m rather stunned by how many people are naively swallowing Adams’ slick marketing of herself. If you want a Congressperson who does nothing, takes credit for the work of others, and has a wee problem with telling the truth, then be my guest. She was barely re-elected to her supervisor’s seat last term, and only with the help of SEIU (a union) that poured a fortune into her campaign. And no, I’m not in any way affiliated with the other candidates. But I AM a progressive Democrat. Bottom line: she’s taken substantial money from a wealthy developer here in Marin named Joe Shekou – this guy dragged her constituents into court for opposing his sports facility located next to a runway in the middle of endangered species habitat. Adams hasn’t lifted a finger to stop this project (her opposition is tepid at best). Never mind that her constituents will be dramatically impacted by light, noise and traffic. And the Shell wind project just outside Ferndale? Adams touts Marin Energy Authority – which, fyi – is contracted with Shell. And she’s not even on the MEA board – MEA was primarily the work of now deceased Charles McGlashan. Don’t be fooled by her. She’s serves her own ambitions and little else.
1
“The New Math in California’s 2nd Congressional district”
It’s a shame when a writer lets an outdated overgeneralized presumption get in the way of facts. It’s said that when Columbus’ ships appeared on the horizon, the native American Arawak didn’t see them because they had never seen 3- and 4-masted sailing ships before.
Likewise, common political presumptions are rarely reconsidered by the punditry. Something new that will work but has never been seen before is presumed to be impossible because it hasn’t happened yet. However, beginning with the Howard Dean for President campaign and peaking with the successful election of the first black President, the internet has become a new and powerful X Factor for the precocious and inventive campaigner.
So everything is predictable until it is not.
However, in this 2012 2nd District Congressional campaign we have actual data that rocks many of those presumptions to their core and show that something very new and profound is happening here on the North Coast right now. There are evidentiary tests that can be evaluated. I have six months of polls conducted by consultants to the Caffrey for Congress campaign which show that I’m one of the four frontrunners in this race. In fact, until January, of all the candidates without public office experience I’ve been in first place (3rd place overall)! In November I was tied for 2nd place overall with Marin Supervisor Susan Adams. Norman, with his $300,000 is only now slipping ahead of me.
There is such an outdated presumption underlying your article “Congress: The Dating Game” that money always wins Congressional elections. If that is still so, then explain to me why my $10,000 campaign is crushing the Marin Millionaire’s half million dollar campaign. Our March 15 polI reveals that currently I have support from 6% of the district’s voters who say they will vote for me. Stacey Lawson has 1%. I have six times the votes as the millionaire! The Republican Dan Roberts has been completely abandoned by the Republican party and is at 4%. So I’m ahead of the Republican too.
Further, our March 15 poll shows that 73% of the 2nd District will vote for a Democrat for their Congressional representative. Only 10% for a Republican! Considering that the Top Two vote getters in the June primary will probably need to top 30%, and that now there are two Republicans in the race, the Republicans don’t have a chance in Hell of electing one of their own to this House seat.
So really, there are only four people in this race still advancing toward that victory threshold: Jared Huffman (23%), Susan Adams (11%), Norman Solomon (10%) and Andy Caffrey (6%). After Republican Dan Roberts (4%) the next highest Democrat is at 1%, a tie between Stacey Lawson and Petaluma Vice Mayor Tiffany Renée. So that’s the real gulf that separates the four frontrunners from the longshots.
“The New Math in California’s 2nd Congressional district”
It’s a shame when a writer lets an outdated overgeneralized presumption get in the way of facts. It’s said that when Columbus’ ships appeared on the horizon, the native American Arawak didn’t see them because they had never seen 3- and 4-masted sailing ships before.
Likewise, common political presumptions are rarely reconsidered by the punditry. Something new that will work but has never been seen before is presumed to be impossible because it hasn’t happened yet. However, beginning with the Howard Dean for President campaign and peaking with the successful election of the first black President, the internet has become a new and powerful X Factor for the precocious and inventive campaigner.
So everything is predictable until it is not.
However, in this 2012 2nd District Congressional campaign we have actual data that rocks many of those presumptions to their core and show that something very new and profound is happening here on the North Coast right now. There are evidentiary tests that can be evaluated. I have six months of polls conducted by consultants to the Caffrey for Congress campaign which show that I’m one of the four frontrunners in this race. In fact, until January, of all the candidates without public office experience I’ve been in first place (3rd place overall)! In November I was tied for 2nd place overall with Marin Supervisor Susan Adams. Norman, with his $300,000 is only now slipping ahead of me.
There is such an outdated presumption underlying your article “Congress: The Dating Game” that money always wins Congressional elections. If that is still so, then explain to me why my $10,000 campaign is crushing the Marin Millionaire’s half million dollar campaign. Our March 15 polI reveals that currently I have support from 6% of the district’s voters who say they will vote for me. Stacey Lawson has 1%. I have six times the votes as the millionaire! The Republican Dan Roberts has been completely abandoned by the Republican party and is at 4%. So I’m ahead of the Republican too.
Further, our March 15 poll shows that 73% of the 2nd District will vote for a Democrat for their Congressional representative. Only 10% for a Republican! Considering that the Top Two vote getters in the June primary will probably need to top 30%, and that now there are two Republicans in the race, the Republicans don’t have a chance in Hell of electing one of their own to this House seat.
So really, there are only four people in this race still advancing toward that victory threshold: Jared Huffman (23%), Susan Adams (11%), Norman Solomon (10%) and Andy Caffrey (6%). After Republican Dan Roberts (4%) the next highest Democrat is at 1%, a tie between Stacey Lawson and Petaluma Vice Mayor Tiffany Renée. So that’s the real gulf that separates the four frontrunners from the longshots.
2
The story you should be writing, especially as my TV commercials–the first of any candidate–are now hitting CBS, Fox, and KIEM, is “How is Earth First!er/Climate Crisis/anti-GMO/Green political organizer and medical cannabis patient Andy Caffrey running neck-and-neck with and beating millionaires in this race?”
For months now, at our debates Huffman, Lawson, and Solomon have been bragging about how much money they’ve raised, as if it were the only indicator of candidate viability (or a reason for you to vote for them!). But if you actually do the math and divide the total dollars raised by each candidate as of the end of 2011 with the percentage of the electorate who now say they will vote for each candidate you will find that for every percentage that says they will vote for Huffman it costs him $25,484. Solomon has to raise $31,182 for each percentage. Adams only has to raise $10,331 for each percentage so is three times more effective at winning votes with her money than either Huffman or Solomon. Dan Roberts, the Republican has to raise more than any of those Democrats by raising $32,963 for each percentage of his 4 percent. Astonishingly, rather than being a front runner, the Marin Millionaire Lawson has to spend her entire whopping $455,959 for just one measly percentage! Hardly a front runner!
On the other hand, I only have to raise $1,225 for each percentage of my current 6 percent support! So Huffman must raise 20 times more than I have to raise for every percentage we jump in the polls. Solomon and Roberts 25 times more. Adams 8 times more. Lawson 372 times more than I do! So the amount of money raised is meaningless as an indicator of front-running status and candidate viability if candidates with much less money use it much more effectively.
So here’s the new math. If you presume that a candidate must win at least 30% of the vote to be in the Top Two, then each of the candidates will have to raise in total the following amounts if these ratios hold true (which they won’t!):
Huffman: $764,520
Solomon: $945,460
Adams: $309,930
Roberts: $988,890
Lawson: $13,678,770!!! Over $13 million!!
Caffrey: $36,750
3
Of course, in reality the higher the percentage you want to win the more it costs… at least in the old paradigm. It looks to me that of your five frontrunners, only Huffman and Adams are likely to raise the needed sum.
The true longshots then are: 1) Solomon who will have to raise three times more money in these last three months than he’s raised in his entire first year of campaigning! 2) The Republican party is providing no support to Roberts. He’ll have to raise eight times more than the 100 grand he’s put into the campaign himself already. 3) Lawson has to raise $13 million… There go three of your five frontrunners!
I only have to raise less than $30,000 more for the entire campaign! Welfare mother Lynn Woolsey pulled off her victory on $65,000 and I’m much more savvy with the Internet, social networking, and video than she was. So it looks to me that there are only three of us in the race, and I’m one of them!
You might also ask, “How is it that Andy Caffrey has been ahead of Norman Solomon almost the entire race?” After spending all that money and campaigning his butt off for a year Solomon finally passed me in the polls in February. But it’s cost him $300,000 to overtake my $8,000 campaign! FYI Norman’s activist and literary “fame” is only worth 1% in our district. That’s all the support he could muster during the first six of months of this campaign. You would think that all of the people who know his name and will vote for him would have let the pollsters know of their support during that first 6 months.
On the other hand, I started out with 2%, twice as much support as he had. So much for progressive Democratic fame being a decisive factor in the 2nd District.
I also have a history of doing things no one else has done before, such as shutting down a GMO firm that wanted to release genetically-engineered microbes into your atmosphere! In fact, because of my pioneering strategic and obstreperous organizing work, that whole wing of the industry has been shut down since 1987 globally. The BBC considers me a World Historic Figure for this pioneering work, which, incidentally, involved pulling up strawberry plants to sabotage their test sites. You can see my website for more on my background and my strategy to victrory: CaffreyForCongress.org.
4
Lastly, some folks think that Republicans will vote for Assemblyman Huffman because he appears to be the most centrist and “establishment” candidate. I doubt it. He’s still a Progressive Democrat to Republicans. Cuts in the state budget passed with Huffman’s vote are killing poor people in Humboldt County with their elimination of dental and eye care and their radical reduction of mental health services. So look how great the state government is working! And Assemblyman Jared Huffman wants to bring more of the same to Congress! If he can’t provide the leadership to get the California state government together and working for the middle class and the least among us, then how can you expect him to do better in Congress?
Strong and bold leadership is exactly what’s needed now, from someone unaligned with either party and with a history of fighting like a wolverine against the status quo in both parties–not someone who, like Huffman and Solomon, will toe the line of the Democratic party leadership. I mean, really, when you watch the two of them bow and curtsy to get all those Democratic party officeholder endorsements with their not-so-corporate-clean PAC money, can we really expect them to sacrifice that support for their re-election in 2014 by taking on Pelosi next time she does something like take impeachment off the table?
In Marin County the press doesn’t consider me a longshot. Out of all the candidates, the NCJ-like weekly the Pacific Sun did a cover story on me, commissioned terrific artwork for it, and implied that I was the only candidate who could well represent the entire district. On the other hand, they characterized Huffman as the Tin Man, Susan Adams as the Scarecrow, and Norman Soloman as the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz!
They did the math.
Andy Caffrey
?Caffrey For Congress 2012?
Garberville, CA
In order of current poll rankings:
Huffman: $586,131 ? 23% = $25,484/my $1,225 = $20.80?
Adams: $113,642 ? 11% = $10,331/my $1,225 = $8.43?
Solomon: $311,817 ? 10% = $31,182/my $1,225 = $25.45?
Caffrey: $7,352 ? 6% = $1,225 = $1.00
Roberts: $131,851 ? 4% = $32,963/my $1,225 = $26.91?
Lawson: $455,959 ? 1% = $455,959/my $1,225 = $372.21
Thank you,
Andy Caffrey?Caffrey for Congress 2012?Garberville, CA 95542
NEWS FLASH! YESTERDAY’S POLL RESULTS IN for North Coast 2nd District Congressional race! 7 of 12 candidates still at 1% or less. HUFFMAN, SOLOMON and 7 others STALL! No gain in last 30 days!
ONLY GAINS: Republican Roberts picks up 1% to make 5%.
ADAMS gains 18% to widen lead over Solomon, BUT CAFFREY HAS BIGGEST JUMP OF ALL! UP 33% From 6 to 8%!
CAFFREY and ADAMS only progressives still advancing! CAFFREY now has 8 times more votes than millionaire Stacey Lawson who has topped $600,000 in donations! It’s time to help Andy drive this sucker over the end zone!
PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TODAY!
http://www.caffreyforcongress.org/make-a-donation/
ANDY CAFFREY FOR CONGRESS
PO BOX 324
REDWAY, CA 95560
Here are the last eight months of our monthly (except November) internal polls all compiled together. The first number is from mid-September. The last from last week (polled April 11-12).
In the race for US Congress, which of the following would you be most likely to vote for?
Jared Huffman 9 > 10 > 13 > 17 > 21 > 23 > 23
Susan Adams 3 > 4 > 5 > 8 > 9 > 11 > 13
Norman Solomon 1 > 1 > 4 > 5 > 9 > 10 > 10
Andy Caffrey 2 > 4 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 6 > 8
Dan Roberts ® na > na > 1 > 1 > 1 > 4 > 5
Tiffany Renée 0.5 > 0.5 > 1 > 1 > 0.5 > 1 > 1
Stacey Lawson 0.5 > 1 > 2 > 2 > 2 > 1 > 1
William Courtney na > 0.5 > 1 > 1 > 0.5 > 0.5 > 0.5
John Lewallen (I) na > na > na > na > na > 0.5 > 0.5
Larry Fritzlan na > na > na > na > na > 0.5 > 0.5
Brooke Clarke (I) na > na > na > na > na > 0.5 > 0.5
Mike Halliwell ® not polled