Eighty years ago on this date, two giants of American politics intersected when Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke at the dedication of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial alongside the Tidal Basin in the nation’s capital.
Jefferson and Roosevelt are intertwined in various ways (and patience, dear readers, we’ll get to the California connection in a moment). Jefferson was a “Democrat,” though not in the modern sense of the word—technically, he was a member of the “Democratic Republicans” faction, whose eventual fracture gave way to the rise of the Democratic Party, Roosevelt’s party, in the 1820s.
Other parallels: both Jefferson and Roosevelt were lawyers, and each was laid to rest on the grounds of his respective country estate (Monticello and Springwood). As circumstance would have it, the two presidents’ memorials are a short walk from each other on opposite sides of Washington’s Tidal Basin.
The California connection? One wonders what the two legends would make of next March’s US Senate primary in the Golden State, which may end up speaking volumes to the direction of the party that can claim FDR and Jefferson as patriarchs.
About that contest: under California rules, the top two finishers of the Golden State’s March 5 primary advance to November’s general election regardless of their party affiliation.
Unfortunately, that change—brought about by 2010’s voter-approved Proposition 14—hasn’t produced much in the way of election night intrigue. Dianne Feinstein barely broke a sweat as she breezed to reelection in 2012 and 2018, just as Alex Padilla victory’s last November was the antithesis of a cliffhanger.
Kamala Harris likewise cruised to victory in 2016—the promise of a history-making contest featuring the biracial Harris and the Latina Loretta Sanchez instead playing out as “one of the least exciting races in California history.”
Why did the Harris-Sanchez contest fizzle? In part, because the two women (both registered Democrats) didn’t offer much of a policy contrast. Even when the candidates debated, the results were less than satisfying for those looking for a trenchant discussion (during their one televised debate, Sanchez “dabbed” before the cameras, prompting Harris to wisecrack: “So, there’s a clear difference between the two candidates in this race”).
Let’s assume that hip-hop gestures won’t be on the menu come the time of the next Senate debate in California. Instead, what should be apparent: the contenders are three Democratic members of Congress, all vying for the right to replace Feinstein, and each representing a different “lane” of the present-day Democratic Party.
Those three hopefuls:
- Representing the Democrats’ “establishment” lane, Congressman Adam Schiff—the “establishment” choice in that he’s received Nancy Pelosi’s blessing.
- Representing the “Bernie lane” (“Bernie” as in Vermont senator Bernie Sanders), congresswoman Barbara Lee—or so the famed “democratic socialist” would have us believe (“What Barbara Lee has been fighting for is a change in our national priorities,” Sanders said at a Berkeley rally five years ago. “Instead of giving a tax break to millionaires, instead of feeding the military-industrial complex, we are going to make sure public schools are the best in the world”).
- Representing the “Liz lane” (“Liz” as in Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren), congresswoman Katie Porter—the Warrenesque choice in that (a) she enjoys the senator’s endorsement and (b) she shares Warren’s views on repealing financial deregulation.
So how does this play out over the next 10-plus months?
A February survey showed Schiff and Porter running neck and neck, with Lee a distant third. Indeed, Schiff begins the primary with two advantages, the first being money (he raised more cash than Lee and Porter combined in the first quarter of 2023).
Schiff’s other advantage: his ability to highlight proximity to Donald Trump—or, more to the point, his years hounding the former president, be it claiming Russian collusion in the 2016 election or later serving as the lead prosecutor of Trump’s first impeachment.
Keep in mind: California’s “open” primary means a Democratic candidate can also pull in Republican and nonpartisan voters. Schiff’s Trump-related notoriety therefore will serve as yet another litmus test for Trump’s toxicity in next year’s election.
For argument’s sake, let’s take that February poll and put Schiff and Porter ahead of Lee., and let’s add more stipulation: now, a Republican candidate fails to finish in the top two, which was the case in California’s 2016 and 2018 Senate primaries. What the Golden State could offer the nation (and this assumes President Biden announces for a second term and the Democratic presidential primaries are a formality): a preview of how the next field of Democrats will line up four years from now—and how it might have played out if the pandemic hadn’t made a mess of the 2020 presidential primaries.
Here’s why: while Schiff can point to a progressive record and a voting record more to the left than Porter’s, he finds himself under attack by various interest groups for not being . . . suitably progressive. In other words, the progressive litmus test is stern, if not unforgiving (perhaps one reason why Schiff, at one time a more centrist “Blue Dog” Democrat, recently withdrew his bid to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus).
Second, California could offer an early preview of a challenge Democrats might face in elections further ahead by the 2028 presidential cycle—a need to come up with a descriptor other than “progressive” (which came to adjectival prominence after “liberal” became a troublesome label for some Democrats).
Case in point of this branding discussion: Porter’s recent interview with the influential podcaster Kara Swisher. Asked if she were running as a Sanders or Warren “mini-me,” Porter bristled at the question: “It’s not about a label. it’s about being able to talk to people about who you fight for. . . . I think the label’s actually part of the problem.”
The question of toxic labels might impact one other facet of California’s 2024 election: House races.
As in 2022, the Golden State could be a key determiner of which party controls the lower chamber of Congress. Democrats need to flip only five Republican-held districts (the House currently is at a 222–213 split) to reach 218 seats; California just happens to be the home to five seats that the GOP has picked up in the last two election cycles.
So it wasn’t a surprise when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced earlier this month that it intends to “play aggressively” in no fewer than eight California House districts next year. Those targets, in numerical order: CA-03, CA-13, CA-22, CA-27, CA-40, CA-41, CA-45.
And the eighth district? That would be CA-47 and an open seat thanks to Porter’s decision to jump into the Senate race (Porter having carried the district by a margin of only 8,250 votes last November).
Which should make for a colorful race in Southern California’s Orange County, a “purple” district that could swing either way, with the Democratic nominee maybe lightening up on the deep-blue rhetoric.
