Major Dem vs. Dem House Race in the Silicon Valley

cawacko

Well-known member
For you true political junkies that love to focus on the individual House races this one's for you. The one difference though is instead of the usual Dem vs. Rep battle it is Dem vs. Dem.

Mike Honda is the seven term incumbent who to my knowledge has been a solid Democrat. You don't hear cries that he's a blue-dog that leans to far to the right on occasion. Honda's gotten endorsements from most/all the major Democratic Players, Obama, Boxer, Pelosi etc.

His opponent is a 36 year old Ro Khanna a former Obama trade representative who is raising some big money from major Democratic donors in the Silicon Valley.

Now as far as overall control of the House goes this race will play no part as the seat will stay in Democratic hands. But as I stated for those junkies that like to watch close and intense races this is definitely one to keep an eye on.



House battle: Ro Khanna is Silicon Valley’s $1 million man


When Silicon Valley royalty like Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer, Netscape co-founder Mark Andreessen and Napster co-founder Sean Parker all start writing campaign checks for the same candidate — it’s time to take notice.

Which is why the South Bay House CD-17 race between Democratic former Obama trade representative Ro Khanna, 36, and seven term Democratic incumbent Rep. Mike Honda is the one to watch in 2014.

Political newcomer Khanna in the second quarter of 2013 hit a big mark in fundraising, thanks to some of Silicon Valley’s biggest names. And that $1 million-plus mark he hit as of June 30 is notable for a couple of reasons.

First, he’s done it as a campaign newbie — one who’s challenging Honda, a veteran, respected seven-term House incumbent.

And, Honda is a fellow Democrat.

Only four times have House candidates who are non-self funded reached that lofty fundraising goal out of the gate in a single quarter, his campaign argues. Already, Khanna has now done it twice — raising $1.3 million when he was mulling a run against Rep. Pete Stark in the East Bay. (Democrat Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts and former Florida Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris are the two others.)

But let’s be real: Mike Honda is no Pete Stark, an incumbent with a tendency for headline-making gaffes. The CD-17 incumbent from San Jose is well-liked, a lion in the Asian Pacific Islander community, and has run a careful campaign that stresses his big name endorsements and his credential as the “Congressman of Silicon Valley.”

We haven’t seen Honda’s 2013 second quarter fundraising figures yet — but they’re coming soon. And the release of Khanna’s figures presents a challenge, and will set up some contrasts.

Team Khanna notes their man raised his big numbers this quarter with fundraising exclusively in Northern California — and 91 percent of his checks came from locals while none came from PACS, lobbyists or special interest.

Honda’s last quarter fundraising was just $214,000; he’ll have to work hard to catch up, and to match Khanna’s cash on hand of $1.7 million to date. He’ll also have to show that the Congressman of Silicon Valley isn’t overly relying on Beltway buddies and PACS, and that he’s getting just as much strong local support.

Honda is not without some powerful resources. Labor is a big supporter, and he has big name endorsers, among them President Barack Obama, and just about all the California delegation. He released a list of local endorsements last month and and Vice President Joe Biden, who appeared with him last month at a Hobee’s in Sunnyvale.

Here’s NBC Bay Area video of that event:


View more videos at: http://nbcbayarea.com.

But there will be plenty more to watch in this race — and no doubt surprises and twists ahead.

Stay tuned.


http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05electio...e-ro-khanna-is-silicon-valleys-1-million-man/
 
Do you know how the Lefties would wail and gnash teeth if Florida or Texas turned into a top two state?
 
Do you know how the Lefties would wail and gnash teeth if Florida or Texas turned into a top two state?

Haha. The whole redistricting by judges cost the Republicans seats but I don't care. I don't like the gerrymandering the parties do.
 
Yes. The voters pass an initiative for judges and others to determine the new districts, not the politicians, an with that made it a top two state.

That's not quite accurate. Yes, judges and others now determine districts; that was determined by an initiative.

Having a proposition to set up the "top two" primary was a condition for Maldonado to support Jerry Brown's budget one year. So the proposition (prop 14) was put out there and it passed. Maldonado lost his seat, and that may have been because repubs weren't happy with him pushing it.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/prop-zero/Abel-Maldonado-Top-Two-Success-Story-158598095.html (note: article said he didn't get the top two for supporting the budget, but for supporting an tax increase. Apologies for the misstatement; I found the article afterwards)

I don't like it; I think parties should pick their candidates in the primary and send them forward to the general election. In my district, as I've mentioned before, we ended up with two repubs, one more of a tea partier than the other. The less-tea-partier won, probably because dems voted for him. Without the top two primary, the TP-er would have won the primary, competed against a dem in Nov, and would have won. Kind of ironic, really.

Overall, the top two primary helped more dems than repubs in the state, but I still don't like it.

But the "top two" was separate from redistricting.
 
ps - I was FOR the redistricting commission, although the state dem party was against it. Glad it passed; ironically, it ALSO worked out well for the dems...
 
That's not quite accurate. Yes, judges and others now determine districts; that was determined by an initiative.

Having a proposition to set up the "top two" primary was a condition for Maldonado to support Jerry Brown's budget one year. So the proposition (prop 14) was put out there and it passed. Maldonado lost his seat, and that may have been because repubs weren't happy with him pushing it.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/prop-zero/Abel-Maldonado-Top-Two-Success-Story-158598095.html (note: article said he didn't get the top two for supporting the budget, but for supporting an tax increase. Apologies for the misstatement; I found the article afterwards)

I don't like it; I think parties should pick their candidates in the primary and send them forward to the general election. In my district, as I've mentioned before, we ended up with two repubs, one more of a tea partier than the other. The less-tea-partier won, probably because dems voted for him. Without the top two primary, the TP-er would have won the primary, competed against a dem in Nov, and would have won. Kind of ironic, really.

Overall, the top two primary helped more dems than repubs in the state, but I still don't like it.

But the "top two" was separate from redistricting.

I was aware they were two separate ballot measures but you did a far better job explaining them than I.
 
Back
Top