[Read more: Democrats find relief in California’s House race results. ][Go here for full results from California’s primary.] He received a higher percentage of votes statewide than he did in Los Angeles. While it is not clear yet how many Latinos showed up to vote, it seems Mr. Villaraigosa’s support was shallow there too. His loss combined with the struggle of Kevin de Leon, the State Senate president, to capture the No. 2 spot in the United States Senate race shows that statewide Latino candidates do not necessarily mean more Latinos voting. In the coming days, as more data on turnout comes out, experts will be closely watching to determine how many Latinos actually voted. “The most important question in this race was if Antonio Villaraigosa could motivate Latino voters to come out in historically high numbers,” said Dan Schnur, a professor at the University of Southern California and a former Republican strategist. He said that, based on early indications, “the turnout among the Hispanic-American community was roughly in line with past midterm elections.” The defeat was not for lack of money. Charter school supporters spent more than $20 million on Mr. Villaraigosa’s behalf, but the money hardly moved the needle. Though he began his career as a union organizer, Mr. Villaraigosa had infuriated the powerful teachers union over charter schools. His loss is another indicator of the power of labor unions in the state: Without their help, Mr. Villaraigosa could not get enough of a turnout in the regions he was counting on, including the Inland Empire and Central Valley. San Francisco Over Los Angeles On the Democratic side, the race for governor of California pitted former mayors of two of the state’s largest cities: Mr. Newsom, from San Francisco, and Mr. Villaraigosa, of Los Angeles. Inevitably, the contest was framed, in some quarters, as a battle between those two cities, whose rivalry and different cultures — both are liberal, but San Francisco has a greater history of political activism — has defined the state’s political identity. Angelenos — and this includes Mr. Villaraigosa — have lamented that Northern California has historically been more powerful than the south in state politics because voter turnout tends to be higher.<doc-sep>Tuesday night’s California primary election results confirm that, as best we can tell, Democrats are on track to secure a narrow House majority in the 2018 midterms. Here’s how we know. Under California’s “top two” primary system, it’s possible to look at any given district and see the total number of votes for the Republican candidates and for the Democratic candidates. In the crowded CA-49 primary, for example, Republican candidates as a whole netted 48 percent of the vote to Democrats’ 51 percent. (Some absentee votes are still being counted, and the Democratic share will likely rise somewhat.) We know from history that there’s a systematic relationship between the cumulative primary ballot performance and general election performance in November, with Democrats usually doing a percentage point or two better in the general election because that’s when more young people vote. Based on how Democrats performed overall in the primary, we can project what California’s general election results will probably look like. And even though California is obviously not a microcosm of the entire United States, there is a systematic relationship between the state’s election results and national results. The way Nate Cohn calculated it for the Upshot: “Democrats would be favored to win control of the House if they could gain an average of 4.5 points across the country, according to our estimates. A 3.5-point improvement between the 2016 general election and the California top-two primary results might put them on track to do so.” And guess what? Across the seven key targeted races, Democrats secured an average swing of 5 points — enough to be favored for the majority. In the 7 seats Democrats are targeting in CA, their margin in last night’s primary votes is up ___% over 2016 primary ballots.#CA49: up 9%#CA48: up 6%#CA39: up 11%#CA45: up 11%#CA25: up 6%#CA10: up 12%#CA21: down 20% Projecting to Nov, Ds are ahead in 49, 25, and 10 — G. Elliott Morris ‍♂️ (@gelliottmorris) June 6, 2018 Now, to be clear, using results in seven seats to project the outcome in 435 seats is a dangerous business. There’s a lot of uncertainty here, and while the odds favor the Democrats, they do not do so overwhelmingly. But this is about as good a method as looking at generic ballot polling. It’s significant that generic ballot polling also tells roughly the same story: Democrats are more likely than not to secure a narrow House majority, but the odds are not overwhelming. Special election results, again, tell a similar story. Democrats have, on average, made big gains here (though with a lot of variance from state to state). But in special elections, they have the luxury, by definition, of running in an open seat. Accounting for incumbency effects, the large Democratic edge in special elections translates to a small edge in the overall race.<doc-sep>LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 20: U.S. Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Jacky Rosen (D-NV) speaks during a rally at the Culinary Workers Union Hall Local 226 featuring former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on October 20, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Early voting for the midterm elections in Nevada begins today. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images) Democratic congressional candidate Ilhan Omar is greeted by her husband's mother after appearing at her midterm election night party in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. November 6, 2018. REUTERS/Eric Miller Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., speaks to supporters after she was declared the winner over former Gov. Phil Bredesen in their race for the U.S. Senate Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2018, in Franklin, Tenn. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey) (CNN) — It was painful getting there, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s strategy to intervene in the contentious and complicated primaries in California worked on Tuesday night and could be seen as an inflection point in the 2018 midterms should Democrats wrest control of the US House from Republicans in November. The committee’s decision to pick some Democrats over other Democrats and slam the GOP for, among many things, supporting Democratic policies stirred up liberal angst in the weeks ahead of the primary and had Republicans crying foul. But as the dust settled on Wednesday morning, national Democratic operatives woke up – in Washington, mostly – confident they had scythed their way through the dense and chaotic California “jungle primary,” a nonpartisan contest that advances the two leading vote-getters regardless of party affiliation, without losing any top prospects on the journey. After months of worry and late pangs of panic, Democrats would be on the ballot in nearly all the state’s 53 districts, news that is already breeding a new optimism for a fall House takeover as the general election season kicks off in the Golden State. But before the relief, and some muted celebration, there were nerves – and spin. Weeks before voters went to the polls, operatives were openly discussing the possibility that Democrats would be locked out of a couple of key races. It was, some said, almost a guarantee. And the blame would fall, rightly or not, on the Democratic Party and its besieged campaign arms. The morning after, though, the picture looked much different. “This is the best-case scenario in terms of last night’s results,” said Meredith Kelly, the top communications aide at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who admitted that even on Tuesday afternoon this outcome looked unlikely. “We knew we faced a real risk of being boxed out, and that is something we felt the pressure of up until last night’s votes started rolling in.” It didn’t come cheaply. The committee spent millions in the California primary – cash that now won’t be there in November when Democrats make their final push in critical races across the country. But Kelly called it money well spent. “We have set ourselves up to win multiple seats in California in November, and we wouldn’t have been able to go to the final match if we hadn’t gotten Democrats through,” she said. “It would have been over.” The strategy was simple, in theory: Prop up certain Democrats while knocking down the second- and third-tier Republicans who threatened to take advantage of a split vote on the left and slip into the top-two. More challenging would be the execution: Pulling it off without doing more damage to the organization’s already fraught relationship with the progressive grass roots, which often criticize the committee for untimely interventions and candidate recruitment tactics, would be more difficult. California’s 48th Congressional District was perhaps the stickiest wicket. The committee angered some local Democrats in May when it endorsed businessman Harley Rouda over scientist Hans Keirstead. The decision caused heartburn in the district’s well-off seaside communities, which had been pretty clearly divided between the two candidates already, and led to new accusations that the national party was overstepping its bounds. Whatever hard feeling followed, the desired results, again, came too. Though the race remains close, it now seems likely that either Rouda or Keirstead will move on to face incumbent GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher in November. The committee’s tactics – and timing – mitigated some of the almost instinctive opposition to its involvement. In backing Rouda late, after labor groups, the Sierra Club and organizations like Indivisible, the party was able to bolster his candidacy without a creating a situation like in Texas’$2 7th District, where the committee’s efforts to undermine a progressive candidate likely boosted her in a first round of primary voting. Aaron McCall, chairman of Indivisible OC 48, sang the committee’s praises on Wednesday morning, cheering its decision to jump in only “after following the lead of the grassroots.” “We felt like the DCCC worked as a brilliant collaborative partner to equalize a race where a decision was made too early by the CA Dems,” he said, referencing the California state party’s controversial endorsement of Keirstead back in February. Rouda campaign manager Mike McLaughlin said an $800,000 cable and TV broadcast ad, which ran for two weeks, gave the campaign a boost, calling it “gasoline on the fire that helped accelerate our momentum and the coalescing (of Democratic voters and groups) around us.” At the same time they were boosting Rouda, Democrats were busy mucking up the Republican side of the race – first by running ads against Republican Scott Baugh, who was viewed as the biggest threat to finish second behind Rohrabacher, then by boosting Republican John Gabbard, a veteran and businessman, in an attempt to fracture the district’s Republican vote. McLaughlin called the nearly $2 million shelled out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to split Republicans “incredibly helpful” and key to stemming a top-two lockout. “The negative Baugh spending worked,” he said. “Baugh was in third place, and then the spending came against Baugh late. That started at the same time as our pro-Harley spending. So Baugh’s Election Day results trickled off – he had an OK position in the early vote, then trickled off to go into fourth place, which was the exact opposite of our trajectory.” Meanwhile, in California’s 39th Congressional District primary, the committee boosted Gil Cisneros, a veteran and lottery winner, and it also spent over $2 million against Bob Huff and Shawn Nelson, two of the insurgent Republicans who could have boxed Democrats out in the district. The strategy worked and Cisneros, according to CNN’s projection, will move on to a general election contest against Young Kim, the Republican who finished first in the primary. The party used a similar tactic in the nearby 49th Congressional District, where the committee aired ads – to the tune of $1.6 million – against California Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, a Republican, for voting with Democrats in the legislative body. The ads caused plenty of consternation from Republicans, who accused Democrats of slamming their own policies. But once again the results were there. Chavez finished way back on Tuesday and CNN can project that at least one Democrat will advance to the general election in November. If Rouda holds on to his lead in the 48th District, the committee will have emerged from the day with all nine of its “red to blue” candidates on ballots Tuesday intact and ready to challenge Republicans in November. Should Rouda win, the group has gone 19 for 20, to date, with its preferred campaigns advancing in states like Arkansas, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina and – on Tuesday alone – Iowa, New Jersey and New Mexico, where highly touted hopefuls like Abby Finkenauer won in the Hawkeye State’s 1st Congressional District. Andy Kim, in New Jersey’s 3rd, is now set for what’s expected to be a feisty showdown with GOP Rep. Tom MacArthur. Though Democratic complaining reigned going into Tuesday’s primaries, few are able to complain now, and those who are might have trouble finding Democratic voters inclined to listen. Even Keirstead, the Democrat who saw the committee spend against him in his race, admitted that the decision to knock down Baugh in the campaign “worked for the party.”<doc-sep>
By all accounts, Tuesday’s primaries in California should be a walk in the park for Democrats. Instead, they’ve become something of a brawl, with the potential to ruin the party’s chances of taking back the House. Theoretically, California should be the state that leads the Democrats’ charge to power on Capitol Hill. Democrats only need 23 seats to take back the House majority next year, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted 10 it wants to pick up in California alone, based largely on the fact that half of the 14 districts currently controlled by Republican Congressman in that state voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But in three of these targeted districts, the 39th and 49th districts, where Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa are retiring, and the 48th district, where Rep. Dana Rohrbacher is running for a 16 term while plagued by controversial ties to Russia, Democratic enthusiasm could end up hurting them. Since 2010, California has operated on a “top two” primary system; all primary candidates are on the same ballot regardless of party affiliations, and the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. Consequently, in these three districts, where multiple Democratic candidates are vying against each other, they can split the votes in a way that enables their Republican counterparts to surpass them. “Because of the top two primary, coupled with the fact that there has a been a very high level of Democratic enthusiasm in some of these targeted districts, that we’ve seen more candidates step in than we have in the past – there are some doomsday scenarios in which Democrats get shut out of the ballot,” said Brian Brokaw, a Democratic strategist in California. “If that were to happen that would be damaging to the overall equation to Democrats needing to retake the House.” Democratic officials dispute that losing these races could cost them the House, pointing to the 104 Republican districts they have targeted across the country. But their actions – and millions of dollars Democratic groups have on these races — are speaking louder than their words. In Rohrbacher’s district, the 48th, which Democrats view as the one most vulnerable to a shut-out dynamic, the DCCC announced last month that it would back Harley Rouda, a businessman who used to be a Republican, angering the state’s Democratic Party, whose delegates had endorsed another Democrat, stem-cell scientist Hans Kairstead. In Royce’s district, the 39th, where there are six Democrats running in the primary, the California Democratic Party chairman Eric Bauman had to broker a truce last month between two of them, Gil Cisneros and Andy Thorburn, to stop them from campaigning against each other after the attacks became increasingly negative. (The DCCC is backing Cisneros). In the 49th district, the third one where Democrats are fearful of a shut-out, things are a bit less dramatic; Democrats are a bit more confident one of their four candidates on the ballot will prevail, although not confident enough to rule out the possibility it could still happen. “We see voter turnout looking good [in CA-49]” said one Democratic strategist who requested anonymity to discuss the data. And turnout, of course, is another component that could make or break the party’s efforts to end up on the ballots for these districts in November. Even though nearly half of all registered voters in California identify themselves as Democrats — just a quarter identifies as Republicans — turnout in the state’s primaries among registered voters in 2014 was 25 percent, according to government data. If Democrats want to prevail in these three districts, they will likely need more than that. This is why groups like Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer’s organization NextGen Rising spent this past week promoting voter turnout in specific districts like these. “We have tried to do a get out the vote effort over the last couple of weeks to try and get as many people to the polls as possible,” Steyer said Monday. “We made the decision that the way we could try to counter a structural problem in the way California elections are set up is by going for more participation by voters, especially young voters.” “We understand this issue. It is one that is not of our making so we are trying to do the most Democratic grassroots reaction that will be as effective as possible,” Steyer added.