|Former East Bay Assemblymembers Nancy Skinner and Sandre Swanson are vying for the Ninth State Senate District seat this November.|
WHAT’S THE BEEF? Both are unabashedly progressive, make no mistake about it. If elected, either will immediately become one of the most progressive members of the 40-person state Senate. But that’s not an issue in this race that includes areas from Richmond to Oakland, and including Berkeley, Alameda and San Leandro. Without a doubt, Skinner and Swanson’s ideology dovetails nicely with the district. The issue, however, has been which candidates leans the most unwavering to the left? At least, that’s the argument Swanson has been trying to make for more than the last year. It led to Skinner describing herself as an “operational progressive,” essentially, a pragmatist. Later she characterized herself as a “progressive who gets things done.” It remains to be seen whether Swanson’s argument will fly with voters in November, because it didn’t in June when he lost to Skinner by nearly 18 points. Swanson has continued to focus his stump speech on the infamous removal from his Assembly committee chairmanship during the contentious 2009 budget battles. Swanson refused to budge from the Assembly speaker’s demand to vote for a budget laden with deep cuts to services, children and the poor. Skinner voted for the budget bill. According to Swanson, this act shows he will stand up for progressive principles in the state Senate, no matter what. The upshot, he says, is that festering problems like the loss of redevelopment funds have been a large factor in the housing crisis the region is facing today. In the end, the decision for voters appears to be a choice of Skinner, a progressive who will attempt to move the wheels of government and possibly build coalitions with moderate Democrats, or Swanson, someone who flies the flag of progressives at all times.
2016 JUNE PRIMARY.........................VOTES....PCT
Nancy Skinner (D)........................115102 48.0%
Sandre Swanson (D)........................73349 30.6%
Katherine Welch (D).......................31627 13.2%
Rich Kinney (R)...........................19967 8.3%
2012 GENERAL ELECTION.....................VOTES....PCT
Loni Hancock (D).........................231484 85.7%
Mary McIlroy (PF).........................38512 14.3%
----JULY-SEPT 24---- ----2016----
SD9 IN OUT IN OUT CASH
SKINNER 241,606 170,822 545,527 683,081 $ 988,812
SWANSON* 70,000 111,518 368,888 496,127 $ 8,404
*TOTAL COVERS Sept. 25-Oct.22.
OUTLOOK Swanson supporter's main talking point for November is the electorate will be far different in November than in June when Skinner steamrolled Swanson and the rest of the field. Sure, turnout will be far greater on Nov. 8, but the argument probably doesn’t hold water in this race. This is a race between two progressives in one of the bluest regions in the country. Think about it: Primary voters typically make up each party’s base. In this case, the left’s base in the Ninth District overwhelmingly chose Skinner and Swanson has done little to attract voters who backed the moderate Democrat Katherine Welch in the primary or Republican Rich Kinney, who incidentally later endorsed Swanson. Then there’s the large fundraising advantage Skinner has owned since the beginning of the race. It was so awesome that it gave Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan second thoughts about running. She later dropped out a year ago. In addition, Skinner has virtually cruised along the whole race without a hitch, although, some in Oakland are voicing displeasure over Skinner accepting campaign contributions from the Oakland Police Officers Association. Being the choice of Oakland cops is not exactly a popular endorsement these days. Then again, Swanson’s campaign hasn’t really made much of that small uproar, either. In the end, its quite possible the notion held by many that both candidates are more than desirable for the district is pigeon-holing Swanson. If both of them are good, then why should voters back the guy trailing by 18 points in the primary? Swanson articulating why they should vote for him, but all things equal, he also never told voters why they shouldn’t vote for Skinner.