Our Team in Action!

LOUDLY WE ROAR!

Former President Barack Obama, center, waves to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally to support Democratic California congressional candidates, Josh Harder, T.J. Cox, Gil Cisneros, Katie Porter, Harley Rouda, Mike Levin, from left, at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim on Saturday, Sept. 8, 2018. (Photo by Kevin Sullivan, Orange County Register/SCNG)

 

The reason our School Board is so dysfunctional.

Welcome

Progressives, Independents, and

Democrats!

Come to our monthly meetings.

 

We support Chino, Chino Hills, and South Ontario in Assembly Districts 52 and 55, State Senate Districts 20 and 29, and Congressional Districts 35 and 39

Our Facebook for Chino Valley Democrats LINK

Mr Jay Chen Mt SAC Governing Board member with our club members

Don and Jan Bridge and ACT Union Pres and VP

Obama wades into the crowd at Anaheim rally for our Congressional candidates

Clubmember Kathy poses in front of stage where Obama charges up the parry faithful!

Registering voters at the Summer Concerts in the Park

President of our Club, Marian Arguello receives a special CHINO Woman of the Year award from Assembly representative Freddie Rodriguez (AD52) !

Our club in action!

The Arguellos posing for their fans!

Don Bridge candidate for CVUSD 2018

Gregg Fritchle Candidate for State Assembly 55 in 2018!

 

 

 

 

Our next Governor Gavin Newsom addressing a large crowd at the Orange County March for our Lives Rally

Thank you Governor Jerry Brown!

 

Rally demanding CD39 Republican Ed Royce address Healthcare!

 

Proof that Trump and Putin are very close!

We regfister voters and recruit club members at the Summer Concerts in the Park!

Our next Congressional representative Gil Cisneros!

 

Monopoly men turn out to thank Ed Royce Republican for rewarding big corporations with a massive tax cut while throwing crumbs to the masses

Teixeira: Yes Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up, No That Doesn’t Mean the Democrats Won’t Succeed in November

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog
Trump’s approval rating has clearly gone up in the last month, from a little under 40 percent to a little under 42 percent, according to the 538 composite. That’s not nothing and, all else equal, good for the Republicans. But it doesn’t change much about expectations for the upcoming election, which are still quite poor for the GOP.

Models, of course, disagree on how grim the forecast is for the Republicans, so any given model should not be taken as the last word. But Seth Masket at Mischiefs of Faction cites a midterm model that illustrates how difficult the situation is for them. The model is a simple one that relies on just Presidential approval and growth in real per capita disposable income (RDI). What it says is this:

[The model] predicts Democrats will pick up 45 to 50 House seats this fall, and take over 15 to 20 state legislative chambers. A loss of just 24 House seats would flip House control to the Democrats….Most years, this model works fairly well. It predicted Democrats losing 46 House seats in 2010 (they lost 63), and it predicted Republicans losing 40 House seats in 2006 (they lost 31).

You can see in the chart above how this works, with Trump’s approval running a little over 40 percent and RDI growth around 1 percent in the last year. It’s apparent that moving Trump’s approval rating around a little bit at a given level of economic growth does not change the forecast much. Plus Trump’s approval rating have been bouncing around between 37 and 42 percent since early last April  so it’s hard to see the kind of mega-spike that might really change things.

A huge increase in RDI growth seems unlikely also though, of course, anything is possible. But as Masket observes:

Even if RDI growth jumped to 3 percent…the model would still predict Republicans to lose 37 House seats, more than enough to lose control of the chamber, and 14 state legislative chambers.

So the fundamentals don’t look good for Team Red. But it’s just one model so should be treated with caution. After all, there are lots of other factors like the various structural advantages Republicans take into an election like this. But even those have been declining as Nate Cohn has pointed out, knocking a couple of points off of the GOP’s “thumb on the scales”. This includes the effects of anti-gerrymandering court decisions, Democratic fundraising and candidate recruitment and Republican retirements.


It’s a long time ’til election day. But the basic story continues to be a positive one for Democrats, as these data and the results of recent special elections suggest.

NYT- Can Democrats Follow #MeToo to Victory?- Reporter Thomas B. Edsall JAN. 18, 2018

Patty Schachtner, a Democrat who unexpectedly won a State Senate seat in Wisconsin this week. Credit Patty for Senate Campaign, via Associated Press

 Many think the issue of sexual harassment — embodied in the #MeToo movement — will work to the advantage of Democrats in upcoming elections. A mid-December NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey gave the party a three to one advantage over Republicans on the matter. But it is hardly guaranteed to do so.

Views of sexual harassment and of gender issues generally differ sharply by age, sex and partisan allegiance — all of which create substantial unpredictability. The issue has the potential to accelerate the growing discontent among well-educated white women with the Republican Party. But it could also intensify hostility to the liberal agenda among conservatives, particularly white men, many of whom view women’s complaints of discrimination as “an attempt to gain advantage” in the workplace.

This complex dynamic is illuminated, for example, in the work of Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, a psychologist at Tufts, who recently reported a growing divergence on gender issues between male and female voters under the age of 30.

In her paper, “How Gender Mattered to Millennials in the 2016 Election and Beyond,” Kawashima-Ginsberg found that in an election in which allegations of harassment and abuse against Donald Trump were central, support for the Democratic nominee dropped by 15 points from 2008 to 2016 among all young men between the ages of 18 to 29 (from 62 to 47 percent) and by 6 points among all women (from 69 to 63 percent). At the same time, turnout among young white men, many of whom supported Trump, shot up significantly.

“2016 saw the greatest number of votes cast by young white men in the past 12 years — markedly higher than their female counterparts,” Kawashima-Ginsberg wrote.

Continue reading the main story

Read article at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/opinion/democrats-metoo-sexual-harassment.html

Why SB-1 Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 is needed

Text of this bipartisan approved bill here at this link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1

The recall against our State Senator SD29 is unwarranted considering the following. In fact, he promoted a Constitutional amendment to assure the monies allocated would be spent on only the road repair projects.

Read on:

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Over the next 10 years, the state faces a $59 billion shortfall to adequately maintain the existing state highway system in order to keep it in a basic state of good repair.
(b) Similarly, cities and counties face a $78 billion shortfall over the next decade to adequately maintain the existing network of local streets and roads.
(c) Statewide taxes and fees dedicated to the maintenance of the system have not been increased in more than 20 years, with those revenues losing more than 55 percent of their purchasing power, while costs to maintain the system have steadily increased and much of the underlying infrastructure has aged past its expected useful life.
(d) California motorists are spending $17 billion annually in extra maintenance and car repair bills, which is more than $700 per driver, due to the state’s poorly maintained roads.
(e) Failing to act now to address this growing problem means that more drastic measures will be required to maintain our system in the future, essentially passing the burden on to future generations instead of doing our job today.
(f) A funding program will help address a portion of the maintenance backlog on the state’s road system and will stop the growth of the problem.
(g) Modestly increasing various fees can spread the cost of road repairs broadly to all users and beneficiaries of the road network without overburdening any one group.
(h) Improving the condition of the state’s road system will have a positive impact on the economy as it lowers the transportation costs of doing business, reduces congestion impacts for employees, and protects property values in the state.
(i) The federal government estimates that increased spending on infrastructure creates more than 13,000 jobs per $1 billion spent.
(j) Well-maintained roads benefit all users, not just drivers, as roads are used for all modes of transport, whether motor vehicles, transit, bicycles, or pedestrians.
(k) Well-maintained roads additionally provide significant health benefits and prevent injuries and death due to crashes caused by poorly maintained infrastructure.
(l) A comprehensive, reasonable transportation funding package will do all of the following:
(1) Ensure these transportation needs are addressed.
(2) Fairly distribute the economic impact of increased funding.
(3) Restore the gas tax rate previously reduced by the State Board of Equalization pursuant to the gas tax swap.
(4) Direct increased revenue to the state’s highest transportation needs.
(m) This act presents a balance of new revenues and reasonable reforms to ensure efficiency, accountability, and performance from each dollar invested to improve California’s transportation system. The revenues designated in this act are intended to address both state and local transportation infrastructure needs as follows:
(1) The revenues estimated to be available for allocation under the act to local agencies are estimated over the next 10 years to be as follows:
(A) Fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) to local street and road maintenance.
(B) Seven billion five hundred million dollars ($7,500,000,000) for transit operations and capital.
(C) Two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) for the local partnership program.
(D) One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) for the Active Transportation Program.
(E) Eight hundred twenty-five million dollars ($825,000,000) for the regional share of the State Transportation Improvement Program.
(F) Two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) for local planning grants.
(2) The revenues estimated to be available for allocation under the act to the state are estimated over the next 10 years to be as follows:
(A) Fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) for state highway maintenance and rehabilitation.
(B) Four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) for highway bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation.
(C) Three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) for high priority freight corridors.
(D) Two billion five hundred million dollars ($2,500,000,000) for congested corridor relief.
(E) Eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000) for parks programs, off-highway vehicle programs, boating programs, and agricultural programs.
(F) Two hundred seventy-five million dollars ($275,000,000) for the interregional share of the State Transportation Improvement Program.
(G) Two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) for freeway service patrols.
(H) Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) for transportation research at the University of California and the California State University.
(n) It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Transportation meet the following preliminary performance outcomes for additional state highway investments by the end of 2027, in accordance with applicable state and federal standards:
(1) Not less than 98 percent of pavement on the state highway system in good or fair condition.
(2) Not less than 90 percent level of service achieved for maintenance of potholes, spalls, and cracks.
(3) Not less than 90 percent of culverts in good or fair condition.
(4) Not less than 90 percent of the transportation management system units in good condition.
(5) Fix not less than an additional 500 bridges.
(o) Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Transportation leverage funding provided by this act for trade corridors and other highly congested travel corridors in order to obtain matching funds from federal and other sources to maximize improvements in the state’s high-priority freight corridors and in the most congested commute corridors.
(p) Constitutionally protecting the funds raised by this act ensures that these funds are to be used only for transportation purposes necessary to repair roads and bridges, expand the economy, and protect natural resources.
(q) This act advances greenhouse gas reduction objectives and other environmental goals by focusing on “fix-it-first” projects, investments in transit and active transportation, and supporting Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and transportation plans.

SEC. 2.

This act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

California could flip the House, and these 13 races will make the difference

California could flip the House, and these 13 races will make the difference

The stakes are high in the 2018 midterm elections: control of the U.S. House. For Democrats to reclaim power, they must forge a path through California. The party considers nine districts here to be battlegrounds and can’t win the House without winning at least a few of them.

Midterm elections tend to bring out the most reliable voters, and incumbents are reelected more than 90% of the time, meaning the status quo is the most likely outcome.

Taking multiple factors into account, The Times’ California politics editors have ranked the hottest races by the intensity of the fight ahead for the congressmen (and one congresswoman). We’ll be updating our rankings, and subscribers to the Essential Politics newsletter will be the first to learn what’s changed.

Factors we are considering in our rankings:

  • Reelection margins over time: How much have they won by?
  • Recent presidential results
  • Demographic changes over time
  • Voter registration trendsAre there more Democrats than there have been previously or more people who don’t want to identify with a political party?
  • Overall fundraising picture How much money the incumbent has in the bank versus the strongest challenger, the rate at which the challenger is raising money and the total amount of money raised by challengers
  • Terms in office Incumbency is a dominant predictor of election outcomes
  • Primary vote performanceAfter the June primary, we will look at how the incumbents performed in the overall vote
  • Wild cardsAmong the possibilities: Strength of challengers, scandals, controversial votes, unforeseen news events and Times reporting

Back to top

Credits: Boxing glove by Swetha Kannan

Time Magazine: California Just Became a ‘Sanctuary State.’ Here’s What That Means

http://time.com/4960233/california-sanctuary-state-donald-trump/

Thank you Gov. Brown!

California Just Became a ‘Sanctuary State.’ Here’s What That Means

Oct 05, 2017

California Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a so-called “sanctuary state” bill that will limit cooperation between local officials and federal immigration enforcement. The measure is one of the most high-profile ways that Democrats in the state have sought to push back against the Republican agenda, as President Donald Trump has taken a hard line on immigration and other issues that are significant to Golden State lawmakers.

“These are uncertain times for undocumented Californians and their families, and this bill strikes a balance that will protect public safety, while bringing a measure of comfort to those families who are now living in fear every day,” Brown said in statement, according to the Associated Press.

Brown’s decision to sign the bill will almost certainly draw the ire of the President, who has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities — a move that inspired several jurisdictions in California to sue his administration. Though there is not a set definition of what makes any place a “sanctuary” for immigrants, laws described that typically aim to limit the deportation of undocumented residents.

While other states have passed laws that shore up protections for immigrants, the California bill, formally known as SB54, has been described as the most comprehensive in the country. Measures range from treating schools, courthouses and hospitals as “safe zones” to restricting the ability of local police to detain people on behalf of federal immigration agents. The law does nothing to curtail the ability of federal agents to come into the state and deport people or carry out raids, but it does make such actions more difficult for agencies with limited resources.

An estimated 10 million immigrants live in California, more than the entire population of states such as Michigan, and about 25% of them are thought to be undocumented. The author of the bill, state Senate Leader Kevin de Leon, has positioned it as a safety measure to ensure undocumented residents are unafraid to report crimes to the police or send their kids to school. De Leon said at a press conference that the new law “will put a large kink in Trump’s perverse and inhumane deportation machine,” according to the AP.

The main criticisms of SB54 have also been about safety, as organizations such as the California State Sheriffs’ Association have argued that dangerous criminals might slip through the cracks if local authorities are limited in their ability to interact with federal officials. Before signing the bill, Gov. Brown negotiated changes meant to assuage some of those concerns, such as allowing for cooperation in cases that involve particular crimes.

Though Trump could attempt to deny federal funding to California over the bill, he would face legal hurdles in doing so and such an action would very likely lead to a lawsuit. As the new President took office, lawmakers in the state retained former Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm to help advise them on the legal limits of resistance. And the state has already sued the federal government over issues ranging from energy efficiency standards to the decision to end DACA, a program that has shielded young immigrants from deportation.

Eight Democratic Candidates are running in CD 39 against Ed Royce!

https://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_39th_Congressional_District_election,_2018

 

All U.S. congressional districts, including the 39th Congressional District of California, are holding elections in 2018.

Candidate Filing Deadline Primary Election General Election
Pending
June 5, 2018
November 6, 2018

California’s 39th District was listed as one of the DCCC‘s initial targets in 2018.

 

Why we must Impeach Donald J. Trump

Donald Trump

News, Analysis and Opinion from POLITICO

Follow the latest news each day to see the reason we must Impeach

click on the link

http://www.politico.com/news/donald-trump

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop the Recall- Do Not Sign!

The campaign opposing the recall of California Sen. Josh Newman unveiled a lawsuit Thursday calling on a judge to stop the effort from moving forward.

The suit, filed in Sacramento County by three Newman supporters, alleges that the petition to remove the freshman Democrat from office violates California election law with false statements about the Legislature’s $52 billion transportation deal and a sanctuary state bill Newman supported. The lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Alex Padilla and proponents of the recall effort, also alleges that the recall campaign falsely claims the petition will stop the gas tax.

A lawyer working for Newman supporters said the violations serve as grounds for the court to stop the petition from continuing to circulate among voters and halt the recall process.

“This suit is about nothing less than the integrity of our election process; a recall election simply should not be certified when signatures were gathered based on lies to voters,” said James Harrison, an attorney with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, in a statement. “To allow voters to be duped, as the California Republican Party has attempted in (Senate District) 29, is a clear violation of the public interest.”

Newman said the suit appears to be a necessary response to the GOP’s attempt to underhandedly game the system.

“Using out-of-district money to hire paid signature gatherers, who will do or say whatever it takes to earn their commissions, in order to trigger a special election under false pretenses isn’t exactly what Hiram Johnson had in mind in 1911 when he proposed the recall process,” Newman said.

The lawsuit is the latest action in a contentious recall battle in Senate District 29.

Carl DeMaio, a Republican talk radio host, initiated the recall against Newman, D-Fullerton, shortly after the Legislature passed the sweeping transportation bill. At the time, DeMaio said he was prompted to launch the recall effort over Newman’s gas tax vote and to eliminate Democrats’ super majority control of the state Senate. Newman won the historically Republican Senate District by fewer than 2,500 votes in November.

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article158942474.html

Read LA Times Opinion Section, Apr. 2, 2017 “Our Dishonest President”

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/