With the 2012 election mostly put to bed, this blog is retiring — temporarily. This post features thoughts on elections in general from KQED Election Editor Tyche Hendricks, Election Blog editor Jon Brooks and contributor Lisa Aliferis.

Tyche Hendricks, KQED Election Editor

As the dust settles on this election — with its nail-biter races that ranged from the presidential contest to board of supervisors races and local parcel taxes — it’s a good time to note that our individual votes really can make a decisive difference. It’s true, given our electoral college system, that nobody campaigns too hard for California’s votes in the presidential race. But we did have some state and local races that were decided by razor thin margins.

In two California congressional races, long-time incumbents lost their seats by just a few thousand votes out of more than a quarter of a million votes cast. San Diego Rep. Brian Bilbray and Sacramento area Rep. Dan Lungren both lost by exceedingly narrow margins. And in Alameda County, a sales tax hike for transportation projects fell just about 700 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage. With more than half a million votes cast, that was a defeat by a margin of .14 percent.

So you can see that if a few hundred or a few thousand people had stayed home, or a few hundred or a few thousand more had turned out to vote, the outcome of those contests could have flipped.

That’s not to say that this political system of ours is perfect. KQED’s reporting examined the profusion of outside money that is playing an increasingly influential role in state races. We also took note of the millions of Californians who could vote but don’t, and explored some of the reasons people feel they don’t have a place in the political process.

Most Californians did turn out. By my preliminary assessment, it looks like 13.4 million people cast votes in this election. That’s roughly 73 percent of the 18.2 million registered voters in the state (and about 56 percent of the 23.8 million Californians eligible to vote). If those numbers are accurate, our turnout rate this year is down a bit from 2008 and 2004, but higher than in 2000 or 1996. Meanwhile the state’s electorate is beginning to better reflect the state’s tremendous ethnic and racial diversity, with Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans together making up about 40 percent of voters in this election.

Through this election year we’ve been out across the state talking to voters young and old, and listening to Californians from the Inland Empire to Siskiyou County. We wanted to understand what makes a Republican become a Democrat or vice versa. And more than anything, we wanted to tap into the conversation that’s been taking place across the state and the country about what folks really want – and don’t want — from those we elect to govern us.

That dialogue will continue. And we’ll keep tracking it through our ongoing governance and politics coverage. We hope you’ll remain a part of the conversation.

Lisa Aliferis, Election Blog Contributor

Normally, I blog about health, not politics, but when there’s an election — especially a presidential election — it’s an “all hands on deck” time in a newsroom. Frankly, I was happy to get paid to learn about all those 11 propositions on the state ballot, such as this one, this one, oh and this very, very complicated one.

But then something happened. I discovered my inner political geek. I watched a one hour press conference, streamed live, between Gov. Brown and the editorial board of the San Jose Mercury News — and was riveted. I learned more than I ever wanted to about the history of the death penalty in California. And then, after the election, I became obsessed with the accuracy of the exit poll.

So thanks for reading. I’m shifting back to my health blog now and, among other things, following a major health story which is also a big political story: the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act.

Jon Brooks, Election Blog Editor

The people have spoken.

For now, at least.

The judgment of the body politic has tended to be maddeningly temporary over the last decade. In 2004, Democrats were shocked that the nation would return George W. Bush, perhaps the greatest liberal bête noire since Richard Nixon, to the presidency. Then in 2006, the Democrats swept back to power in the House and Senate. That was followed by the Obama landslide in 2008, resulting in one-party rule in the executive and legislative branches.

But in 2010, the electorate pulled the plug on that arrangement. The dissatisfaction was widespread, with GOP victories as far as the eye could see, from Congress to governorships and state houses around the country. The stage seemed set for the completion of a Republican revival in 2012…

Nope. The reasons for that failure are now being parsed, floated, squealed, critiqued, debunked, shouted, whispered, and trumpeted, as Democratic voters are besotted with schadenfreude, and Republican fans are moving to Canada. For real, this time!

In California, now long past its canary-in-the-coalmine status for the GOP, the estrangement from the Republican party was completed when voters granted Democrats not only a two-thirds, Proposition 13-proof supermajority in the Legislature, but also decided to actually increase taxes on themselves.

So…are we in the early days of a Democratic Wonderland, one ruled by a new and more progressive mindset? Or have the American people yet again only granted a short-term loan of the reins of power to one of the two major political blocs?

We’ll let you know in 2014.

As far as our coverage goes, I can only tell you what our stats indicate: many, many people had a genuine desire to go as deep as they could in understanding the candidates and issues they were being asked to vote on. This was especially true concerning California’s initiatives. Our proposition guide got “slammed,” to use online parlance, meaning more people accessed it than I, for one, honestly thought cared. Especially surprising was how many people found their way to this post on the highly complex governance initiative, Proposition 31, proving that many segments of the California electorate could not be dissuaded from meeting their direct-democracy responsibilities, even when it comes to decoding the most daunting of proffers.

And that was heartening.

We’ll keep on keeping on in covering all the local and regional political goings-on at our News Fix blog… see ya there.

Willie Brown served in the California Legislature for more than 30 years. (Steve Rhodes/Flickr)

This week’s buzzword in California politics: supermajority.

Democrats in California have a supermajority in the State Senate and are simply waiting for confirmation from two yet-to-be-fully-counted-but-leaning Democrat races in southern California to achieve a supermajority in the Assembly.

In case you missed it, in California politics a “supermajority” is a two-thirds majority. Most people know that any local measures to raise property taxes in California must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the people. That’s thanks to 1978′s Proposition 13. But Prop. 13 also requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. While Republicans have long been the minority party in Sacramento, they wielded influence by blocking votes needed to pass a tax increase.

To find out what lies ahead in the state legislature, beyond one less road block to tax increases, KQED Forum guest host Scott Shafer spoke with Willie Brown, who served over 30 years in the state Legislature, to describe how a supermajority can change Sacramento.

Here is an edited transcript of Shafer’s interview with Brown on Friday morning’s show:

Scott Shafer: The Democrats have had majorities up in Sacramento for a long time. Other than the ability to raise revenue without any Republican votes, what else changes in terms of the dynamics at the State Capitol?

Willie Brown: Anytime you are at the point where you in one party have total dominance, you are in a position where — if you are smart — you’ll move programs, both those that require appropriations and those that do not. You don’t get this opportunity too often and you have to be just smart enough to do it.

Shafer: Give us some examples. When you say programs that require revenue…

Brown: I said, “may or may not” require revenue.

Shafer: But what about the ones that may?

Brown: Right out of the box, if you knew that Governor Schwarzenegger some years ago unilaterally wiped out the car tax, and that’s what created the problem in the state of California for the disappearing of revenues, maybe you should go back and re-do the car tax immediately. Take the heat for it, but do it.

Shafer: And can you do that without a vote of the people?

Brown: You can do that without a vote of the people. Jerry Brown would have to acquiesce but you could do it.

Shafer: But isn’t that one of the things that got Gray Davis in trouble?

Brown: No, it is not. Because at that time, Mr. Davis did not let the people know what the downsides would be if that source of revenue disappeared. You can’t have sources of revenue disappearing without adverse impacts on the programs. The people are now more sophisticated. The bankruptcies in the local governments that have occurred, the burden that’s being placed upon local government by the return of prisoners from the state system to local governments. There are so many more things now that are clearly evidence [that there is a] need for revenue. No, I don’t think you would have a problem.

Shafer: What about the idea of reaching out to Republicans? Would you advise the governor to do that to reach across the aisle? Or [is it ] just, “They’ve got the power now. Just do what they want to do?”

Brown: I think that most of them up there who read anything about my tenure would find my advice not as easily accepted as would be the case if I was advocating some change in my own attitude.

Shafer: They called you the Ayatollah of Sacramento, didn’t they?

Brown: All of my career, I have been about serving 79 other members, Republicans and Democrats alike. All the rules that I put in for equal access to resources, or proportional representation on committees, or for all kinds of things that would lead to a sharing of responsibilities beyond the campaign activities is what made the House strong and what kept me in charge for half of the time that I spent in the Legislature. The supermajority should not be used to just roll over all the persons there, including the Republicans. The supermajority ought to be about building the strengths of the system to a consensus process that includes the Republicans and the governor should lead that.

Shafer: And where would he lead them? What are some of the things that he can build consensus on — or just decide to do with Democratic votes if that’s the way it turns out? What should the priorities be?

Brown: First, I’d urge him not do anything with just Democratic votes, just because it is a Democratic strength. I would urge him to do the things that need to be done for the state, whatever they are, without reference to whether it’s Democrats or Republicans.

For example, what happens with the university system, the state university system, the community college system? Those are things that do not have Democrat or Republican stamped on them. I would urge them to address issues of the realignment process and go back to considering how do you get that economic development going in local communities, similar to what we did with redevelopment.

Mission Bay, for example, comes right out of the heart of the redevelopment operations. Base closures that occurred where land previously devoted to military purposes has now been given back to local governments in Orange County, Alameda County, San Francisco County and other places. [This] is a golden opportunity without reference to Republicans or Democrats or the governor.

Shafer: One of the things the supermajority could do is put things before the voters. Is there any sort of reform of the initiative system — or anything else — that some feel have made California difficult to govern over the past several decades?

Brown: My attitude about the whole initiative process is that it’s warped; it shouldn’t even be there. If the public wishes to do something about what the legislature has done, then we ought to liberalize the referendum process. But the initiative process ought to be severely restricted so that these political consultants who are now the driving force behind initiating such items won’t be able to do so for their own economic gain.

(You’ve probably seen the president’s celebratory “Four More Years” photo everywhere on Facebook and Twitter. With more than four million “Likes,” it’s Facebook’s most-Liked photo ever. It’s been re-tweeted more than 790,000 times, the most RTs ever.)

Of course, President Obama was a social media star even before he was re-elected, and he’ll probably continue to generate a flood of Likes and RTs through the rest of his term. The Oxford Internet Institute found that the president would have defeated Mitt Romney handily if the election had been based on Twitter references. And on Thursday, the word “Obama” had been used in more than one million Tweets, according to the social search website Topsy.  Also trending Thursday on Twitter in the U.S. – “Karl Rove” and “GOP.” But not really in a good way.

But since the election, another term that’s probably more of a concern to the president has started to make its way onto social media:

“Fiscal cliff.“

It’s a reference to the government’s possible economic implosion at the end of the year, and it has been used nearly 63,000 times on Twitter in the last day or so. Several of the references have come from news organizations and conservative pundits in reference to yesterday’s stock market tumble. But if you search for “Obama” on Twitter right now, you’ll also see Tweets like these:

How long before someone draws a political cartoon of Obama & Boehner driving in a convertible towards a cliff a la Thelma & Louise? #america

— ajk (@mister_kehl) November 8, 2012

In all seriousness, yay for Obama but that fiscal cliff needs resolution in days, not weeks or months. Lame duck nothin, America needs it

— Chike Amajoyi (@Chike43) November 8, 2012

The impact of social media on politics and government is still a matter of debate, but a healthy percentage of Americans are expressing their opinions there, to be sure. According to numbers from the Census and the Pew Internet and American Life Project, about 131 million American adults use social media. Trends show that those numbers most likely will continue to grow.

As of 9 a.m. PT today, more than 61 million votes cast Tuesday had been counted for President Obama. He received 69 million votes in 2008.

Based on what’s being said right now on Twitter and Facebook, President Obama most likely can rest assured that the social media constituency has his back. At least until “fiscal cliff” passes “Justin Bieber” in searches….

Measure A, County of Marin, parks: 74% yes; 26% no (Two-thirds majority required)

Measure B, Mill Valley, schools: 70% yes; 30% no (Two-thirds majority required)

Measure C, Shoreline School District: 76.80% yes; 23.20% no (Two-thirds majority required)

Measure D, Ross, public safety: 72.27% yes; 27.73%  (Two-thirds majority required)

Measure E, Mesa Park Firehouse: 65.44% yes; 34.56% no (Two-thirds majority required)

Measure F, Stinson Beach Firehouse: 95.42% yes; 4.58% no (Majority vote)

The Marin County Registrar of Voters has all results for the county.

(Justin Sullivan: Getty Images)

California Democrats are on the brink of a historic political achievement: Assemblyman John Perez has declared that Democrats have gained a two-thirds supermajority in the Assembly, and the California Senate is also trending that way.

If those totals hold, the Democrats will have attained a Proposition 13-proof advantage that would enable them to raise taxes without any votes from Republicans, largely intractable on the tax issue, or having to go to the voters, as Gov. Brown did with his Proposition 30.

But it’s not a done deal. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The party’s apparent capture of 54 seats in the 80-member Assembly and 27 in the 40-member Senate would mark the first time in nearly 80 years that one party controlled two-thirds of both houses, according to Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg.

While several legislative races in swing districts are still close – including an Assembly race in the Central Valley and another in Orange County – both Pérez and Steinberg said Wednesday that they are confident Democrats’ slim leads will hold.

But Paul Mitchell, a political expert whose Sacramento-based firm, Redistricting Partners, provides campaigns on both sides of the aisle with voter information, said it’s unclear how many provisional and absentee ballots are still outstanding and that either of the Assembly races could still turn for Republicans.

Also, current state senator Gloria Negrete-McLeoud defeated incumbent Rep. Joe Baca for an Inland Empire House seat, and in San Diego, State Senator Juan Vargas is way ahead in another House race.

Rhys Williams, Sen. Pro Tem Steinberg’s press secretary, told KQED’s Polly Stryker that when those two tender their resignations to assume office in DC, special elections will be held for the vacant seats. During that time, the Senate would lose the supermajority. But, Williams says, “This is a fantastic problem to have,” because both districts are considered safe. Williams said they will “move fast” to fill the seats before budget time in April. One thing to keep in mind: one or both of these seats could be filled by a Democrat from the State Assembly. In that case, the Assembly would then have to consider maintaining its supermajority.

Undated Stark campaign button shows defeated Congressman's history. (Mpls55408: Flickr)

Twenty-term incumbent Pete Stark lost his re-election bid to Alameda County prosecutor and Dublin city councilman Eric Swalwell — who won with 53 percent of the vote.

It had been a bitterly fought campaign, with sometimes strange allegations from Stark. As KQED’s Cy Musiker reported, “Stark accused Swalwell, without evidence, of taking bribes; he was forced to apologize; and he wrongly accused newspaper columnist Debra Saunders of making political donations to Swalwell, again apologizing after.”

Stark issued a statement this morning:

It has been my honor to serve the people of the East Bay for the last 40 years. I have worked hard to deliver results: accomplishments like writing the COBRA law to make health insurance portable between jobs, bringing the first computers to schools, and crafting President Obama’s groundbreaking health care law.

I went to Washington by running against an unpopular war and for women’s rights, opportunity for children and dignity for seniors. I leave knowing that the landscape has changed, but the needs of my constituents remain.

I congratulate Mr. Swalwell on his victory. I am happy to be of assistance in the future.

I want to thank all the wonderful people I met along this fabulous journey and I will remember them fondly. Together, we have made a real difference

Measure “D” started out as a class project at San Jose State.

Diana Crumedy, who helped launch the campaign, says she hopes other students will try to raise the minimum wages where they are.

“When we were collecting ballots, and a lot of people said, ‘Well, I’m from Santa Cruz, I’m from Morgan Hill, I’m from Gilroy. But I want this there,’” Crumedy says. “We’ve already touched them, we’ve reached their pulse and they’re like, ‘we want this.’”

Some business groups argued that Measure “D” would force them to reduce operating hours and cut jobs.

(ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

What a difference $46 million in TV ad spending can make.

At least that was the consensus in the wee hours of the morning at the Yes on Proposition 37 party, held at a performance art space in San Francisco’s Mission District, even before the final votes were tallied.

Outspent many times over, “we couldn’t get up on the air,” organizer Stacy Malkan told The Salt when it appeared the measure was going down. “You need a certain saturation to have an impact.”

All eyes in the food world have been on California’s hotly contested genetically modified (GMO) food labeling proposal, which was defeated this morning by a significant margin — 53 percent of the state’s voters opposed and 47 percent in favor.

It would have required that most foods containing genetically modified ingredients carry a “Made with GMO” label on the box. Given the prevalence of genetically engineered corn and soy in processed foods, those labels would have been nearly ubiquitous in the middle aisles of the grocery store. And, given the size of California’s market, and manufacturers’ opposition to distribute two versions of packaging, the California law could have morphed into de facto national policy as well.

The news was well-received in the No camp, which had argued that the proposal would be expensive and confusing. “We said from the beginning that people should take a close look at 37, that it’s not as simple as it seems from the surface,” Kathy Fairbanks with the No on 37 campaign, which didn’t hold a public party, told us last night when it appeared the measure would be defeated. “The more voters learned about 37, the more they realized they didn’t like it.”

But supporters were unbowed. In fact, they say, even though Proposition 37 lost, a grass-roots movement came together with a clear purpose (unlike the Occupy movement, Grist snarks) to focus on what’s on our plates. “Don’t mourn, #organize!” is a popular Twitter update from supporters today.

“Californians and all Americans deserve the right to know what’s in their food,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, in a statement released this morning. “Unfortunately, Proposition 37 was defeated by a wildly deceptive smear campaign financed by Monsanto, DuPont and other industry opponents of the public’s right to know,” she said.

So about that campaign. The No on 37 camp, which opposed GMO labeling, raised $45.9 million, thanks in large part to biotech giant Monsanto, along with a familiar roster of big-supermarket brands: Kraft, Heinz, Sara Lee, Pepsico, etc. The main message? Your groceries will cost more.

Meanwhile, Yes on 37 brought in $9.4 million from a far crunchier lineup, including tiny-print soap makers Dr. Bronner’s, Whole Foods and the Illinois-based nutritional supplement maker Joseph Mercola. Oh, and Hollywood: Gwyneth Paltrow single-handedly raised $80,000 for the Yes camp after endorsing the campaign on her Facebook page. Danny DeVito and Dave Matthews pitched in for a TV ad. And, said Malkan, “Sting’s people were calling us last night, asking what they could do to help.”

But it was too little, too late, she added. Despite an initially hefty lead by the pro-labeling folks, Proposition 37 support took a dive soon after the No on 37 ads hit the airwaves. Within two weeks, support for 37 dropped 9 percentage points, according to one poll from Pepperdine University and the California Business Roundtable.

The No camp also got a boost from a series of high-profile endorsements, including one from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the country’s largest science organization.

Proposition 37 and other labeling propositions “are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually danger­ous,” wrote the AAAS board of directors. “Indeed, the science is quite clear: Crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

As we reported earlier this summer, some legal experts raised concerns about how the proposal was written and suggested that it would add confusion — not clarity — to food labels. And, several of the state’s big newspapers — the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle andSan Jose Mercury News — all came out against the labeling proposal for similar reasons.

Other states have proposed similar labeling measures.

Here are the results:

BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE D (requires 55% approval)
All precincts reported: 66% yes, 34% no

JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE I (requires 55% approval)
YES 76.2% NO 23.8%

JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE E (requires 55% approval)
YES 73.5% NO 26.5%

SAN BRUNO PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE G (2/3 approval required)
All precincts reported: YES 58.5%; NO 41.5%

SAN CARLOS SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE H (requires 55% approval
All precincts reported: YES 66.7%; NO 33.3%

COUNTY MEASURE A (Majority required)
YES 64.5%; NO 35.5%

COUNTY MEASURE B (Majority required)
YES 58.5%; NO 41.5%

COUNTY MEASURE C (Majority required)
YES 40.5%; NO 59.5%

TOWN OF ATHERTON MEASURE F (Majority required)
YES 31.1%; NO 68.9%

TOWN OF ATHERTON MEASURE L (Majority required)
YES 73.7%; NO 26.3%

TOWN OF ATHERTON MEASURE M (Majority required)
YES 75.1%; NO 24.9%

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY MEASURE J (Majority required)
YES 53.9%; NO 46.1%

CITY OF MENLO PARK MEASURE K (Majority required)
All precincts reported: YES 73.6%; NO 26.4%

The San Mateo County Registrar of Voters has results on all issues and races — national, state and local — before San Mateo County voters.

It's been a rough re-election season for longtime incumbent Pete Stark. (Cy Musiker: KQED)

At one time, Nancy Pelosi eagerly lay in wait to retake her House speakership this election cycle. But it doesn’t look like that is going to happen. The U.S. Congressional generic ballot shows Democrats and Republicans are neck and neck, but the GOP currently holds a 50-seat advantage. The Democrats would have to gain 25 seats to take control.

Complicating things this year in California: redistricting completed by a citizens commission instead of the Democratic-controlled legislature that used to gerrymander their own; and the new “Top Two” primary system — which sent the two candidates with the most votes in the primary to the November election regardless of party affiliation. These changes have put a dozen seats in play, a far greater number than usual.

Tuesday night, KQED will follow what are expected to be the closest House races in California. They are:

Dan Lungren (R) vs. Ami Bera (D): 7th Congressional District

A rematch in what’s considered to be one of the tightest races in the country. KQED’s Tara Siler has been following the race. She reports:

Democrats really see an opportunity here to pick off a conservative Republican, and an incumbent at that. It’s attracted a lot of money, and it’s one of the most expensive races in the country. And a lot of it is being thrown at Lungren by these outside groups.

So much has been thrown at Lungren, in fact, that Lungren is now ahead of his party in calling for campaign finance reform.

Pete Stark (D) vs. Eric Swalwell (D): 15th Congressional District

If ever someone was showing himself to be a rusty campaigner, it’s the 81-year-old Stark, who hasn’t been involved in a competitive election since long before he qualified for Social Security. But now he’s up against Dublin City Councilman Eric Swalwell, a 31-year-old whippersnapper and fellow Democrat who has not only profited from a series of erroneous accusations Stark has made against a host of individuals (see the fairly incredible videos here), but is also making use of new micro-targeting campaign technology. KQED’s Cy Musiker reports on Stark’s travails:

The newly drawn 15th district is a sprawl of suburban cities, stretching from Hayward to Pleasanton, to the south and east of Oakland. In a Democrat vs. Democrat race,” says Jack Pitney, who teaches political science at Claremont McKenna Colleges, “there’s a very reasonable chance [Stark] could end up out of Congress.” Pitney notes Stark has a number of strikes against him. First, more than half of this redrawn district is new to Stark. In addition, Pitney says Stark has squandered the power of incumbency — and the political clout that usually brings — by antagonizing Democrats and Republicans alike with nasty personal attacks. “He’s among the most despised members of Congress,” Pitney says. Stark’s Democratic colleagues even passed him over a few years ago when he was in line to become chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, “a stunning, stunning rebuke,” according to Pitney.

Nevertheless, as Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The veteran congressman has been endorsed by the entire Bay Area House delegation, President Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Swalwell has picked up major Democratic endorsements of his own, from former East Bay Rep. Ellen Tauscher and former state Senate leader Don Perata, among others.

Jerry McNerney (D) vs. Ricky Gill (R): 9th Congressional District

Incumbent McNerney has been redistricted into a more conservative area, and the GOP is trying to swing some conservative-leaning Democrats to their side. Tara Siler reports:

Democratic incumbent Jerry McNerney is trying to hold off a challenge from 25-year-old GOP newcomer Ricky Gill, who is benefiting from a good deal of outside cash. “It has emerged as one of the more competitive races — not only in the state, but in the country — which is not something the Democrats had planned for,” Daniel Scarpinato with the National Republican Congressional Committee says.

Lois Capps (D) vs. Abel Maldonado (R): 24th Congressional District

KQED’s Scott Shafer reports:

For the past two decades California has been tough political terrain for Republicans, in part because the state’s growing Latino population overwhelmingly supports Democrats. On the Central Coast, Republican Congressional candidate Abel Maldonado is hoping his Mexican heritage will help bridge that divide by appealing to Latinos and independent voters. Maldonado, a former lieutenant governor, is the kind of candidate the Republican Party covets these days. “My father and mother came to this country with nothing,” Maldonado says. He’s the oldest son of migrant workers — Maldonado’s father came from Mexico in 1965 as a guest worker, eventually starting his own farm and growing it into a family business. Maldonado’s running against incumbent Democrat Lois Capps. The newly drawn seat is much more competitive than it was before redistricting. It would seem tailor-made for a moderate Republican businessman like Maldonado. But the “R” next to his name on the ballot could be a big liability, especially with Latinos, who make up nearly one in five voters in the district. “The Republican Party has not done a good job of communicating with the fastest growing population in America, which happens to be Hispanics,” Maldonado says. “You’re just committing political suicide. It’s just what it is.” If Maldonado ekes out a win, his candidacy could provide a roadmap back to relevance for the Republican Party in California.

The race has drawn much SuperPac money, including a bunch to Maldonado from Chevron.

Gary Miller (R) vs. Bob Dutton (R): 31st Congressional District

Scott Shafer talks to KPCC’s Steven Cuevas:

Steven Cuevas: Democrats were hoping that they would take this district in the June primary. Pete Aguilar, Mayor of Redlands, the favorite there, he came in third. So now you have Congressman Gary Miller, long-time Congressman serving in Washington, who actually represented the old 42nd District, he’s moved into Rancho Cucamonga to qualify to run in this District. He’s going up against State Senator Bob Dutton. Kind of a local favorite, former Rancho Cucamonga Councilman. Shafer: And how is the money lining up in that race? You have an incumbent congressman, although he doesn’t represent that district, versus a pretty well-known Republican, but one who is in the State Legislator. Cuevas: State Senator Bob Dutton is pretty much been swamped by the fundraising efforts of Congressman Gary Miller, who has actually gotten most of his money from the National Association of Realtors. They’ve poured close to $2 million into this race. Miller is also a home builder and he sits on the Congressional Committee that has oversight over the housing industry.

John Tavaglione (R) vs. Mark Takano (D): 41st Congressional District

More from KQED’s Scott Shafer and KPCC’s Steven Cuevas:

Shafer: Closer to the city of Riverside to the 41st Congressional District, again, no incumbent running in that District. Democrats have a slight edge in registration, how is that race shaping up? Cuevas: This one could be a real squeaker. It’s getting a fair amount of national attention as well. You have a long-time Riverside County Supervisor John Tavaglione, the Republican, going up against the high school teacher and College Board Trustee Mark Takano. Both are well-known in the community, and both are well-respected. Shafer: And Steven Cuevas, he is, Mark Takano, not only openly gay, but Japanese-American. Is that, in some way, helping him in that race do you think? Cuevas: That’s a little harder to say. You have a fair amount of Asian-Americans in this area but I think what has really resonated with Latino voters, actually, is his family story. The story of immigration, how his family came here, how his grandparents were interned during World War II, and what happened afterwards.

Mary Bono-Mack (R) vs. Raul Ruiz (D): 36th Congressional District

Scott Shafer talks to KQED Election Editor Tyche Hendricks:

Shafer: In the Inland Empire, toward Palm Springs, a well-known Republican Mary Bono Mack, the widow of Sonny Bono who died while in office several years ago. Just how vulnerable is she? Hendricks:Mary Bono Mack is a seven-term incumbent. She has easily won re-election in the past. And her opponent this year, Raul Ruiz, has no electoral experience. He was considered a long-shot. But the race is really tightening. Ruiz who is a Harvard trained emergency room doctor, the son of Mexican farm workers has attracted a lot of support from Democrats nationally. They’ve been pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race. And over the course of the Fall the race has moved to really where it’s now a toss-up. And it’s Bono Mack’s to lose.

Shafer: So a case where a compelling biography might be helping Ruiz. Hendricks: I think his biography resonates. A quarter of the voters in the district are Latinos. They tend to vote more Democratic. But also the district has been redrawn, as all districts have, and it’s less Republican. It still tilts Republican but less so.

Howard Berman (D) vs. Brad Sherman (D): 30th Congressional District

Scott Shafer and Tyche Hendricks…

Shafer: In Los Angeles, specifically the San Fernando Valley, you’ve got two incumbent titans, two Democrats, Howard Berman and Brad Sherman, and the battle of the “ermans” as they say. Lots of money being thrown around in that race. It’s been very tense personally between these two men, what are the dynamics there? Hendricks: These guys were allies really in Congress, two established Democrats. More than $13 million spent there. One of the most costly races in the country. They’re not that different, it’s been a little hard to distinguish themselves. This is a case where the top-two primary has really given us a new dynamic in California politics. It’s something that we haven’t seen before. It’s going to be a difficult choice for voters but in the end they’re going to be assured of having a Democrat representing their district.

John Garamendi (D) vs. Kim Vann (R): (3rd Congressional District)

From the Davis Enterprise:

Rising star Vann facing veteran Garamendi in new-look district On Tuesday, Davis voters will have a choice in the congressional race between a familiar face in Democrat John Garamendi and an up-and-coming politician, Republican Kim Vann, who promises a fresh approach. In the most expensive congressional race Davis has ever seen… Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, is a two-term incumbent in District 10. The 67-year-old has been in public office almost continually since 1974…Vann, 37, is now in her second term as a Colusa County supervisor…. If elected, she would be just the second Republican to represent Davis in the House since 1953 (the other was Doug Ose, whom Vann worked for as an aide).

Jose Hernandez (D) vs. Jeff Denham (R): 10th Congressional District

Denham is the incumbent, and the Dems are trying to knock him out with former astronaut Hernandez, in an area with many eligible Latino voters whom organizers have scrambled to register to vote. Republicans very much want to hold the seat. From the Modesto Bee:

Nearly $12 million is being spent to sway voters in the 10th Congressional District, but little of it came from local donors and even less of it is being spent here. The high-stakes race between Republican Rep. Jeff Denham and Democrat Jose Hernandez is being bankrolled almost entirely by out-of-region political groups and contributors… The newly formed district includes all of Stanislaus County, plus Escalon, Ripon, Manteca and Tracy. But the campaigns are being run almost exclusively by out-of-town political pros. Recently filed campaign finance disclosures reveal the overwhelming presence of outsider money and spending. Independent political action committees have dumped about $8.2 million into the race, almost all of it going toward advertising on Sacramento TV stations. Those PACs don’t have to reveal where their money comes from, but none of them are based in the 10th District. Full article