I would be surprised if she loses in Waxman's district. It's pretty liberal annd/or solidly Democratic.

I think Blue America has co-endorsed Williamson and Ted Lieu. (A co-endorsement makes sense because California now has the "jungle primary" system, in which, unless someone breaks 50% in the first round, the top two finishers will advance to a runoff.)

Btw, I didn't mean to imply that Warren is liberal. She may be or she may not be. I don't know. She has a complicated history. And, far be it from me to pretend to know what is any politician's mind and heart. But she has said things that this candidate seems to be echoing. And, the fact that at least some candidates seem to think that their path to election is improved by saying things like that seems like a good sign to this traditional Democrat (meaning not a New Democrat).

An open seat in a solidly blue district will tend to attract a lot of Democratic candidates, and few Republicans. It would be conceivable for two Republicans to make the runoff. For example, suppose the percentages of votes going to Democrats are 18-16-15-11, while the Republicans get 21-19. The overall vote is Dem 60%, Rep 40%, but a Republican will get the seat. The same could happen in reverse in some conservative Orange County district, but the Republicans seem to do a better job of maintaining party discipline under such circumstances.

This won't happen often, because a split as even as 18-16-15-11 is unusual. More commonly, one or two candidates pull away from the pack. On a split like 24-20-9-7, the runoff will be the top Democrat versus the top Republican. An old-fashioned partisan primary guarantees that result, though, and thus makes it more likely that the winner will be at least roughly representative of the district's views.

I did not get at first that it was one primary for all parties, but that is what your post sounds like.

I know Republican California legislators are desperate to find some way to alter the fact that California turned blue.

There are differing rules about party identification appearing on the ballot. One possibility is that the candidates may indicate on the ballot which party they identify with, or state "No Party Preference" -- but that's entirely at their option, and the party committees can't prevent Republicans from pretending to be Democrats or vice versa. The party committees also can't prevent a whole bunch of Democrats (or Republicans) from running and splitting that party's vote.

Every candidate from every party (or from "no party&quot is on one ballot. The top two finishers advance to the general election (although I think most jurisdictions using this system provide that a candidate breaking 50% in the primary is thereby elected without the need for any further voting).

If you want to research it more, there's a lot of information in the Wikipedia article "Nonpartisan blanket primary" (a less colloquial term than "jungle primary&quot .

I don't know if the California system benefits either party. The Wikipedia article states that, in 2012, "eight congressional districts featured general elections with two candidates of the same party...." Six districts had two Democrats in November, and two districts had two Republicans.

She must be over 100 years old if she lived through the corporate takeover of the United States.

Maybe she means the latest power struggle within the ruling class?

However, the situation is worse than ever and accelerating faster than ever and the only battle we can fight is now. Besides, you just can't tell most people, even intelligent DUers, that the wealthy have always been in charge on this continent.