Disclaimer: The views below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MCBA and its members.

THREE MARIN CITIES HAVE CONTESTED NOVEMBER ELECTIONS IN OUR LAST-EVER REGULARLY SCHEDULED ODD-NUMBERED-YEAR LOCAL ELECTION

You may recall that a new law forced counties like Marin that held local elections in odd-numbered years to switch those elections to even-numbered years (if their average voter turnout percentages dropped at least 5 percent between even-numbers and odd-numbered years), synchronizing them with state elections.

This change has dismayed many local candidates: it forces them to compete with state and national candidates and a few other “larger” local races, such as county supervisor and countywide offices, for time, attention, donations, and volunteers. Voters will probably be dismayed starting next year as well by the overwhelming number of offices they’re being asked to consider simultaneously. But it’s the law, and 2019 is the last time any odd-numbered-year elections will be held in Marin.

Most elections were already switched to even-numbered years but four city councils took more time. Larkspur is one of them but won’t have an election at all because only two candidates filed to replace the two incumbents stepping down.

Here’s the lineup for the city councils holding elections next month:

FAIRFAX. Incumbent Renee Goddard (six and a half years on the council), second-time candidate Cindy Swift, and first-time candidate Stephanie Hellman are running for two seats. Goddard and Swift were overwhelmingly endorsed by the only two countywide political organizations that endorse in local races: the DCCM (Democratic Central Committee of Marin), and the MWPAC (Marin Women’s Political Action Committee), so we can expect to see those two taking the seats.

SAN ANSELMO. Three-term incumbent Ford Greene, third-time candidate Steve Burdo, second-time candidate Tom King, and first-time candidate Kim Pipkin are the four candidates running for two seats. Burdo was endorsed by the DCCM and the MWPAC (“recommended,” officially, as they only “endorse” women), and Pipkin was endorsed by the MWPAC (her voter registration is “No Party Preference,” so she wasn’t invited to be endorsed by the DCCM).

NOVATO. This is the first election in which council members will have to win in one of the five new districts, instead of at large. There are two candidates for District 1: Susan Wernick, endorsed by both the DCCM and the MWPAC, and Jim Petray – the only Republican of the 16 council candidates filing for the November council races -- who understandably declined to seek the MWPAC endorsement.

In District 3, incumbent Eric Lucan (also currently the Mayor), is seeking a third term and is a well-liked and well-respected veteran, despite still being in his thirties. He was endorsed by the DCCM and recommended by the MWPAC. His opponent, Kevin Morrison, is running for the second time, and once again he’s on the attack, distributing copies of his press release calling for his opponent to step down because he claims the city is in terrible shape and has made terrible decisions.

In District 5, where the incumbent didn’t run for re-election, there are three candidates (Marie Hoch, Amy Peele, and Mellissa Galliani), all first-timers, all of whom sought the endorsement of MWPAC, which endorsed Amy Peele, who also received the DCCM endorsement.

A QUICK LOOK AT NEXT MARCH’S LOCAL RACES

This March will see races for Mill Valley, Corte Madera, and Ross city councils, two sanitary districts, and three local judges, but the most excitement will probably be around the county supervisor races. Filing is open from November 12th to December 6th for incumbents; if one or more incumbents fail to file for re-election, the deadline will be extended for non-incumbents only until December 11th.

Supervisor Kate Sears (Southern Marin) announced a month or two ago that she won’t be seeking re-election next year, which surprised some, but she’s in her 60s and has served for over two terms, and the job can be wearing on even the strongest elected officials. To no one’s surprise, three-term Mill Valley councilmember Stephanie Moulton-Peters, liked and admired by nearly all, has announced for the seat, with Sears’ endorsement, and will be the prohibitive favorite, although there may be other candidates who jump in, despite slim chances.

Supervisor Katie Rice (Ross Valley and Southern San Rafael), who has also served over two terms but who is a little younger than Sears, is running for another term, and I haven’t yet heard any names of potential challengers, although there very well might be. Three years ago she beat a Larkspur councilmember and a former Fairfax councilmember handily, and she will be a strong favorite to win re-election.

Supervisor Dennis Rodoni (West Marin, Corte Madera, and various pieces of Greenbrae, San Rafael, Mill Valley, and Novato) will be running for a second term, and although there will likely be at least one challenger, Rodoni’s a strong favorite.

THE REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS TO TRUMP

Although the vast majority of interest is on the Democratic side (since despite his problems, Trump is still pretty much a slam dunk to win the Republican nomination), Trump does have three “minor” challengers -- a former member of Congress, and two former governors -- who poll between 1-3%, with Trump at 89% of Republicans.

You have to admire their courage, since Trump is quite vindictive, among his other glaring flaws, and attacks anyone who’s not completely supportive of him. You may recall that Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker stepped down last year because there was no way they could win their own primaries in Arizona and Tennessee, respectively, because Trump attacked them after they stood up to him.

Things could change, and one or more of the candidates now challenging Trump might have made a good gamble if Trump somehow collapses under the weight of his too-numerous-to-mention scandals and offensive traits (in fact, I saw an article this morning saying that is happening, as Trump now resembles Nixon in his final days as President), then they will be there and waiting, having filed, if people are looking for an alternative. I think a more likely scenario is that if Trump does collapse under some new scandal, or the cumulative weight of prior ones, or is impeached and convicted, then VP Mike Pence would take over and try to stay Trump’s course, and “inherit” his $100M (or whatever) campaign fund, although it may be a little late for him get on the ballot in some states unless Trump steps down or is impeached quickly.

Most scary of all, at least to democracy, is that at least four states have cancelled their presidential primaries so as to spare Trump having to face challengers at all. Since when do political parties playing fast and loose with the rules to favor one member of their party over others take precedence (I almost said “trump”) the right of the people to vote for their nominee?

THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT

My four prior bimonthly articles this year have all focused heavily on the top five Democratic Presidential candidates, and this one will as well, even though there have only been one to two relatively minor changes in those candidates’ positions in perhaps four to six months.

Some wonder why the dozen-plus others below the top five in the polls even bother to continue their campaigns, polling mostly at 1% or 2%, since they rarely get anywhere near or over the “usual” No. 5, who usually polls around 5%. “Former presidential candidate” is a nice part of one’s tag line for the rest of one’s life, and adding a few thousand (or tens of thousands of) new donors, and national name recognition, for future runs for office are very appealing to many, so many of them stay in the race as long as they can last (i.e., not have their fundraising plummet below their expenses, and/or have their polling plummet).

#5 PETE BUTTIGIEG. When he first jumped in early this year (like most of them), I thought he had no chance, and no business running, since even House members are almost never elected President, much less a state legislator, so a mayor of a middle-sized Midwest city seemed unfathomable, especially one in his 30s who happened to be gay, which I don’t know if the country is ready for or not. I underestimated the appeal of the straight-shooting, articulate, charismatic guy with a dream resume that includes being a Rhodes Scholar and service in the Afghanistan War. Within a couple months, he shot up to about 5th place and 5% in the polls – a relatively meteoric rise – but he’s stayed roughly in that position with those polling numbers, give or take a few percentage points, and maybe occasionally passing #4 Kamala Harris in some states.

#4 KAMALA HARRIS. Unlike the top three in their 70s, Harris seems ”young” (50s), and perhaps more energetic, but she also has held three impressive elective offices: San Francisco D.A., California A.G., and now U.S. Senator. She generally receives high marks, and is generally perceived as quite progressive, although not as progressive as #3 and #2 above her. Harris is an impressive speaker (maybe not surprising for a 13-year prosecutor) and extremely charismatic. She had what some people (including former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, whom Harris dated decades ago) called a Cadillac announcement and campaign rollout, but she, too, seems stuck for months now at her current ranking and polling numbers – maybe 7-12% -- very good, and impressive for a new US Senator, but not moving up fast enough, if at all, it seems, and in fact some say she’s dropping recently, and polling 4th or 5th in all-important Iowa, and even here in her home state.

#3 BERNIE SANDERS This a drop of one position for him (after months of being #2 ever since Biden announced some months ago and took over Sanders' temporary #1 ranking), having switched spots with the other very progressive candidate, Elizabeth Warren (who seems to be rising, and is now a lot closer to Joe Biden than she’s ever been, or anyone else has ever been). Although she’s in her early 70s, she seems much sharper than #3 and #1, both of whom are in their upper 70s, and she provides not only thoughtful and detailed proposed solutions to a wide variety of problems, but also the calm reassurance that she’s “just establishment enough,” and won’t threaten capitalism as much as some fear Bernie Sanders may, whether they are correct or not.

It’s not that Sanders has weakened in any describable way (I’m sure all of them wanted and hoped to raise more money than they have), but this an extremely talented top five (and beyond), with the possible exception of #1 Joe Biden, who occupies the top spot by virtue of name recognition, not so much from his 40 years in the Senate as from being Obama’s trusty sidekick for eight years. Sanders still has the killer email list from his last campaign, more donors than almost everyone else put together, and a fanatic base of supporters who can argue articulately that Sanders is best positioned to beat Trump AND fulfill progressives’ increasingly fervent desire for significant change in a number of areas. But he’s no longer the most likely alternative to the relatively moderate Biden, and has increasingly been displaced in the polls by Warren, who has a growing hold on the #2 spot now, having increased her “approve” rating four points as a result of the September debate, while Sanders dropped one point, increasing Warren’s lead in that rating from 2% to 7%. Having a heart attack probably won't help either.

#2 ELIZABETH WARREN. Four years ago I was part of small group trying to draft Warren to run for President, which she ultimately declined to do that year, but which caused Bernie Sanders to wait an extra couple months or so to see how that played out, so I’ve always been a fan of hers. I supported Sanders for most of this year, but like the opinion of the Democratic electorate, I seem to be shifting (back) to Warren, based on her superior debate performances, thoughtful policy analyses and recommendations, succinct and understandable descriptions and persuasive rationales for those policy positions, and even her daily-or-so emails (I get them from a good number of the candidates) seem less pushy, more matter of fact, and yet enlightening.

Warren could well be the toughest debate opponent for Trump, if he even agrees to do them; he may not. Warren was knocked a little at first for being (I hate this phrase) a “pointy-headed Harvard professor,” but I think she’s worked successfully in recent months to warm up her public image with her approachable, outgoing personality, and combining policy discussion with personal background at the recent debates.

#1 JOE BIDEN. I’ve increasingly been describing ”Uncle Joe” as a fragile frontrunner, subject to dropping in the rankings and polls if he commits too many gaffes of sufficient severity (his staff even considered recently having him speak less often in public in order to reduce the odds of such gaffes), and his past votes and political positions have also been hard for him to explain sometimes, and sometimes seem out of touch with more modern (read progressive) sensibilities. Ironically, that has not seemed to be much of a problem for Sanders, who has been in Congress for about 30 years, and whose almost always progressive positions inspired progressives three to four years ago, and are doing so again this year, as do those of Elizabeth Warren.

Perhaps most importantly, his policy positions seem to fall short of what most of us progressives want, and it feels doubly troubling to lose the chance we’d have for a progressive President, whether Warren or Sanders, to a candidate who’s skating into the nomination and general election primarily on his vice presidency in a still popular Democratic administration a few years ago. But Biden might well be the most likely one to lose to Trump—despite the polls showing him with usually the largest lead over Trump—because of his age and gaffes, which if severe enough could be fatal (which the other top candidates seem less likely to make.)