It’s what Republicans fear and Democrats embrace: How the controversial presumptive nomination of Donald Trump as the GOP’s presidential candidate will affect races further down the ballot.

Democrats are hoping to tie Trump around the necks of Republican candidates throughout the state, particularly among Latino voters who have so far largely rejected Trump in polling — and the ads are just beginning. 

Democratic PACs announced one such ad yesterday for a coastal congressional race, while another ad has been floating around online for an Assembly seat in Los Angeles County. 

Much of Trump’s strength is derived from his “outsider” status — a strong personality untainted by Washington. He’s mastered the art of winning headlines by making brash statements often seen as anti-immigrant and misogynistic. 

But it’s those outlandish comments that may make it hard to paint a fellow member of the GOP with the same brush, absent an endorsement, which neither of the two attacked candidates have done. 

“The problem for them is Trump is not transferable that way,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues. “No one believes someone is a Trump Republican. Trump’s whole rise is that he’s not a typical Republican nor a typical politician. Very little evidence to suggest this will work.”

Ads

The House Majority PAC and CHC BOLD PAC are spending almost $300,000 in an ad campaign attacking Republican Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian as a Trump-like, anti-immigrant demagogue.

The ad supports Democrat Salud Carbajal. Both men are running to replace the retiring Democratic Congresswoman Lois Capps in a district that runs from Santa Barbara to north of Morro Bay. 

The district is more than one-third Latino, but has a close partisan split — Democrats have 39.79 percent of registered voters to Republicans’ 33.65 percent, with 22.87 percent declining to state. 

In Los Angeles County’s South Bay, former Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi is trying attacks like www.hadleytrump.com against the man who knocked him out of the Legislature in 2014, Republican David Hadley. Slightly different than the Achadjian ad, Muratsuchi is attacking Hadley for not denouncing Trump.

Hadley won by only 1 percent of the vote in the 21-percent Latino district. Democrats have nearly an 8 percent voter registration advantage, with 22.74 percent declining to state a preference. 

“These ads are exactly what Trump exposes Republicans to in swing districts,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who launched a campaign to stop a Trump nomination earlier this year. “Hadley’s answer is savvy though. I’m not convinced there’s a huge liability for ‘refusing to denounce’ him in general. But Trump will surely get trounced in (Hadley’s) district.”

Polling

A Field Poll last month showed 83 percent of Latino voters in the state had an unfavorable view of Trump, with even 69 percent of white voters having an unfavorable view (which is the most favorable of all the ethnicities).

And tying a candidate to an unpopular figure is a successful technique, to the extent that it can drive voter turnout. In 1996, President Bill Clinton tied his Republican challenger, Sen. Bob Dole, to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The Trump connection will be successful to the extent that it can drive voter turnout. 

“When it comes to motivating Hispanic turnout, Trump is the greatest gift that Democrats could want,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

Only a third of those eligible to cast ballots did so on Nov. 4. “Of those who registered to vote, little better than four in every 10 – about 42 percent – actually voted, either in person or by mail,” according to the California Secretary of State. Even more important, the total votes cast for governor, which determines the numerical hurdle signature-gatherers must clear to get their initiative on the ballot, hit a quarter-century low. The San Francisco Chronicle reported:

“In California, the number of signatures required to qualify a measure for the ballot is a percentage of the total votes cast for governor. Since the 42 percent turnout on Nov. 4 meant only about 7.3 million people bothered to take a side in Gov. Jerry Brown’s landslide win over Republican Neel Kashkari, the bar for qualifying ballot measures in 2016 will be at the lowest level in at least 25 years.

“The change isn’t a tiny one. Since the last governor’s election in 2010, it has taken 504,760 valid signatures to put a standard initiative on the ballot and 807,615 signatures for a constitutional amendment. Once the November election is certified Friday, those numbers will drop to about 366,000 and 586,000, respectively.”

A host of initiative hopefuls has already begun to plan for a big 2016, including public employee unions and taxpayers rights’ groups. But attention will focus most strongly around two high-profile efforts that have failed in the past, but enjoy the support of powerful backers: marijuana legalization and the breakup of California into six smaller states.

Hemp hopes

As Reason magazine observed, advocates of marijuana legalization and regulation have picked up steam in recent years, thanks to voter support. Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia all have given pot the green light; emboldened, activists have turned for 2016 to Maine and Massachusetts in the East and Montana, Arizona and California — the biggest prize — in the West.

Along with proposals to fly the California flag at the same height as the U.S. flag, and to require the use of condoms in pornographic video performances, the marijuana legalization initiative has already been publicly proposed, but not yet made official with the Attorney General’s office.

Pot advocates hope to use 2016’s low bar to land on the ballot in a well-publicized but cost-effective way. In 2010, voters rejected a legalization initiative; this year, advocates see themselves catching a nationwide wave in favor of looser drug laws — and capitalizing on recent changes to California criminal law that treat inmates convicted on drug charges more leniently.

Six Californias 2.0

Venture capitalist Tim Draper, meanwhile, hasn’t given up his own hopes for an up or down vote on his Six Californias proposal. That idea, ridiculed in many corners of the press but viewed favorably by those seeking to shake up dysfunctional state governance, didn’t make it onto the ballot last time around. It would break up the state into six new states.

“Draper put about $5 million of his own money into gathering some 1.13 million signatures for ‘Six Californians,’ only to have the California Secretary of State’s office rule that just 752,000 were valid,” the Chronicle reported. “That was not enough to make the 807,000 required this year to make the cut.” In an interview with the Chronicle, Draper chose his words carefully:

“’We’re going for 2016, and we have 750,000 signatures, but they say we have to start all over again,’ he said Tuesday. ‘It’s a kind of Catch 22.’

“Asked if he will re-launch the signature-gathering process in light of the new 2016 lower bar, Draper said, ‘We want Six Californias to happen. We’ll see.’

“’This is a mission critical for the state,’ he said. ‘I live here and so does most of my family,’ and more than ever, he said, ‘we’re saying wait a second: we can make this change.’”

That’s an attitude typical of those who struggle to land initiatives on the statewide ballot. For them all, 2016 offers a once-in-a-generation chance to do so.

From one perspective, he has succeeded so much in California politics that he has disqualified himself. As the soon-to-be four-time governor of one of the most indelibly blue states, Brown has developed a reputation as a politician unpalatable to Republicans but controversial among Democrats.

On the other hand, Democrats have become queasy over Hillary Clinton’s alleged inevitability as their party’s next nominee. Yet Democrats also remain concerned about how well others drawn from a thin national bench — like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo or even Vice President Joe Biden — might fare.

From their standpoint, Brown has recovered the potential to redirect the party in a clear and compelling way. Brown has become the last and most successful representative of the late-1960 liberalism that rejected President Lyndon Johnson, but had not yet evolved into the electorally disastrous ideology associated with Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, the party’s 1972 presidential nominee.

An unintentional media blitz

Brown, who made almost no effort this year to campaign for his own re-election, has not lifted a finger to stoke buzz around a possible presidential run. In March, Brown told CBS Channel 5 in San Francisco that he’d be interested in running for a more modest office. “There are always races around. I certainly enjoyed being mayor of Oakland. That was a real wonderful opportunity. I never made the most of it,” he said.

Then, in May, Brown told George Stephanopoulos that Hillary Clinton’s frontrunner status brought “risks” and required a “cautious and wise” approach. (Brown, notoriously, contested Bill Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 1992 long after it became impossible for him to win.)

In early July, however, Chuck Todd opined that Brown would be the most likely candidate to challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016 nomination. Brown, said Todd, was as much a “nemesis to the Clintons” as Al Gore, although his “resume with the left and populist movement is as strong, if not stronger.”

But recently Bill Maher delivered a forceful endorsement of Brown. “If Jerry Brown was 55,” he said on Real Time, his political commentary show on HBO, his record in California “would have Democrats hyping him for president. But they’re not. Because he’s 76, and ageism is the last acceptable prejudice in America.”

Brown’s personal and political experience, Maher implied, exceeded that of the rest of the Democrats’ presumptive field. “Wisdom isn’t something you can just Google. And governing is where we need wisdom. A concept that wise, ancient cultures already know.”

In mid-October, Brown reiterated to the Los Angeles Times that he’d consider another run at the Oakland mayoralty. “I wouldn’t mind being mayor of Oakland. But I don’t know, when I’m 80 and a half, whether I’ll have the same appetite.” Yet Brown preempted any question about flagging energy. “I’m very excited doing this job,” he told the Times, and made clear, “I don’t want to foreclose my options for four years from now.”

Likely hurdles would remain

In addition to the age issue — currently bedeviling Hillary Clinton herself — Brown would not face a cakewalk to the nomination, even if Clinton bowed out for some unexpected reason. As Dan Schnur pointed out at The Wall Street Journal, a bigger obstacle to a Brown candidacy would be even more fundamental: his own idiosyncrasy.

According to Schnur, Brown’s “brand of centrism has no logical place in a 2016 primary field. If a challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to emerge, it will almost certainly be a populist voice from the Democratic base. Mr. Brown’s insistence on budget cuts that frustrated his party’s legislators, his unwillingness to ban fracking, and his continued interest in revamping California’s environmental regulations make him an unlikely flag-carrier for progressive primary voters.”

Meanwhile, Brown still has a large and unruly state to govern.

With a strong headwind going into his bid for an unprecedented fourth term as governor, Brown has demonstrated a few key characteristics that would make him a viable option for Democrats. He’s broadly popular. His base of political power is stable. He’s got name recognition. And he’s not lacking on executive experience.

But that’s just the beginning of the speculation surrounding Brown. Earlier this year, he dismissed a presidential run outright, telling the Los Angeles Times it was “not in the cards” — “unfortunately.” More recently he’s changed his tune, however cryptically.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Brown complicated the picture considerably.

What if?

First, he reaffirmed that Hillary Clinton has an overwhelming advantage going into 2016. “She has this if she wants,” he said.

But then he said, perhaps strangely, that it would be “a little silly” for him to sit on the sidelines if “no one runs.”

Finally, he added that primary races for president are “never good for general elections.” That view is shared in every election year by every party establishment that controls the White House. It’s also evident that, if Clinton did pass on a White House run, other Democrats would take the bait.

Likely candidates range from big-name figures popular with the base, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, to lesser-known names with a less activist reputation, such as Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Even Vice President Joe Biden is thought to hold out interest in a run.

At the same time, Brown knows as well as any inside-the-Beltway analyst that at least some presumptive Democratic candidates would consider challenging Hillary Clinton even if she does move forward with a presidential bid. She’s been beaten by an underdog candidate before — then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008.

This time around, Clinton is more experienced — but she’s also road weary, and her political brand isn’t as fresh or powerful as it used to be. Clinton’s recent and massive book tour aroused more speculation and scenario-building than it did enthusiasm. Her political machine is unparalleled, but she lacks that intangible sense of being of-the-moment.

If Clinton won’t run, then Democrats will suddenly become very interested in finding a candidate who could quickly discourage others from drawing the party into a protracted, damaging primary battle. Vice President Joe Biden could be such a candidate. But he’s as close as can be to the Obama administration. Given Obama’s current ratings, that’s a significant liability in the general election.

About a third of voters are already saying their vote in the midterm elections this November will be a symbolic vote “against” the president. Handing the nomination to Biden would be for Democrats a bit like Republicans choosing Dick Cheney in 2008. They’d be obliged to run a referendum on Obama’s legacy.

Setting Biden aside, Democrats find themselves short on elder statesmen — well-known, senior, active officeholders. Plenty of younger, ambitious politicos are out there, but whatever their appeal, they lack the ability to quickly sew up a primary race. Republicans will be facing a fascinating but risky primary season free-for-all in 2016, which gives Democrats all the more reason to unite around a seasoned nominee as quickly as possible.

And that’s where Brown comes in.

A long history

The man called “Gov. Moonbeam” by his detractors has seen it all. He first sought his party’s presidential nomination in 1976, then tried again in 1980.

In 1992, he made exactly the kind of trouble Democrats want to avoid in 2016, trash-talking rival Bill Clinton, and winning enough primaries to create a headache at the national convention. There, he refused to accept the party platform composed by Clinton’s allies, instead rolling out his own document. Its central theme? “Our democratic system has been the object of a hostile takeover engineered by a confederacy of corruption, careerism and campaign consulting.” 

That’s a message far more resonant with the contemporary political landscape than anything to be heard from Hillary Clinton. Activists on the right and the left have put it at the top of their own agendas.

Returning to serve as California’s governor required a long, humble climb. Now, however, he’s paid the kind of political dues that party establishments require in order to appreciate a candidate’s stubbornness and idiosyncrasies.

Thanks to his long track record, his media-friendly career narrative, and his party credibility in a thin field without Clinton, Brown is beginning to receive genuine attention. A growing share of California commentators, from Breitbart to the Sacramento Bee, see him as plausible candidate and a clear alternative to Clinton.

At the national level, cable fixtures like MSNBC’s Chuck Todd feel the same. The door is opening for longtime allies of Brown’s to float his name as a contender.

Former Senator Gary Hart, for instance — another mainline yet atypical Democrat who came of political age in the anti-establishment ’70s — told The Washington Post not to “rule out” his “law school classmate” from days of yore. “If you pay attention to his career,” Hart said, “you see that he does very unexpected things.”