California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León’s decision to challenge the 2018 re-election bid of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat, for not being sufficiently liberal in the Trump era is beginning to look more serious.

A poll released last week by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley found Feinstein leading de León 41 percent to 27 percent among likely voters. The remaining 32 percent of respondents said they would not support either candidate or were undecided. A Los Angeles Times/USC poll released in early November had shown Feinstein crushing de León, 58 percent to 31 percent.

After the UC Berkeley poll was released, Feinstein reversed her position on whether to support a continuing resolution funding the federal government that ended up being approved by Congress over the weekend. Her initial support for the measure triggered scathing criticism from some Democrats because the resolution did not address the fate of the nearly 800,000 young men and women who enjoyed some legal protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program created by President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive order. President Donald Trump ordered the cancellation of the program in September, effective in March, giving Congress a six-month window in which to make DACA part of U.S. law.

De León was the harshest critic of all, telling Feinstein “don’t came back to California” without doing much more to help DACA beneficiaries, known colloquially as “Dreamers.”

Feinstein’s flip-flop was covered in depth by the Washington Post, which concluded the 84-year-old and 25-year Senate veteran “is facing the most credible primary challenge of any Democrat up for re-election next year.”

The Post report included an interview with Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, the Berkeley progressive activist with a large following in California and nationally.

“By dragging her feet and reinforcing the notion that she was either indifferent or outright hostile to the plight of the Dreamers, Feinstein just gave de León a much-needed opening,” Moulitsas told the Post. “It just reminded core Democrats that we can’t count on Feinstein to do the right thing without having to pressure her to do so. In California, we should be able to count on our senators to automatically do the right thing.”

Is Steyer the real beneficiary of Democrats’ coolness to incumbent?

But two other recent analyses in California newspapers question the idea that de León has made significant gains.

A piece by the Bay Area News Group’s Casey Tolan reacting to the IGS poll suggested its biggest winner “might be somebody whose name wasn’t even part of the survey: Tom Steyer, the Democratic mega-donor behind a high-profile President Trump impeachment campaign who has been considering jumping into the race for months.”

Sonoma State political science professor David McCuan told Tolan that “the high number of undecided voters and Feinstein’s anemic numbers could be a big motivator for Steyer and other candidates. … She should be farther ahead. Someone outside of politics has to be encouraged to at least test the waters.”

But syndicated columnist Tom Elias noted the potential for Feinstein to be saved by the state’s “jungle primary” reform, in which the top two finishers in the primary advance to the general election regardless of party. Feinstein could lose more than half of Democrats next November and still coast to victory on the strength of Republican and independent voters who don’t want a Bernie Sanders-style progressive representing California in the U.S. Senate.

Whatever happens in coming months, Feinstein seems unlikely to have as easy a time getting re-elected as she did in 2012. That year, she defeated Republican Elizabeth Emken 62.5 percent to 37.5 percent, drawing 3.1 million more votes than her GOP foe.

But in 2012, when 20-year paleoliberal congressman Bob Filner was elected mayor along with a Democratic council majority, things changed drastically in America’s eighth-largest city.

Normally, that sentence would be followed with a reference to an all-but-unprecedented law extending rights/government protections/transfer payments to a downtrodden group.

In Filner’s case, it was Huey Long time.

A populist progressive takes the helm

He told powerful companies seeking routine city permit and planning approvals that “you don’t get free things,” demanding costly favors for his administration. Starting with championing marijuana clinics and micromanaging planning decisions, Filner appeared ready to roll out a long checklist of liberal initiatives that would win the attention of the national media and the admiration of the Daily Kos left.

Instead, Filner’s obnoxious-from-the-start behavior bothered everyone at City Hall and limited how much he could force through. Then his criminal sexual behavior led to his forced resignation in September 2013.

In February 2014, polished veteran GOP Councilman Kevin Faulconer beat little-known Democratic Councilman David Alvarez 53%-47% in a very low turnout election deciding who served the remaining 34 months of Filner’s term. Despite his inexperience and shaky hold on the Democratic base, Alvarez would have won easily in an election with the usual demographics.

That led me to write the following for CalWatchdog:

San Diego’s politics are undergoing what might be called a “Los Angelization.”

The city’s school board was taken over by the local affiliate of the California Teachers Association in 2008, when union muscle elected a new board majority that instituted policies that drove away an acclaimed reformer superintendent and yielded an operating budget in which an astonishing 92 percent of funds goes to employee compensation. The CTA control of the school board only increased with the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Now the same thing is happening with the City Council. Union-favored Democratic candidates — such as Alvarez — are increasingly likely to beat Democrats with independent streaks. As recently as 2011, there were Democrats on the council who occasionally would take on unions — politicians with backgrounds in engineering and small business, as well as party members who appeared eager to hear out business interests’ concerns.

But now the union muscle-flexing not only has Alvarez near an improbable mayoral victory, it has prompted hard-left decisions by the City Council in the months since Filner quit — decisions supported by formerly semi-independent Democrats who see the writing on the wall.

Last fall, on a party-line 5-4 vote, City Council Democrats approved increasing fees on commercial development by at least 377 percent to provide more funds for affordable-housing programs — even though the programs have a horrible record of actually getting people in homes.

And on another party-line 5-4 vote, council Democrats approved a restrictive new master plan for a job-rich shipyard industrial area adjacent to the Barrio Logan neighborhood in Alvarez’s district. They did so despite dire warnings from many CEOs and business owners that it would give leverage to environmentalists and community activists to shut them down.

California and America, meet Sherri Lightner

But instead of San Diego continuing its inexorable metamophisis into Santa Monica south, something unexpected happened.

A Democratic councilwoman who’s an unpredictable, inscrutable engineer — how’s that for a unique category? — threw city politics for a loop. On Wednesday, Sherri Lightner of La Jolla ousted San Diego City Council President Todd Gloria — widely considered a rising star — with the help of the City Council’s four Republicans.

So a California city that is basically about 8 in a 1-10 scale of conservatism vs. liberalism has a Republican mayor, a Republican city attorney and a Republican-anointed City Council president.

Normally, the assumption would be that the Democrat who defected wanted to be a triangulator like 1996 Bill Clinton. But no one knows what Lightner thinks — and the Republican pols who got her elected aren’t talking either.

Lightner is expected to make public remarks today explaining her actions and her agenda.

By John Seiler

The Daily Kos liberal Web site is running a $10.10 national minimum wage campaign:

“To the 113th Congress: 

“The minimum wage needs to keep up with the times, but today, it’s fallen behind, leaving too many working Americans in poverty. Please raise the minimum wage to $10.10 and index it to inflation so that minimum-wage workers won’t have to wait years for a raise.”

And you can sign your name to a petition for it. That amount is above the $9.00 minimum wage President Obama is seeking.

Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour; California’s state minimum wage is $8.00, although there are moves to increase that. And San Francisco imposes $10.55, the highest in the nation.

From the federal $7.25 minimum wage to $10.10 would be a 39 percent pay increase. Who wouldn’t want a 39 percent pay boost?

Well, if we have “too many working Americans in poverty” who have “to wait years for a raise,” why don’t we just increase the minimum wage to $100 an hour? People really could do well on that. It works out to $208,000 a year, about what you need to join the middle-class in high-priced California. People on welfare rolls would be attracted back to the work force. Welfare payments would drop almost to zero. Federal, state and local budgets, no longer having to pay for welfare, would run up surpluses that could be used to fund other great new government programs.

Of course, today only about 5 percent of workers make $208,000 a year. Mandating a $100-an-hour minimum wage would mean 95 percent unemployment.

But raising the minimum wage to $10.10 also would cause unemployment. Businesses would just kill millions of jobs, replacing the fired workers with foreign labor and machines — or just go out of business.

A $10.10 federal minimum wage would put the whole country on the level of San Francisco’s $10.15.  But the whole country is not like SF. In the incredibly expensive City by the Bay, if you can make only $10.15 an hour, you should leave.

To expect low-wage, low-cost Mississippi and Alabama to pay the same minimum wage as S.F. is absurd. I checked Zillow.com. In San Francisco today, the median house price is $763,000.

But in Tuscaloosa, Ala., a nice college town with the University of Alabama, the median price is just $139,000. That’s less than one-fifth as much.

Imposing a San Francisco-level minimum wage on Alabama would devastate the state, boosting unemployment to painful levels.

Hurting youth

Especially hurt would be black teenagers across the country. According to economist Walter Williams:

“With each increase in the minimum wage, black teen unemployment rose relative to whites and teen unemployment rose relative to adult. Why? Put yourself in the place of an employer and ask: If I must pay to whomever I hire $7.25 an hour, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, vacation, health insurance, unemployment insurance, does it pay me to hire a worker who is so unfortunate so as to have a skill level that allows him to contribute only $5 worth of value an hour? Most employers would view hiring such a person a losing economic proposition.

“Therefore, the primary effect of a minimum wage law is that of discrimination against the employment of low-skilled workers.

 “Teenagers tend to be low skilled. They lack the experience, knowledge and maturity of adults. That means they will be the primary victims of a minimum wage law. But why are black teens more heavily impacted than white teens? Black teens are far more likely to come from broken homes and attend some of the worst schools in the nation. Therefore, a law that discriminates against the employment of low-skilled workers will have a greater impact on black workers. Moreover, the minimum wage subsidizes racial discrimination. After all, if you must pay $7.25 an hour to whomever you hire, you might as well hire people you like the most, even if they are of identical skill.

“The little bit of money a kid could earn after school and on the weekends is not nearly as important as the other benefits from early work experiences. Any kind of job, paying any wage, teaches a youngster that he must be on time, respect supervisors, develop good work habits, plus there’s the self-esteem and pride that comes from being at least financially semi-independent. Early work experiences benefit any kid but are far more important for kids from broken homes, who reside in crime-ridden neighborhoods and attend rotten schools. If they are to learn anything that will make them a more valuable employee in the future, it will have to come from work; they won’t learn it at home or in the schools. For Congress to enact higher and higher minimum wages, to benefit their union supporters, is shameful and cruel.”

Unions like the minimum wage because it destroys lower-cost competition.

Far from “helping” the poor, as the Daily Kos, Obama and many others maintain, increasing the minimum wage would destroy their jobs. More of the poor, instead of enjoying the dignity of a job, would go on the welfare rolls, increasing the cost to taxpayers.

The minimum wage is a perfect leftist program: It destroys jobs and lives while increasing government.