With just a few months remaining in the race to replace outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer, the struggle has sharpened between leading Northern Californian candidate Kamala Harris and the Southland’s Loretta Sanchez. Seeking an edge against her opponent, who’s leading, Sanchez has gone on the attack, drawing Harris into controversies around everything from Donald Trump to their debate schedule. But questions remained as to whether Sanchez would be able to close the gap, at a time when California voters have not been captivated by the race or, according to polls, the candidates. 

The Trump card

When it comes to Trump, a figure immensely unpopular with many California Democrats, it transpired that Harris once received $6,000 in donations from the mogul, but did not follow the lead of other attorneys general in bringing suit against him around allegedly fraudulent practices at Trump University. 

“Trump donated to several state attorneys general in recent years, including New York’s Eric Schneiderman, who filed a lawsuit against the school for ripping off students,” the San Jose Mercury News reported. “Harris’ office has also investigated the school, but so far has not filed charges. Several Trump University students filed a still-pending civil suit six years ago, which Sanchez insisted should have been enough for Harris to have immediately rejected Trump’s donations in 2011 and 2013.”

Debating the debates

Meanwhile, as befits a underdog, Sanchez has zeroed in on the prospect of a robust debate schedule as a way to boost name recognition on the cheap and land some high-profile blows against Harris. As the Los Angeles Times noted, Sanchez “wants to have four debates — seeking to double the two proposed by her rival in the November election, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. The two campaigns traded barbs in early August after the Harris campaign announced she would participate in two forums, including one in Sacramento that Sanchez later rejected. At the time, Sanchez political consultant Bill Carrick criticized the Harris campaign in early August for ‘arrogantly announcing’ her terms.”

With Sanchez looking to Republicans to put her over the top, her need to make a positive impact among a broad and disillusioned audience in a short amount of time has grown acute. Although Sanchez “regularly receives 100 percent ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and has a lifetime 95 percent rating from the AFC-CIO,” New York Magazine observed, “she doesn’t have much choice” in courting whatever slice of the Golden State GOP electorate she can get. “A recent USC/L.A. Times poll showed Sanchez trailing Harris 30 percent to 16 percent,” the magazine added, “with three-fourths of self-identified Republicans declaring themselves either undecided or unwilling to vote for either of the surviving Democrats.”

Wavering voters

Driven by Republican discontent, California voters as a whole have again shown little enthusiasm for turnout on election day. The USC poll indicated that “16 percent of registered voters, mostly self-described Republicans and independents, have decided to skip the first open U.S. Senate race that California has seen in 24 years — the same percentage of voters who favor Sanchez,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

In today’s volatile campaign climate, however, analysts have cautioned against writing off Sanchez: “More than a third of California voters indicated they still ‘don’t know’ which Senate candidate they’ll pick on Nov. 8, according to the poll,” the Times concluded — a figure that, if it breaks Sanchez’s way in the home stretch, could help produce another upset victory in an election year defined by them. As Thomas Elias recalled at the Los Angeles Daily News, about 40 percent of the electorate was undecided until the final days before the primary” election that landed Sanchez a second-place finish, “just as about 35 percent are similarly perplexed, undecided, uninterested or turned off today. One poll showed 28 percent of voters don’t plan to cast any ballot in this race.” The key difference between the primary and the general election? Unlike this time around, Republicans were able to cast votes for Republicans. 

After besting her rivals in the first “undercard” debate, Fiorina won a slot on CNN’s main stage event, where, again, she established a commanding presence. On and off social media, Fiorina was declared the victor — despite touching off a controversy over the accuracy of her characterization of recently released video stings on Planned Parenthood. In a survey analysis, NBC News noted, “Fiorina emerges the clear winner, with a positive 34, whereas Trump nets a positive 2 among Republican voters who watched or followed the debate coverage.” USA Today’s expert panel has placed Fiorina atop their “power rankings” list for a third straight week.

But Fiorina detractors have long heaped criticism on both her tenure at HP and her campaign against Sen. Barbara Boxer, leaving some in the Golden State’s GOP warning of a bumpy road to the nomination. Although her edge against the likes of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton could be significant, Joel Fox of Fox & Hounds told the San Francisco Chronicle, “as the campaign moves ahead, some of the negatives that Californians knew about will move to the fore. And that’s the material that a lot of the national folks haven’t heard yet.”

Refighting old battles

Seizing the political opportunity, Boxer herself didn’t hesitate to weigh in on Fiorina’s record. “She’s very good with words,” the Senator told MSNBC, but suggested that “when people see her deeds and see her mean-spiritedness, she won’t be on the top anymore. […] I think the Republicans would have a very rough time if she was on the ticket.” Boxer went further in remarks for the Los Angeles Times, calling Fiorina “the face of income inequality and the face of corporate greed,” making “Mitt Romney look like a Democrat.” Fiorina’s track record as CEO, the Times noted, became a focal point of Democrats’ attacks during her bid for the Senate. Boxer managed to blunt Fiorina’s strengthening challenge with an ad focused intently on discrediting her time at HP, as the Washington Post observed.

In the current political climate, however, that tenure has not factored as heavily into Republicans’ assessments at a national level. It cropped up just once at the most recent debate. “Jake Tapper noted that Donald Trump had said Fiorina ‘ran HP into the ground’ during her time as CEO,” as the Post recounted. “Fiorina responded, ‘I led Hewlett Packard through a very difficult time, the worst technology recession in 25 years,’ adding: ‘We had to make tough choices, and in doing so, we saved 80,000 jobs, went on to grow to 160,000 jobs.'” The moderators and the candidates moved on.

Nevertheless, Fiorina was set to face continued criticism on the West Coast. California Democrats have proven eager to use their in-state rivals to attack the national GOP — and vice versa — with gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom training fire on Trump in order to cast aspersions at Republicans in his state.

A higher ceiling

Among GOP voters, Trump remains at the top of the heap in statewide polls, with Fiorina still trailing. Fiorina placed fifth in a recent USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll conducted before the impact of her debate victory. California Republicans’ strong preference for fresh political blood, however, indicated room for her to grow that more established candidates have fruitlessly pursued.

“Bush, Cruz and the other conventional politicians in the GOP race are all falling to the strong outsider tide: 47 percent of voters in the poll sided with three candidates who have not held elective office: Trump, Carson and Carly Fiorina,” as the Times summarized respondents’ preferences. “Leaving aside the one-fifth of respondents who were undecided, well over half of those who had a favorite candidate chose a person who had never served in office.”

By Chris Reed

After Barack Obama’s 61% to 37% wipeout of John McCain in California in 2008, we were spared the quadrennial tradition of some senior Republican peddling the idea that the GOP had a chance at the Golden State’s 50-plus electoral votes this campaign. The last time a Republican actually won California was George H.W. Bush in 1988.

But as strange as it may seem to talk about Mitt Romney having coattails in a state in which he has no chance of winning, it just might be true.

Over the past three weeks, on statewide races, the news has gotten worse for Prop. 30 and better for Prop. 32. In San Diego, where I live, polls seem to be moving in Republicans’ favor in the San Diego mayor’s race between Republican Carl DeMaio and Democrat Bob Filner and in the congressional race between GOP incumbent Brian Bilbray and Democratic challenger Scott Peters. Redistricting, it was assumed, left Bilbray at risk, leading to millions of dollars in super PAC ads targeting the 52nd congressional district race.

But I haven’t heard an insider talking up Peters’ chances for weeks.

What changed? Maybe we’re seeing a California version of the national dynamics that turned Romney from a clear underdog before the first debate on Oct. 3 to arguably a narrow favorite today.

The top of the ticket matters. More Republicans want to vote. More Democrats are disillusioned about the president.

Sometimes, it’s that simple — even in a state that regularly elects people like Pete Stark, Laura Richardson and John Burton.