With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Libertarian Christopher Agrella received 1,287 votes, 5.2 percent of the total, in the special election in California’s 32nd Congressional District. Democrat Judy Chu won the seat, which became vacant when Democrat Hilda Solis resigned to become U.S. Secretary of Labor, with 61.7 percent. Agrella was the only alternative party candidate on the ballot.
17 responses so far ↓
1 Third Party Revolution // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:53 am
It seems a little higher than usual. Normally third party and independent candidates get around 1 or 2 percent of the votes in congressional races.
2 Peter Orvetti // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:11 am
Special election — much lower turnout
3 Third Party Revolution // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:22 am
What was the total votes in this election?
4 Richard Winger // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:35 am
InNovember 2008, California Libertarian nominees for US House got 3.88% (in the districts in which both major parties had nominees). So this result is better than normal.
5 Michael Seebeck // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm
It’s a result of a lot of dedicated activists busting our asses on this campaign.
When you consider that the district is gerrymandered 2:1 Democratic, there was no media coverage to speak of, and turnout was 10%, we did damned well.
We’re gonna be doing a post-mortem on this one in the coming days. Lotsa stuff to analyze and figure out here for future races.
6 Catholic Trotskyist // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:44 pm
In 2008, according to Wikipedia, Solis ran unopposed. I’m sure Seabeck and his campaign workers there are kicking themselves for that now. In 2004 and 2006, there was no Republican candidate in that race and Libertarian Leland Faegre was the only candidate against Solis. He got 15% in 2004 and 17% in 2006.
7 VAGreen // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Good work by the Libertarians.
8 Michael Seebeck // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Trotskyist, learn to spell, or at least copy and paste names, OK?
Sure in 2008 Solis ran unopposed, and no, we’re not kicking ourselves for it, because A) it’s irrelevant now, and B) we had no candidate, stepped-up or recruited, to run in that race.
So if anything give Chris credit for stepping up and running (he ran in the 38th in 2008).
Besides, unlike the previous ones where the incumbent was running for re-election in a highly gerrymandered district, this one was an open seat. Different game on that one.
9 Catholic Trotskyist // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:05 am
It’s still gerrymandered, even if its not the same person. It’s still the Democratic Party in firm control of both the districts that Agrella ran in.
Yes, I see, Agrella ran against Grace Napolitano in 2008 and got 18.2% of the vote. If there was some way for the third parties to get the weak party not to run candidates in the gerrymandered districts, they could get somewhere eventually. But of course all parties want to run in special elections, because, as examples have shown in the past few years, it is sometimes an opportunity for a party to do surprisingly well and even take control. Like with Hastert’s house seat. So I just contradicted my point at the beginning of the post. Oh well, it doesn’t matter, these are just insane pointless ramblings anyway.
10 Gary Julian // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:30 am
The seat is not gerrymandered. It is simply heavy Democrat.
3rd parties need to CAMPAIGN to get votes. Not sit on their assets. In 2005 California 48th Congressional special election Jim Gilchrist got 25% as an American Independent Party candidate. He almost beat the Democrat who had 27%.
11 Michael Seebeck // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Gary, you looked at a map and a CA ballot lately? Almost all of CA’s districts for state and federal offices are badly gerrymandered. Why do you think Prop 11, as bad as it is, was passed?
Gilchrist is not your best example because he had name recognition and he cherrypicked the district.
12 Michael Seebeck // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:07 pm
And I will also say to you Gary, that to imply that Chris wasn’t out and campaigning is insulting to him and to the rest of us who worked on his campaign.
13 AFH // Jul 16, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Way to go Chris!
The ALIVE FREE HAPPY Libertarians of Los Angeles and San Bernardino really enjoyed being able to be amongst the actvists that put out targeted door hangers for the campaign. Chris was a terrific speaker moving crowds to standing ovations, and was a great representative for the party.
14 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“Michael Seebeck // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Gary, you looked at a map and a CA ballot lately? Almost all of CA’s districts for state and federal offices are badly gerrymandered. Why do you think Prop 11, as bad as it is, was passed?” ——— Whoa, whoa, whoa, Mike uses districts and then projects the paradigm on to extra district examples? Non Sequitor!
“Gilchrist is not your best example because he had name recognition and he cherry picked the district.” ———— And inspite of AIP and border groups only myopia. Look at the endorsement list[s]. All AIP and secure border types. No ‘out siders’ [inspite of the endorsements being offered ......] and remember, politics is a popularity activity.
I mean, what political consultant with more than a room temperature IQ does not love a veterans group? Gilchrist’ group could have messed up a two car parade. Totally squandered any advantage they held before the campaign.
15 paulie // Jul 17, 2009 at 9:29 am
Great job!
16 Gene Trosper // Jul 17, 2009 at 10:04 am
Congrats to Agrella! 5.2% may not seem spectacular, but many people likely voted Libertarian for the first time ever. That is an accomplisment in and of itself.
17 Gene Trosper // Jul 17, 2009 at 10:05 am
BTW: when I say “may not seem spectacular”, I refer to non-third party observers. I personally think 5.2% is a nice accomplishment.
Leave a Comment