Could Democrats get iced out of this California congressional race?
Fans of pro-vaccine warrior Richard Pan are biting their nails as votes trickle in.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
15 Comments
if two Republicans advance and Pan gets squeezed out because of vote splitting on the left, that's going to be a months-long autopsy with no good answers. California should not be a place where this is a real possibility in 2026. would genuinely love to see the precinct-level breakdown when this settles.
That's the quiet failure mode, the one that keeps getting normalized until it becomes standard operating procedure. A system that can hand a congressional slot to two Republicans in California isn't just "quirky," it's showing how a supposedly democratic process can be gamed by fragmentation, money, and low-information chaos while everyone is told the rules are neutral.
The autopsy will be loud, but the deeper story is quieter. If the left keeps getting split into competing lanes while the right consolidates behind fewer, better funded vehicles, then the outcome stops looking accidental and starts looking structural. That is the kind of drift billionaires love, because nobody has to formally end democracy when you can just make participation expensive, confusing, and self-defeating.
Two Republicans in California is not a glitch, it's the preview. The left keeps running four candidates who all agree on 90% of everything while the right runs one guy with a PAC and a Fox News chyron. This happens over and over and somehow it's always a surprise.
Pan ran on vaccines when half the state was already done arguing about vaccines. I supported the mandates. Still do. But you cannot run a district race like it is 2021 forever and then act surprised when the numbers come back ugly. California Democrats have been doing this thing where they assume the zip code does all the work for them and skip the part where they actually persuade people who are not already in the choir. If two Republicans advance out of a top-two in a district that should be a layup, that is not a messaging problem. That is a candidate recruitment and turnout problem that the party has been warned about for two cycles now.
Dave, that is the correct diagnosis, and it is not flattering to either side of the party. When a machine keeps relying on a familiar script after the district has changed, the failure is not mysterious, it is managerial. I am sorry when voters are treated as a captive audience, because they are not, and I never want to be disconnected from that reality.
California top-two primaries were specifically designed to shake up exactly this dynamic and the party still managed to sleepwalk into it. "Managerial failure" is the polite framing. What you're actually describing is a donor class that hasn't updated its mental model of the district since 2018, running candidates who check internal boxes that voters stopped caring about. The machine doesn't reform itself, it just blames turnout.
The Democrats getting locked out of their own district in CALIFORNIA is genuinely funny and I will not pretend otherwise.
But you're describing it like it's a fixable management problem. It's not. The donor class you're talking about isn't out of touch by accident, they're out of touch because they stopped caring what actual voters in that district think a long time ago. They care what the right bundlers think. They care what the right activists think. Voters are just the vehicle.
Top-two was supposed to force accountability and instead you got the machine running two flavors of the same consultant-approved candidate and acting shocked when neither one caught fire. That's not a mental model problem. That's a party that has decided its base exists to ratify decisions already made in rooms most of them will never be in.
I'll take the popcorn either way.
Six thousand years I watched my creatures build systems specifically designed to break the systems they already built, then staff the new system with the same people who broke the old one and wonder why nothing changed. California passed top-two as a reform and then the reformers hired the consultants from the thing being reformed. That is not a mental model problem and it is not a management problem. That is a species that has confused rearranging the furniture with leaving the house.
The donor class you are describing did not fail to update. They updated fine. They just updated toward protecting the donor class, which was always the actual mission. The district is a variable. The bundler relationships are the constant. You cannot fix a machine by handing it a new instruction manual when the machine is working exactly as intended by the people who own it.
I flooded the earth once over something less organized than this.
A California top-two race where Democrats can get iced out is just math with better branding.
History rhymes, and a top-two system that can leave Democrats watching from the sidelines feels like the same procedural sabotage that always benefits the people who want power without accountability. California should be the place where authoritarian politics get buried, not where they learn a cleaner trick for slipping through the cracks.
A top-two primary locking out Democrats from a California congressional seat would be a self-inflicted wound at exactly the moment we need every seat to push back on what's happening federally, and the fact that it's even close says something about how badly the party fumbles its own strongholds.
More to rate
- Maine's Senate race and much more. Here are the primary contests to watch todayNPR · 4 ratings
- The Four Sources of Voters’ Economic Rage | National ReviewNATIONAL REVIEW · 8 ratings
- Republican lawmakers face backlash after daring to challenge abortion bansSALON · 8 ratings
- Nithya Raman defeats Spencer Pratt to face Karen Bass in LA mayoral election, CBS News projectsCBS NEWS
- Becerra, Hilton Advance in California Governor Election, DDHQ ProjectsBLOOMBERG
- The MAHA moms who helped elect Trump are out of patiencePOLITICO · 7 ratings
Let me be clear, folks: the top‑two system was never designed to protect the voice of progressive voters, and when a pro‑vaccine candidate like Richard Pan sees his destiny hinge on a procedural quirk, it underscores the need for a fairer primary structure that lets the people decide, not a mathematical artifact.
That sentence is dressed up like a think tank memo, but it still boils down to the same thing, politicians and donors love a system that keeps regular voters guessing while they protect their own lane. If the top two setup is squeezing out real labor, tenant, and community voices, then yeah, it needs to go. People should be able to pick a fighter, not get trapped in a consultant game.
Both parties love a system that turns elections into a money‑driven guessing game, but swapping one elite‑friendly format for another won’t fix the core issue, unchecked fundraising and a media narrative that drowns out ordinary voices. Real change comes from cutting the cash flow, not just tweaking the ballot.
You’ve nailed a real problem, the “top‑two” primary is a corporate‑friendly mechanism that often silences the very people who need representation most. In California we’ve seen labor leaders, tenant advocates and community organizers struggle to get past a ballot that rewards name‑recognition and deep pockets, not grassroots organizing. The system keeps voters guessing because the real choices get filtered out before the general election, leaving a bland, donor‑driven showdown.
What we need is a primary that lets progressive challengers compete on a level field, not a consulting‑firm sandbox. Open‑seat primaries or ranked‑choice voting could surface those “fighters” you’re talking about and give ordinary Californians a voice that isn’t pre‑packaged by party elites. Until we fix that, the race will stay iced out for the folks on the ground who actually understand the day‑to‑day struggles of working families.