ShareThis Page
GOP candidate DeMaio tarred by ‘smear’ concedes in race for House seat in California |
Politics Election

GOP candidate DeMaio tarred by ‘smear’ concedes in race for House seat in California

The Associated Press

SAN DIEGO — Republican Carl DeMaio on Sunday conceded defeat to incumbent Scott Peters in one of the nation’s most hotly contested congressional races to represent a large part of San Diego, ending a bitter campaign that was rocked by claims that he sexually harassed a former staffer.

DeMaio, who is openly gay, said he will work within his party to make it more inclusive, echoing a theme of his campaign. He was not more specific about his plans but said the campaign was “incredibly painful” and left him wary of electoral politics.

“It’s clear that we are falling short in the vote counts, and I wish Mr. Peters the best because I care so much about the interests of San Diego,” he told The Associated Press. “I’m incredibly proud of the inclusive and diverse campaign coalition that we forged, and I remain committed to challenging the Republican Party to become more inclusive and more positive in its efforts to build a governing majority.”

Peters, a moderate Democrat, leads with 51.3 percent of the vote compared with DeMaio’s 48.7 percent, with nearly all votes counted.

DeMaio’s campaign was upended in its final weeks when Todd Bosnich, former policy director, said he was harassed by his former boss and was offered $50,000 to stay quiet.

DeMaio vigorously denied the allegations and called them a “false smear.”

Dave McCulloch, a spokesman, said the controversy caused “massive attrition and erosion” among DeMaio’s Republican base — including older, evangelical Christian voters — and engendered “an ick factor.” The allegations were less of an issue with independent voters, he said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.