I've voted against her (and Boxer) every time she comes up for re-election since I've been able because of her support of anti-technology laws. Unfortunately they're incumbents in California, so it's really difficult to get them out because they're incumbents so getting primaried is hard, and California is very liberal so it's hard to get a republican in unless they're an actor.

Given the voters in California, someone needs to mount a primary challenge because no one will beat her in the general election. That how Rep Eric Cantor got ousted.

California doesn't have party primaries any longer. All candidates run in a single primary, and the two highest vote-getters go on the ballot for November. When she's up for re-election, her opponent on the November ballot will almost certainly be a Democrat.

I guess that's one way to make sure an incumbent is on the ticket and lock out any hope of a 3rd party messing with your election.

No, it was actually intended to shake up the two-party system. The Republican party is very weak in many parts of the state, so it's entirely possible (likely even) that that second candidate could be another Democrat, or even a third-party Green or Libertarian candidate. The point is that it encourages the non-majority party to field candidates that appeal to the overall populace, instead of to a narrow interest group (like conservative Republicans in Berkeley).

Shaking up the two party system by likely replacing it with a one party system sounds really bad. It also hurts 3rd parties badly by requiring a shorter time frame and a lot more money to be any influence on the election. This sounds like a way to cement the power of the current ruling party.

The third party is free to run in the primary.

(so for instance, if there are 4 candidates that get lots of votes in the primary, 2 Democrats, a Republican and an Independent, you can end up with 2 Democrats on the election ballot, I think the Republican would still see that as having their election messed with)

Yeah, but it pretty much ensures they won't be on the final ballot.

I wonder if someone has gathered the statistics from California elections. Comparing across different electorates isn't hugely meaningful but I would think there would be some evidence about how it impacted third party candidates.

You also want to look at the votes that probably would have gone to 1st party candidates. I too would like to see that study.

Her "district" is the entire state of California. What are you talking about?