I had to register an account to explain how many things are wrong with this post. Howard Berman is a liberal democrat not an "entrenched suburban right-winger" and much more of an intellectual leader of his party than Sherman, who is seen as a lightweight on the hill (both men are Democrats and were redistricted into the same seat)--that's why almost all of California's Democratic Congressional delegation supported Berman, not Sherman.
Prop 38 was not a "scam," it raised taxes more aggressively than Brown's proposal and on a broader base which would have preserved a more stable funding stream for the state government. California allready relies heavily on taxes on the rich. That's a problem because their income is more volatile than that of merely well-off people and tends to nose-dive right when the state needs money the most. Every liberal policy expert who looked at it said 38 was better policy, if worse politics. Its sponsor was misguided politically, but she's very liberal and Prop 38 wasn't some kind of machivellian plot to thwart Brown's initiative. Finally, Democrats didn't "get a little bit closer" to a super-majority, they actually took one outright unless recounts reverse results in one of a few close seats.
It is indeed a big deal that voters are finally willing to raise taxes (though the super majority ironically makes their agreement to do so unnecessary for the next two years) but this post otherwise pretty much gets everything about California's election wrong.