[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers

View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
Web Calitics

The Morning After

by: Robert Cruickshank

Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:16:24 AM PDT

California Democrats are poised to have a clean sweep of the statewide elected offices, depending on whether Kamala Harris can maintain a razor-thin margin of victory over Steve Cooley. (Seriously, who the hell votes a Brown-Boxer-Newsom-Cooley ticket? WTF is wrong with those people?)

Here are the results as we know them, with 96.6% reporting across California. Note that the Secretary of State's site appears to be back up. It's not her fault the site crashed - they apparently got screwed by a vendor that made promises they could not keep.

Governor: Brown 54, Whitman 41
US Senate: Boxer 52, Fiorina 42
Lt. Gov: Newsom 50, Maldonado 39
Sec State: Bowen 53, Dunn 38
Controller: Chiang 55, Strickland 36
Treasurer: Lockyer 56, Walters 36
Attorney General: Harris 46.1%, Cooley 45.6%
Insurance Commissioner: Jones 50, Villines 38
Supt. of Public Instruction: Torlakson 55, Aceves 45

Ballot props:

Prop 19: 46 yes, 54 no
Prop 20: 61 yes, 39 no
Prop 21: 42 yes, 58 no
Prop 22: 61 yes, 39 no
Prop 23: 39 yes, 61 no
Prop 24: 42 yes, 58 no
Prop 25: 55 yes, 45 no
Prop 26: 53 yes, 47 no
Prop 20: 40 yes, 60 no

Other selected races around the state:

CA-3: Lungren 51, Bera 43
CA-11: McNerney 82,124, Harmer 82,003 (wow)
CA-20: Vidak 51.5, Costa 48.5
CA-47: Sanchez 51, Tran 42

SD-12: Cannella 53, Caballero 47
SD-28: Oropeza 58, Stammreich 35

AD-5: Pan 49.1, Pugno 46.1
AD-10: Huber 51, Sieglock 43
AD-15: Buchanan 53, Wilson 47
AD-53: Butler 50, Mintz 43
AD-68: Mansoor 56, Nguyen 44
AD-70: Wagner 58, Fox 37

So. What all does this mean?

First, that Californians want to be governed by Democrats, and certainly not by wealthy CEOs. The Whitman bust is one of the most laughable and epic political failures we've ever seen. She spent $160 million to lose by double digits. Ultimately she and Fiorina could not overcome the basic contradiction of Republican politics: their base hates Latinos, but California's elections are increasingly decided by Latinos.

More importantly, Californians rejected right-wing economics. They rejected Whitman and Fiorina's attack on government and public spending to produce economic recovery.

The loss of the House stings - California will feel that painfully, not only because the first Speaker from California has lost her majority, but because the new House majority is deeply hostile to the values Californians just showed.

The propositions could have gone better. The defeat of Prop 19 was not surprising, and while I wish it had passed, it turned in a better showing than some had projected. Prop 21's failure just sucks; are people really skittish about spending $18 a year to save state parks? Prop 26's passage is going to cause a lot of problems. We won a huge victory in passing Prop 25 and defeating Prop 23, of course. And in what should come as no big surprise, voters overwhelmingly said they want redistricting done by an independent commission.

Looking at the legislative races, Democrats basically treaded water. With a more 2008-like turnout we could have flipped some of these seats, such as AD-68 or AD-70. But we've built a strong base for the future.

Overall, Californians rejected the right-wing and showed they want a Democratic future. But progressives still have our work cut out for us, both nationally and here in California.

Robert Cruickshank :: The Morning After
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The Morning After | 73 comments
Congrats to McNerney (5.00 / 2)
and all the Dems who won. I worked hard to keep Jerry (McN) in office and so today's news was a real lift after a bad day nationally.

It's not over yet (0.00 / 0)
It's probably headed to a recount.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
And the American Independent Party plays spoiler (4.00 / 2)
with 5% of the vote.  I guess it turns out that they're good for something after all.

[ Parent ]
Took the bus from Santa Barbara, door to door in the driving rain (0.00 / 0)
All worth it. Huzzah!

[ Parent ]
Great, Short Analysis (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the excellent, succinct analysis of the election results. Brown, Boxer and Newsom, in the final vote tallies, won by big margins.


Excellent (5.00 / 3)
1)  Californians continue to believe that everything they want should be free, and that they're only overtaxed to pay for things that other people want.  I mean, they refused to return the tax rates on corporate PROFITS to where they were 2 years ago, and made it impossible to actually impose fees on polluters commensurate with the damage they cause.

2)  The passage of Prop 25 means that now the Dems are going to be 100% responsible for every budget.  And Prop 13 and its descendants (including newly-passed Prop 26) means that there will be no ability to find additional revenue.  So the Dems will be hung for the sins of the Republican minority -- even more so than before, because Prop 25 had an inherent promise that it would somehow "fix" things.  I wonder how people will feel when that promise collapses in the face of no-more-money.

3)  But that's all OK, because we've fixed the real electoral problem of theoretical gerrymandering by handing over more power in that process to the Republicans than the Republicans can actually get at the ballot box.

All you can do is quote, and requote, and re-requote Mencken:  

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Prop 24 had nothing to do with tax RATES (4.00 / 1)
for corporations.  It would have repealed a new law that allows qualified MULTI-STATE corporations to ELECT a sales factor only APPORTIONMENT formula.  Corporations doing business only in CA have no such option, nor do corporations in certain industries (even if they're doing business in other states.)
It would have also repealed another law that gave businesses the abiltity to spread out unused NOLs (if any) over a longer period of time, and to apply state tax credits between different members of a combined corporate return.

[ Parent ]
My apologies (0.00 / 0)
Substitute effective rates, and see if that satisfied your requirements for describing a loss of $2bn in income tax revenue on corporate profits.

[ Parent ]
exactly (4.50 / 2)
i don't see how anyone can get from the proposition results to "Californians rejected right-wing economics". on the contrary, they have completely internalized the conservative BS so that it doesn't seem "political" at all anymore. everyone just knows that public employees are all lazy and overpaid, all new taxes are bad, they really do have enough money in Sacramento if they would cut out wasteful spending (translation: spending that isn't on me), "politics" is bad and "independent" people are good. they may have rejected specific Republicans but this whole "i'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative" malarkey still rules the roost.

we can't win an argument until we recognize that it needs to be made and that people don't presently agree with us. goals, maybe. means, nope.

[ Parent ]
25 is still better than where we were (3.00 / 3)
Even if it is a sucky budget, at least it will be done by June, which will save a lot of money and remove a lot of uncertainty.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

[ Parent ]
Beacon of hope (5.00 / 1)
Thanks for keeping the good fight alive out there.

I can't wait to get out of Texas (0.00 / 0)
and come home to relative sanity!

My blog


[ Parent ]
I'm not happy about 26, and I understand the misgivings over 22, (4.00 / 1)
...but I'm thrilled that 25 passed.

The 2/3 vote requirement for the budget placed too much power in too few hands. It let the minority party extort concessions that had nothing to do with spending, and made them the easy targets of corporate lobbyists and campaign money.

I hope that 25 will also help disentangle the budget vote from revenue vote. If the 'Pubs want to prevent tax increases, let them be 100% responsible for it. The new Governor can do a lot to shape public perception about this.

Hell, if the 'Pubs want to use their 33% veto to stop fines for industrial polluters, they can be 100% responsible for that too.

Perhaps it's time we stop using wrist-slap financial penalties altogether and start threatening senior managers with arrest and prosecution when their pipelines leak. We need to give these guys a reason to complain louder when Corporate cuts their maintenance budget.

Any D/R Splits for State Assembly and Senate? (0.00 / 0)
Can't find it anywhere.

Splits (0.00 / 0)
Based on my counting:

Assembly:  Democrats 52-28
Senate:  Democrats 24-15 (1 vacant, won by democrats)

[ Parent ]
The REAL DEAL (5.00 / 1)
 People make some big deals out of passing Prop 26. Okay I didn't see much media pushed around it, deserved likely.

Whatever that's not that important. Neither is redistricting, which to me smacks of making sure Dems keep seats they likely don't deserve for a variety of reasons beyond Left and Right.

Screw the National Democrats that AREN'T from California. The only thing Sherman, Waxman et-al should be making sure is that when the Right does Transportation, you make sure they don't try to screw us over so we can break ground in 2012 to build our HSR.

To be honest, that's all we need from the captured Federal Government.

The rest we can do ourselves and that should be our focus. They hate us anyway (jealousy?), so we should give them reasons to be jealous besides the weather.


26 isn't that important? (0.00 / 0)
How do we fund AB 32?  How do we execute a budget-balancing "Steinberg maneuver"?

[ Parent ]
the budget solutions that i can think of (4.50 / 4)

1. get rid of every BS tax break giveaway that prior budgets used as carrots to wheedle the last republican vote to pass the budget. repealing old deals is not the same as a tax or fee hike.

2. pass single-payer public health care, funded by a combination of whatever federal health care funds remain + users paying their bills. just coming up with a plan that doesn't have a corporate profit margin should help tremendously with the perpetually increasing cost of state employees to the budget.

3. make it clear that legislators who do not help fully fund and pass the budget will have projects in their district underfunded or defunded. not only will this help spare cuts elsewhere, it will work against the 2 santas system of opposing taxes but never having your constituents face the cuts.

4. when all the crap that can be cut is cut, come up with a good budget that gives the people what they say they want, and float a special election to raise the taxes to pay for it, specifically, with everything laid out and clear and none of the convoluted BS that prior budget stopgap bond elections had. make use of the simplified budgetary process to make things easy to understand, so people will vote for it.  

[ Parent ]
Are any of those realistic (0.00 / 0)
To make it through legislature?

[ Parent ]
hard to say, until you try (4.00 / 1)
but it's worth remembering that the decisive votes on the budget, and the players most able to demand the moon in exchange for their vote, are now the 41st democrat in the assembly, the 21st democrat in the state senate, and jerry brown. so whoever is the 12th least liberal assembly democrat, and the 5th least liberal state senate democrat is who one would need to look at to see what is possible.

it's also quite possible that different pols would be amenable to different issues, so the deciding vote in one play might be different in another.

what is beyond question, though, is that the budget will become an internal democratic affair, at least until the republicans moderate to the point where they actually win a majority in either chamber.

[ Parent ]
So you forget Washington and focus on Sacramento (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
actually, it's even better odds in the state senate (0.00 / 0)
given that lt. gov. gavin newsom will be on hand to break tie votes. so that places the 20th state senate dem as the threshold vote for whatever budget item.

anyone out there have a sense for how the incoming class of legislators line up, policy-wise? i suspect lois wolk might be pretty close to that magic number, vote-wise.

[ Parent ]
Yes SB810 or the previous forms of it.. (0.00 / 0)
 Have passed in Sacramento already, The Governator always said he would veto it.

Brown though not liberal will not stand in the way.

[ Parent ]
An immediate option is to cap and freeze hc costs (0.00 / 0)
Single payer is the right solution but an immediate option  is to establish caps for employer, employee, and individual contributions, premiums and copays and freeze all as of 1/1/10.

It's not a roll back but nor does it allow companies an opening to react.

Employer contributions, premiums and copays are the central problem, on an upward spiral, and the gaping hole in existing federal legislation. There are no cost control. A state-wide freeze, in the fashion of Nixon's wage and price freezes, at least isolates the burden of increasing hospital and provider costs in wages, fees, and devices on the insurers who are most able to manage costs and in control of their market.

The whole equation changes and attentions are diverted to solving the problem instead of capitalizing from it.

[ Parent ]
With what money, exactly? (0.00 / 0)
There is no money.  There will be no money.  No money.  None.  Nada.  Zero.  Nothing.  Even fees for services can't be raised without 2/3 vote in order to match inflation.

California will be lucky if it isn't Mississippi or Alabama in a decade.  This is, by the way, not a bug, but a feature of the anti-government crowd's political preferences (especially the extractive industries, who LOVE weak governments).

[ Parent ]
ok (4.50 / 2)
So, this changes the status quo how exactly? It's one thing to point out that it sucks, but the situation in California today is better, not worse than it was.

These votes will have to be reached the same way they always were, I assume, but if you think a majority vote budget doesn't make a difference, then you aren't thinking about all the aspects of this.

First of all, we won't get the Nelson/Lieberman/Snowe/Maldonado effect on an otherwise balanced budget. And unless Jerry Brown's "no new taxes without voter approval" was a big fat lie, it sounds like the plan is to use the ballot box for the revenues anyway.

And while we're all pissing in our pants that this means the Democrats now own the budget-can you tell me they weren't getting blamed for it before? It also means that Republicans can cooperate more during the process knowing they won't have to vote 'yes' in the end.

Will these things always matter? No.  Sure, some things hurt, but on a very, very bad night for the country, California did great.

Also, before you start complaining about how stupid everyone was for voting no on 24, 21 etc. just remember: there are those who simply refuse to budget by initiative.

Again: I'm not defending the cuts to state parks or schools, but I am saying that maybe a tax on cars for state parks doesn't have the strongest popular appeal at the moment.

The GOP wasted a lot of money for basically nothing in California. We deserve a pat on the back for breaking the wave.

[ Parent ]
Only some short notes (5.00 / 1)
because I think you and I are mostly in agreement.

So, this changes the status quo how exactly? It's one thing to point out that it sucks, but the situation in California today is better, not worse than it was.

I think it's marginally worse, actually, but it's really a continuation of the same crappy situation.

First of all, we won't get the Nelson/Lieberman/Snowe/Maldonado effect on an otherwise balanced budget.

Um, yeah, but (a) it will either just move to fee votes or revenue votes, or (b) there won't be any new revenue at all.  If the Dems have the guts to use the budget as a weapon now that they don't have to buy off Republicans, something might change, but I don't think the Dems have the guts to do that.  And as I noted elsewhere, the fact of Prop 25 means that voters will expect something to change, but come 2012 and 2014, there will have been a series of on-time budgets and the government will still be completely boned, because there's no revenue for anything, even to keep up with inflation.

And unless Jerry Brown's "no new taxes without voter approval" was a big fat lie, it sounds like the plan is to use the ballot box for the revenues anyway.

So, we continue to have ballot-box budgeting -- the only way taxes pass in California is if they're tied to some reserved budget category.  That has turned out SO well so far.

Also, before you start complaining about how stupid everyone was for voting no on 24, 21 etc. just remember: there are those who simply refuse to budget by initiative.

This is central to our complete dysfunction:  the legislature can cut taxes for powerful lobbies by majority vote, but can't raise them again.  And then when they go to the people, it's denigrated as "budgeting by initiative".

Again: I'm not defending the cuts to state parks or schools, but I am saying that maybe a tax on cars for state parks doesn't have the strongest popular appeal at the moment.

Hey, people don't want state parks, that's their decision. But since we can no longer raise the fees for use of state parks, everyone better get used to having a lot fewer of them open.  What I really expect is that everyone will forget that they flipped the bird to state parks in 2010, and people will just whine about how the stage government can't do anything right, not even keep a park open.  Maybe we can sell some of them off as private parks and hunting grounds for the wealthy to use exclusively and let the public use on feast days.  That's what the European nobility did with their land.

[ Parent ]
Sorry that won't happen. (4.00 / 1)
 Have you been to Mississippi?

I have, there's nothing there and next to no industry.

A few correct moves and we can dominate the Green Sector.

We have partners in Germany, Japan and China if we want them and we do. We are also adding ties to Russia.

As I said we can do this ourselves.


[ Parent ]
Cooley (4.00 / 1)
"Seriously, who the hell votes a Brown-Boxer-Newsom-Cooley ticket? WTF is wrong with those people?"

Ha! Exactly want I was thinking looking at those results.

Well, glad to keep Boxer and Jerry. Everything else, well, gonna need some Advil today and some ice cream or something.

Someone who has been influenced by (5.00 / 1)
millions of dollars of dishonest ads funded by independent expenditures of shadowy groups.

[ Parent ]
or someone who doesn't like harris (4.00 / 1)
because of the scandal in the SFDA's office where they weren't turning over impeachment evidence of officer misconduct as required by the Supreme Court to do.

[ Parent ]
Nobody (0.00 / 0)
It's probably more due to variations in nonvotes than any kind of ticket.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Anecdotal evidence phonebanking seems to suggest someone voting that ticket probably saw Cooley's "cop killer" ad and took it seriously.

[ Parent ]
LA Voters (3.00 / 1)
While part of the discrepancy is the total votes cast (so far in Gov and US Senate, 7.4 mil, while in Att Gen only 7.18 mil), the absentee numbers for Los Angeles County had each statewide Dem ahead except for Kamala Harris.  "Local" trumps party sometimes...

[ Parent ]
ah, that actually makes some sense (0.00 / 0)
I mean, I still don't think it makes sense as a ticket, but as an explanation that makes sense.  

[ Parent ]
Well, for one thing ... (0.00 / 0)
... Brown-Boxer-Newsom-Cooley are the candidates the LA Times endorsed. Not that that many people voted in lockstep with the Times (I certainly didn't), but it's not as if they're voting for Barbara Boxer and Dan Lungren ...

[ Parent ]
Brown-Boxer-Newsom-Cooley (4.00 / 1)
An Angelino. A lot of Caliticians are Bay Area folks who don't understand the slightly-more-conservative Dem that we have in LA. Like it or not, LA is a big effing place. And it throws its weight around in state races.

Personally, I voted for Harris but I never saw her appeal at all. The only thing that kept me from voting for Cooley was the fear that he would, in office, be kidnapped by the right wingers in his party (as happens with so many moderate Reeps).

[ Parent ]
given how nor cal-lopsided the ticket was (0.00 / 0)
with brown (oakland),  newsom (SF), boxer (originally from marin), lockyer (oakland), harris (SF), jones (sac), and torlakson (mt. diablo), i was a bit concerned we might lag a bit in socal. thankfully we didn't.

[ Parent ]
Precisely. (0.00 / 0)
And we have to think about that when we are voting in primaries. I voted for Hahn in the primary, for example, because I thought she would have better appeal in the general. I'm glad that wasn't an issue. But it COULD have been, and apparently it very nearly WAS in the AG race.

Really, people, we've got to be more strategic about who we choose in the primary. It shouldn't be a matter of who you like best, it should be about who you think can win in the general.

I won't start talking about the Westly-Angelides race. Oh, wait, I already did.

[ Parent ]
I was less worried about SoCal than most. (0.00 / 0)
I am not surprised that our government is largely run by NorCal politicians even with more voters in SoCal. NorCal voters are more established. I think the average NorCal voter has lived in their residence longer than the average SoCal voter.

My blog


[ Parent ]
Turnout figures? (0.00 / 0)
Are there any reliable turnout figures available yet?

End of the week (0.00 / 0)
Usually they come in around Friday as we get a handle of how many election day absentee and provisional ballots were cast.  Right now the registrars just have them in bins and haven't had time to count them.

[ Parent ]
If CA voters went against Whitman (0.00 / 0)
because of her corporate ties, then why the heck did they so resoundingly defeat Prop 24 that rewards big corporations?  
 And why did Bowen not get at least as high a percentage of votes as Brown when Bowen salvaged the state's electoral system from being taken over by fraudulent voting machine manufacturers?

As I said... (0.00 / 0)
 It wasn't shown much on TV and not talked about much. Prop 23, Prop 19 and Prop 25 took all the air out of the room.

Explain how Prop 21 failed? How did Prop 19 which was leading until Baca, Holder and Obama all stood up and said, you pass this and we'll still arrest you.

There is no rhyme or reason, so please stop trying to figure it out unless your a political analyst.  

[ Parent ]
Dishonest ads (0.00 / 0)
Plus it was arguably one of the more dishonest advertising campaigns, with "this will hurt small businesses in California."

[ Parent ]
I think they voted against her (4.67 / 3)
because she demonstrated herself to be an irresponsible big spender.  

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

[ Parent ]
I heard a theory... (4.00 / 1)
on why 21 failed from a local Democrat involved in some social justice groups. Basically, since public transit is so awful in most of the state, families in the suburbs end up owning a lot of cars- usually one per driver. Poor multi-generational households also manage to have a whole fleet parked outside. (Probably the origin of the Latino cars-on-the-lawn stereotype.) Since the $18/year is per car, these sorts of folks realized they'd end up paying $80 or $100 a year- and thought that they'd rather just pay for the state parks when they use them.

Yes, but fees can't be increased (0.00 / 0)
w/o a 2/3 vote now.  Buh-bye parks!

[ Parent ]
State parks already have (0.00 / 0)
pretty high parking fees.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

[ Parent ]
Parks only need money because... (5.00 / 1)
 Attendance from OUTSIDE the State is way down.

We (collectively) don't use our State Parks much, its just how it is. Its a major cash cow for the State because Canadians and Snowbirds from the Northeast flock to our State Parks in the winter time.

But with the economic downturn, taking people's 401k's with it and the increase in fuel prices, prevented many retirees and upper middle class Canadians from making the trip.

They'll be back, not worried. We just need to close some tax loopholes and make sure the loaded folks in the Hollywood Hills and in Silicon Valley pay their fair share.


[ Parent ]
You keep saying this stuff (0.00 / 0)
With what votes will you be closing tax loopholes, exactly?

Green jobs sound great, and y'know, Alabama is a great place to live for the upper middle class that the government subsidizes with aerospace jobs.  But it pretty much sucks for everyone else.

You can talk about focusing on Sacto all you want, but here are the facts:

1)  States can't run deficits.

2)  California can't raise taxes or fees -- which includes "closing tax loopholes" without a 2/3 majority in the legislature.  We don't have it, and we just saw the people of the state vote to allow corporations to keep tax breaks on frikkin' corporate PROFITS that the corporations didn't even have 2 years ago.

3)  The interest on any bonds that you might issue to cheat the revenue problem in #2 will just accelerate the revenue problem in the out years.

4)  Increases in the cost of living will eventually make it impossible to provide meaningful services to the state because you can't keep up with the cost of personnel under the current tax structure.  The alternative, deflation, will reduce the tax base.  Same effect either way.

So, forgive me if I don't have quite the rah-rah view that you do.  

[ Parent ]
Also... (0.00 / 0)
I talked with a very progressive person from Huntington Beach who used to work as a lifeguard there, and she said she couldn't vote Yes on 21, because their beach charges for parking, and if the parks were made free, they wouldn't get enough people paying the parking fees, and those fees are what pay the lifeguards' salaries.

Not saying I agree, just saying that's the reason she gave me.


[ Parent ]
I thought all those parking lots were private already (0.00 / 0)
I thought about that when I voted, that it couldn't really offer "free parking" at all state parks because so many designated state parks were beaches, and every beach I've been to seems to involve a lot of private parking (or at least local parking, i.e. meters).  

[ Parent ]
Californian's Prefer Democrats Be in Charge ... (3.50 / 2)
so long as they don't have anything to be in charge of.

Prop 25 means Dems have to pass a budget and take all the blame.  But 26 means there is no way to raise money.  
They should cut out all spending in Republican districts till the budget is balanced.  

21 failed cause a lot of Dems thought it was the wrong way to fund the parks ... legislating a fee through the initiative process stuck them as un-ideal (well, the small sample I heard from anyway, but an influential sample.)  In fact, we are now a state that is run by annual popular votes.

asdf (0.00 / 0)
And the in extremis case was Prop 8, where we voted away our own equal protection.

Initiative direct democracy is a failure that has tragically harmed this state.

Having said that:

Dems were already taking most of the blame for the budget and what little they weren't they would have got when Brown became governor anyway.

Nothing that could have happened last night was going to solve all of the state's problems.

And 26 just means we still need 2/3rds votes for budgets.

I think we did great.

[ Parent ]
I don't understand how 25 and 26 both passed (5.00 / 2)
Do people just not understand how budgets work? There's a significant block of voters who want the budget to move from 2/3 to a simple majority, but also want to go from a majority to 2/3 on fees. That makes no logical sense.

Futher frustrating is 26 passed with 53%. So 53% decide that the new normal is 67%, when not a single stewide race got even close to that. You shouldn't be able to set a supermajority bar if there's not a supermajority willing to vote for it in the first place. Heck, you couldn't get CA voters to 67% of the vote on a measure congratulating the Giants for winning the WS. A's, Dodgers, and Padres fans would vote no, and non baseball fan conservatives would vote no because they don't want to support "San Francisco values."

Damn right (0.00 / 0)
"Futher frustrating is 26 passed with 53%. So 53% decide that the new normal is 67%"

Indeed, this is IMO a huge flaw in the initiative process.  But to change that rule we'd need --- wait for it --- a ballot initiative.  As far as I understand, the legislature can't mess with the initiative process, only the initiative process or a constitutional convention can.  Thus, we are probably stuck with the "50%+1 can lock in 67%" for a while.

[ Parent ]
and I just found this same conversation in the last thread (5.00 / 1)
Apologies for the redundancy. In my brain, I'm envisioning a future where proposals like these are on a sliding scale. You got 53% of the vote? Well then it's a 53% of the vote threshold for increasing fees. The flip side would also be true. This measure fails 45-55? Well then, for the next 2 election cycles, the new threshold to pass a fee increase is 45%. It's not realistic, but it would be an obvious deterrent to the Jarvisites.  

[ Parent ]
the democratic defensive crouch on taxes can't have helped (4.50 / 2)
while it helped pass 25 to reassure people over and over again that this would not raise people's taxes, that same line repeated enough, combined with the steady chorus of jarvisite antitax fervor, creates this bipartisan consensus that "taxes are bad, and must only be lowered, never raised."

getting 25 passed was monumental, but it's only the first step in a multistep process to get rid of prop 13's madness. unfortunately, we're going to have a hard time convincing voters to stoip voting for right wing antitax initiatives like 26 so long as we refuse to make an unpopular argument for the merits of paying taxes as you go vs. service cuts and bond after bond with interest.

next step is probably delinking commercial from residential property tax rolls, and specific taxes dedicated to specific popular services as ballot props. eventually, dems are going to have to argue for taxes directly.  

[ Parent ]
That's a great point (0.00 / 0)
I had something amorphously floating around in my head, but you basically articulated it for me.  

[ Parent ]
I can answer your question, Robert (0.00 / 0)
I got mailers here in orange county from "COPS: a guide to voting". it told me to vote yes on 19, yes on jerry brown, yes on chiang, yes on boxer...

and yes on Cooley.

I'm dead serious. there's probably other weird mailers out there like that , which candidates have to pay $ to get endorsed on. so it's not really from law enforcement, it's just a COP themed ad put out by who knows. a marketing company I guess that wanted to give a psuedo "law enforcement" feel to the mailer.

Paid Slate Mailer n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
It's probably (0.00 / 0)
from Cooley or one of His Supporters, Since the other names are Democrats and Cooley is a Republican.

[ Parent ]
I would love to see the logic that promotes yes on 19 and yes on Cooley (5.00 / 1)
Since Cooley said flat out that he would declare Prop 19 unconstitutional, and targets current dispensaries for shut down. And brags about it. Going into the election, I thought that electing Harris was far more important to the pro cannabis cause than Prop 19. Cooley and Trutanich have been a nightmare here in LA.  

[ Parent ]
It's not logic. (5.00 / 1)
It's a slate mailer where various positions are paid for by certain campaigns.  So you can have a slate mailer which says it's from COPS! or FIREFIGHTERS! or EX-MILITARY! which recommends all Dems or whatever, except for a few positions for which the relevant campaign has paid.  And don't be fooled -- the campaigns which pay for those "endorsements" know what the rest of the slate mailer says.

[ Parent ]
oh yeah, I get that (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't being 100% serious (although, seriously- I would LOVE to see the logic from someone who voted for Cooley and yes on 19).

I'm not familiar with these paid endorsement mailers. Do they target just, say, registered Dems? Because it doesn't seem like an ideal strategy to mail that out in red controlled Orange County if it just targeted potential voters indiscriminately. My mother, for instance, would reflexively vote against anything that was tied to a Boxer endorsement as well (my mother hated Fiorina for not being conservative enough). Also, it seems like that should be illegal.

Frankly, what I'm taking away from this election is that a whole lot of voters are complete idiots, either incapable of- or unwilling to do- the heavy lifting in order to truly understand how their vote will affect their everyday lives.  

[ Parent ]
I believe they're targeted (0.00 / 0)
based on the data that the mailer has about you.  For example, I never get anything targeted toward Republicans.  

We have a commenter (donut70) who I think runs a slate mailer business, or at least seems pretty well informed about them.  Perhaps he'll chime in.

[ Parent ]
So about that L.A. Times/USC poll... (0.00 / 0)
the one that showed Brown and Boxer winning big, that many people (even Robert) said was an outlier?  Turns out they almost nailed it, and actually UNDERESTIMATED Brown and Boxer's final percentages.  :-)

As for worst pollster... that honor again goes to Rasmussen, whose final poll had it at only Brown +4.  2nd worst was actually PPP, which gave Whitman her largest share of the vote of ANY pollster, including Rasmussen.

BTW, WTF?  100 degree weather in L.A. ... in NOVEMBER???  Bleh.

Assuming People Vote Logically is Silly (4.00 / 1)
Let's face it, the sort of person who reads Calitics or its right-wing equivalent makes up a very small percentage of the voting public.  The average voter makes up their mind based on such cues as TV ads, slate mailers, and the media narrative.  Very few of these are substantive policy-wise.  In a sense, we got lucky in that "Queen Meg tries to buy election" was the dominant media message instead of "goofy Governor Moonbeam tries for comeback".

I voted against Prop 21 because of my opposition to ballot-box budgeting.  I voted against Prop 22 and 26 for much the same reason -- any move that constrains the legislature's ability to raise revenue or determine spending priorities just adds to our fiscal catastrophe.  That is increasingly my position even on progressive ballot measures.

One of my good friends is fond of saying, "Voters want three things:  high services, low taxes, and a balanced budget.  They can have any two."  It looks like California voters continue to favor Choices A & B, while complaining about the gimmicks to paper over Choice C.

Because we are uninformed generally (0.00 / 0)
 You are right about TV Ads and Slate Mailers. There are shows that are topical about the issues but they are always buried or near something popular.

After the lies of Iraq and the Wall St Meltdown, I have moved away from mainstream sources of news, they just get it wrong so often.

While there are increases viewers to alternative sources of news (State Run, Internet, etc) its still tiny compared to whose who for example aren't nutcases but still watch Fox Cable News.

I also agree they purposely downplayed the Governor "Moonbeam" side of Brown, though I don't think its all that bad, it was very forward thinking and advanced, what other state could afford its own communications satellite but us?

Somewhere sometime we're going to have to tell the public at large that great social programs don't come free, budgets don't get balanced without some pain (or giving up on the ideal of Rugged Individualism) and taxes can't always be non-existent.


[ Parent ]
If one wants to live in CA (5.00 / 1)
Then one pays to get something, Don't pay for anything and You get nothing or very little in return, Yes I pay My property taxes, Police, Fire, TV translator and roads aren't free.

[ Parent ]
Yep and if you wanna live.. (0.00 / 0)
 Where the Fire Dept is "optional" then by all means....

[ Parent ]
The Morning After | 73 comments
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads

blog advertising is good for you

Support Calitics:

Buy on Amazon through us.


Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary

Powered by: SoapBlox