In polling, the answer you get depends heavily on the question. Obvious enough, right?
Few should understand this point better than the prestigious, independent Field Institute, whose polls on California issues often contribute to the public debate.
So why is Field polluting the discussion around revenues in California with bad questions and bad data?
While both Debra Bowen and Janice Hahn have announced that they are in the race to replace Jane Harman, she still hasn't officially resigned. Why? Well, here's the thing. The election would be tentatively scheduled for the time right around when Jerry Brown wants to hold his statewide special election on the budget.
As soon as Jane Harman officially resigns from the House, Brown has to peg an election date. While there is not necessarily a requirement that this special be tied in to the statewide special, it certainly would make sense. And if he is already stuck to a date for the special, it cuts down on his wiggle room with the Legislature.
it is rather odd how this is playing out, with a special in one Congressional district possibly affecting the statwide special, but this very well could happen. And 1/53 of the state might have the power to set the date for the rest of the state. So, if you are in the 36th, congrats on your new found power.
While Harman has been pretty flexible on her resignation date, apparently she really wants to move on by the end of February, so we should hear some news about the setting of a date by mid-March. Given the timeline from there on out, and a June election would fit in there well.
Of course, for the people of the 36th, they are likely to be out of a Congressional member until late summer. With two strong Democrats and a likely significant Republican presence, any candidate getting 50% becomes rather unlikely.
(I got to know Darren while on the Kamala Harris campaign, and now he's running against Sharon Runner for Senate. The Choice is Clear! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Progressives: We are working the phones to make sure this seat flips into the "D" column. Registration's close, so turnout is the key! Come help us man the virtual phonebanks!
(Edit by Brian: Details for the phonebanks and the ad over the flip.)
One advantage the Legislature has had for years in referring ballot measures directly to the people is that lawmakers were not subject to any standard of impartiality. They could, and often did, write a sunny "official" description of their own referred measures for official ballot materials. The hope was to encourage some number of extra votes by casting such measures in a positive light.
That's in the past tense now, though, due to a court ruling last week. And that change could jeopardize legislatively referred measures intended for the much-discussed June 2011 special election ballot.
Without the power to control the framing of the special-election measures, the Legislature and Gov. Brown could find passage just marginally more difficult in an election that could be extremely close.
We've seen that the Republicans are scared of letting the voters vote on taxes. The Norquistians are saying that even putting taxes on the ballot is a violation of the no-tax pledge. Something has got them nervous, perhaps that's because of numbers like these:
The poll, just released, shows strong support for Brown's special statewide election on budget fixes, as well as reasonably strong support for his suggestion to erase California's deficit with a mix of cuts and taxes.
The Public Policy Institute of California finds 66% of voters surveyed like the idea of a special election to consider budget issues. That includes not just an overwhelming majority of Democrats (74%) but a majority (55%) of Republicans, too.
*** **** ***
While the poll offers several more interesting nuggets (like an affirmation of the fiscal disconnect affecting the state's voters which we've discussed before), here's one more that helps explain why Governor Brown's budget not only protects K-12 schools (for the most part), but puts them front and center should the voters reject the $11 billion in tax extensions he wants on a June statewide ballot: 75% say they oppose any more K-12 cuts, and 71% say they'd pay higher taxes to spare those schools.(Capital Notes)
In fact, a strong plurality rejects a cuts only budget. Only 36% favor cuts alone, while 49% prefer at least some taxes, and another 7% favors additional debt. As to which taxes, well, the corporate tax is still tax number one. Too bad the voters just chose to preserve a $1.5 billion corporate tax cut. I guess it goes to show you what a bit of campaign propaganda can do. You can grab all of the numbers at the PPIC survey here.
The voters clearly still need additional information on how our system works. They don't quite understand how we fund our budget, and where it all goes. But, at the same time, I think voters understand more than they are given credit for in the media and amongst some political circles.
Governor Brown's budget is far from perfect, but it's enough that it is scaring the Right. And that's a start.
On May 19, voters were asked to divert money from First Five programs to pay for General Fund expenditures. The argument was that First Five had a reserve that was just "sitting around" and they should give up some of that money, earmarked for children's programs, to pay for the budget. At Calitics, we called this the "if it ain't broke, break it" proposition. First Five, financed by a tax on cigarette sales, was well-funded and able to make multi-year program projections, so that the programs started up were not in perpetual fear of being dropped.
One of the values of First Five is that they can seek out other programs affecting children and contribute to them, in keeping with their mandate. And that is what they have voluntarily agreed to do with respect to the Healthy Families program, California's version of S-CHIP.
Meeting in Sacramento this afternoon, the First 5 California Children and Families Commission agreed to help the Healthy Families Program, which faces a $90 million General Fund shortfall in 2009-10. But the Commission declined to commit to a specific level of financial assistance. As a result, it appears all but certain that the enrollment freeze approved last month by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which oversees Healthy Families, will take effect on Friday, July 17.
In a resolution, the First 5 Commission committed "to join with like-minded public and private partners, including but not limited to health plans and philanthropic organizations, to provide financial assistance in Fiscal Year 2009-10 to the extent practicable and feasible...to ensure young children have access to affordable health insurance coverage." This commitment, however, "is contingent upon the availability of funds in the applicable First 5 California accounts."
I wish that First Five would have chosen a specific funding level, which could have rolled back the enrollment freeze. Still, they are making a commitment to help provide health insurance to needy children, one they couldn't have made if the state clawed back some of their money in the May 19 election. This way, First Five can target the money and keep in line with what the voters asked from them - to use their revenue to provide needed services for children. The state could have used that money for anything if they skimmed it off the top.
People often wail about ballot-box budgeting and the broken initiative process in the state, and to an extent I agree with them. But First Five is an example of GOOD ballot-box budgeting. It has a dedicated funding source, it's well-managed and well-capitalized, and it has the ability to make contingencies. If the structure of state government fails to allow increased revenue to pay for needed services, it's perfectly logical to go outside that process and produce dedicated sources of funding. It shows the virtue of a balanced approach. I don't necessarily want the ballot to do all of Sacramento's work for it, but the broken system of government sometimes leaves no choice.
If you look at state economic statistics and the consistently worsening projections as each month of revenue collection goes by, you would recognize that, even if the positive talks on closing the current budget gap result in a deal, the possibility - even probability - of another deficit requiring a revision could take hold as early as this winter. That's what happened last year, and if anything the economy in the state has softened since then. At this time, the value of having a fully seated Senate and Assembly, due to the need for 54 Assembly votes and 27 Senate votes to move anything, becomes even more pronounced. Right now, we are down one Assembly seat owing to Curren Price's move to the Senate (owing to Mark Ridley-Thomas' election as LA County Supervisor last November). The CA-10 race could leave another opening if Sen. Mark DeSaulnier or Asm. Joan Buchanan emerge victorious. And in Los Angeles, an opening on the City Council may cost the Assembly another seat for a period of time.
Los Angeles voters showed a profound disinterest in the civic election in March when just 18% turned out, but there was a virtual stampede of candidates this week to run for the San Fernando Valley seat of former City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who won the race for city controller.
The slate of 14 candidates for the Sept. 22 special election reflects the varied geography of the 2nd District, which stretches from Studio City and Sherman Oaks at its southern border, through Van Nuys, Valley Glen, North Hollywood and Sun Valley to the rugged reaches of Sunland-Tujunga at its northern edge [...]
With just two months to raise money, a number of City Hall watchers are eyeing several strong contenders: former Paramount Pictures executive Chris Essel; state Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, a Democrat who lived in Burbank until moving this spring to Valley Glen; and Los Angeles Unified School District board member Tamar Galatzan.
Krekorian, who is an assistant majority leader, moved into the Council District but not out of his own Assembly District (Valley Glen is on the edge) to pursue this seat. If he wins, it probably wouldn't take effect until December 8, assuming that he doesn't reach 50% +1 on September 22. AD-51 (Curren Price's old seat) will have a new Assemblymember by November 3 at the latest, but Joan Buchanan or Mark DeSaulnier could reach the US Congress on the same day, and Krekorian might move to the LA city council and vacate AD-43 soon after. By the time all these special elections shake out, we'll be well into 2010.
All of this shows the need to modernize our system of filling special elections, which always seem to be more widespread in California. Wendy Greuel was elected City Controller back in March. There's little reason to drag out the search for her replacement this long. And if we had Instant Runoff Voting for the first round, we would not need to wait two months for an additional round, paralyzing state and local government and costing the state money in setting up additional elections. In the case of federal and state legislative elections, this is particularly perverse, since the way in which runoffs occur (with the top vote-getter in each party) almost always become useless races where the ultimate victor is well-known from the beginning.
On the anniversary of the birth of our country, I wanted to take this moment to first thank all the men and women who proudly serve our country in the armed services. I also think it's important to acknowledge Americans who have found other ways to serve our country - the Teach for America and AmeriCorps volunteers who work in America's most desperate pockets to help create a more just and equitable society, the volunteers from community, religious, and non-profit organizations who selflessly devote time and money in their local communities, and the volunteers in the Peace Corps and NGOs who generate goodwill the world over while presenting America's best face to allies and adversaries alike.
Forty-three years ago, my wife Patti and I heeded President John F. Kennedy's call, left Berkeley, and embarked on a journey that would shape our outlook for the rest of our lives. We joined the Peace Corps and spent two years working on the eradication of small pox in rural southwest Ethiopia. We witnessed unimaginable suffering on an almost daily basis, but we understood that the work we were doing was not just vital to good people desperately in need of help but also served to demonstrate to the world abroad the goodness of America.
Given the relative ambivalence in recent special elections in California, where members of Congress have been elected with 10,000 votes or less, I'd consider it an accomplishment that hundreds of people flocked to the Walnut Creek Jewish Community Center last night, on a Friday night, to hear from six of the Democratic candidates who will seek to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10, once she is confirmed to an appointment at the State Department and resigns her seat. Reader dslc has a short on-site commentary here, and Lisa Vorderbrueggen has provided lots of multimedia over at Political Blotter. The audio recording doesn't seem to be working right now, but she had videos of every candidate's closing statement. In case you're just tuning in, those candidates include:
(Bothwell is a San Francisco-area attorney who doesn't yet have a campaign website, but here's his law office site.)
Sadly, this is pretty much the extent of major media coverage that exists of yesterday's event, despite several hundred residents and a Congressional race that impacts hundreds of thousands. Our dwindling press corps is definitely a problem. But based on the closing statements, you can decide for yourself who performed well last night. I'll just throw around some other links as the race really kicks into gear. As a side note, apparently Garamendi brought out the giant golden bear clearly planned as his mascot for a gubernatorial race.
• Luke Thomas interviews Joan Buchanan for the Fog City Journal, and Buchanan comes of as pretty knowledgeable about the challenges we face. She foregrounded her support of mass transit and BART expansion, health care reform (she supports single payer but wouldn't commit to supporting HR 676, and thinks that a plan currently moving through the House with a robust public option could be a "stepping stone" to single payer) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (she generally supports Obama's position).
• Also in the Fog City Journal, Harold Brown has an op-ed about Adriel Hampton, claiming that "SF lefties are missing an opportunity" by not rallying to his campaign.
• Anthony Woods is getting a fair amount of attention on the blogs. AR Dem profiled him in this MyDD user diary, and today, Woods took questions at Firedoglake in a live chat session with Howie Klein. I thought he served himself well.
• Lisa V. fixed the audio feed, which you can find here. Her story on the forum is here.
In the first central Contra Costa County showdown of Democratic candidates vying for the chance to replace Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a packed room Friday night heard little in the way of substantive policy differences but saw vastly disparate approaches.
Relative youngsters Adriel Hampton and Anthony Woods, 30 and 28 respectively, emphasized their lack of ties to the establishment [...]
The high-profile candidates with decades of political experience - Lt. Governor John Garamendi; Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo; and state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord - stressed their individual policy strengths.
Also, there's actually another forum this Tuesday, June 23, sponsored by the El Cerrito Democratic Club. It starts at 6:30 p.m. at Fellowship Hall, El Cerrito United Methodist Church, 6830 Stockton Avenue (at Richmond Avenue), El Cerrito.
The road to lasting security and economic prosperity runs through America's universities, state colleges, community colleges and technical training schools.
Yet for an increasing number of Americans, the dream of the quality education they need to compete in the global economy of the 21st Century is out of reach.
(Some thoughts for Memorial Day from CA-10 Candidate Anthony Woods... - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The willingness to make the "ultimate sacrifice" in defense of our country stands as the enduring value which binds every active duty serviceman, servicewoman, and every veteran of the United States military.
Each Memorial Day we are reminded---and rightly so---of the courageous Americans who have given their lives in defense of our nation--between 1 million and 1.3 million since the American Revolution, depending on whose numbers you read.
Indeed the willingness to make that sacrifice is the pre-requisite-along with adherence to a strict code of conduct and respect for the chain of command---to joining an impenetrable fellowship as diverse as the nation every veteran has pledged their lives to defending.
As the son of a veteran, a West Point Graduate and Iraq War Veteran, Memorial Day will always be a day of gratitude, of solemn reflection, and remembrance for me.
David Dayen mentioned this earlier today, but it is worth reproducing here.
Hooray! The outrageous propositions 1 A-E have been crushed by voters who just can't take any more.
California voters have rejected the nonfunctional minority-rule government that has bankrupted the state, along with the governor who led the state into bankruptcy.
The voters want a functional democracy, and that means majority rule. No more blackmail by a 1/3 plus 1 Republican minority.
In short, the voters have given the Democrats a new freedom - if they will only take it.
I threw the rest below the fold. Here's the latest update with 65% reporting in CA-32:
JUDY CHU
DEM
11832
33.31
GIL CEDILLO
DEM
8800
24.78
EMANUEL PLEITEZ
DEM
5042
14.2
BETTY CHU
REP
3518
9.91
TERESA HERNANDEZ
REP
2684
7.56
DAVID A TRUAX
REP
1716
4.83
Though the lead continues to shrink, I don't think Cedillo can make up 3,000 votes with what's left out there. Judy just declared victory, I'm told.
UPDATE More votes in, and Chu upped her lead to 3,300 votes with 75% in. It's over. Congratulations to Judy Chu.
...In other races, Carmen Trutanich is going to win the City Attorney's race. He's up 54-46, by over 13,000 votes with 55% of the vote in, and he's been gaining with each update. What a terrible race run by Weiss.
As for Council District 5, it's Paul Koretz 53-47 over David Vahedi, though the spread is just 1,200 votes with 40% in. That's not quite over.
That one was getting long. So here's the deal. 1A-1E are going down.
17.4% precincts reporting
1A: 36.6% Yes, 63.4% No
1B: 40.1% Yes, 59.9% No
1C: 38.6% Yes, 61.4% No
1D: 38.0% Yes, 62.0% No
1E: 37.5% Yes, 62.5% No
1F: 76.4% Yes, 24.6% No
Just to make a point, in the city of Palmdale, a mildly conservative city in LA County, they have Measure B, a transient occupancy tax (hotels), on the ballot. Right now it's passing with 67% of the vote.
Don't tell me this is a repudiation of taxes. It's a repudiation of bad governance.
...Update: 21.9% precincts reporting
1A: 36.7% Yes, 63.3% No
1B: 40.2% Yes, 59.8% No
1C: 38.6% Yes, 61.4% No
1D: 38.0% Yes, 62.0% No
1E: 37.6% Yes, 62.4% No
1F: 76.4% Yes, 24.6% No
Interesting that the measure giving money owed to schools is doing best, ay?
... Brian checks in from the war room with the news that the AP called 1F for the Yes side. Yay! Now the legislators will be REALLY motivated!
Just a matter of time before 1A-1E get called.
...I'm done updating the ballot measures, as it's obvious what's going to happen there. So far LA County has yet to update any totals for the local and federal elections, so we wait.
...Arnold concedes: "We have heard from the voters and I respect the will of the people." Whew, for a second there I thought he was going to institute the spending cap anyway!
You know what he's intimating here, of course. He'll pull out his budget #2 and try to implement it. The May 20th strategy is upon us.
UPDATE by Brian: Check the flip for the No on 1A Press release about the results. Arnold is flying back tonight to have a Big 5 meeting tomorrow. Would love to be a fly on the wall for that one.
...just to update, there have been, um, no updates from the LA Registrar of voters on these local races. Here, pulled up from the bottom, are the results for the top six finishers, I assume among absentees, in CA-32 thus far.
JUDY CHU DEM 6,388 41.98
GIL CEDILLO DEM 2,628 17.27
BETTY CHU REP 1,938 12.74
EMANUEL PLEITEZ DEM 1,233 8.1
TERESA HERNANDEZ REP 1,202 7.9
DAVID A TRUAX REP 1,036 6.81
...Todd Beeton tweets in from Judy Chu HQ to say that people there feel good.
...Finally starting to get some more numbers from LA County.
City Attorney: Trutanich 52%, Weiss 48%. The spread is about 3,200 votes with 12% in.
5th District City Council: Koretz 53%, Vahedi 47%. The spread is about 700 votes with 10% in.
OK. So we'll start with a results thread here. Just to recap, in addition to the statewide special election, here are the other key races today, at least in the LA area:
City Attorney: This is a runoff election between Jack Weiss and Carmen Trutanich. This election got extremely nasty in the final weeks, although they pulled all their attack ads last night and went soft and cuddly for the stretch run. The low turnout probably favors Trutanich. If Antonio Villaraigosa cannot drag his pal Weiss across the finish line, then it speaks volumes about his ability to draw voters in what's supposed to be his local base.
LA City Council 5th District: This is another runoff between former Assemblyman Paul Koretz and neighborhood council leader David Vahedi. This happens to be a very engaged, well-off, activist district, so I would actually expect turnout to be decent, relatively speaking. Progressives have mobilized for Koretz, and most of the competitors in the first round primary endorsed him.
SD-26: Curren Price will be a state Senator by the end of the night, replacing Mark Ridley-Thomas. His Republican opponent is a rabbi, which rules, but I think he was outspent 300:1.
CA-32: This should be a very interesting race tonight, with Judy Chu, Gil Cedillo and Emanuel Pleitez the main competitors. Will Cedillo's nasty, negative strategy pay off? Did the late endorsers to Chu's campaign recognize a trend? Can Pleitez use social media politics to a good showing? We'll see.
...CapWeekly has a pre-analysis of their own for you to all read while we wait out the results. Anthony York thinks Schwarzenegger will tack hard right as a result of this defeat. He has no guiding political principle, so any port in a storm, I guess. I think York's reading the right tea leaves, and success or failure will depend on where the Democrats elected to reflect the will of the people will go.
...18.6% turnout reported for LA County. Remember, there were actual other elections on the ballot out here. Wow, that's just terrible.
1A: 39% Yes, 61% No
1B: 42% Yes, 58% No
1C: 40% Yes, 60% No
1D: 39% Yes, 61% No
1E: 39% Yes, 61% No
1F: 77% Yes, 23% No
The totals are about 1 million votes, presumably absentees at this point. If you are charitable and say that there will be 30% turnout, there are maybe 4-5 million votes left. So I'd say that 20% of the totals or so are in at the very least.
...Another huge dump of absentees. And 13% of precincts reporting:
1A: 37% Yes, 63% No
1B: 40% Yes, 60% No
1C: 39% Yes, 61% No
1D: 38% Yes, 62% No
1E: 38% Yes, 62% No
1F: 75% Yes, 25% No
...First results from CA-32 are in over at LA County's website. Early, but it looks good for Judy Chu. 9% reporting:
JUDY CHU DEM 6,388 41.98
GIL CEDILLO DEM 2,628 17.27
BETTY CHU REP 1,938 12.74
EMANUEL PLEITEZ DEM 1,233 8.1
TERESA HERNANDEZ REP 1,202 7.9
DAVID A TRUAX REP 1,036 6.81
Probably would be in better shape without Betty Chu in the race.
...17% now reporting, and the numbers are basically the same as before.
1A: 37% Yes, 63% No
1B: 40% Yes, 60% No
1C: 39% Yes, 61% No
1D: 38% Yes, 62% No
1E: 38% Yes, 62% No
1F: 75% Yes, 25% No
...briefly on the other elections: with 10% in, Curren Price has 69% of the vote. Carmen Trutanich leads Jack Weiss 51-48 with about 10% of the vote in. And Paul Koretz leads 53-47 with 10% in. These last two will probably go all night.
...Debra Bowen tweets that these are all vote-by-mail ballots reporting right now. If, as expected, they are 40-50% of the final total, everyone can go to bed. Except for Jack Weiss, Carmen Trutanich, Paul Koretz and David Vahedi.
Well, this is it. After three months of argument, threats, projections, facts and figures, the special election on the budget has finally arrived. Voters now get to decide the fate of six ballot measures that will impact the near-term budget deficit and the long-term manner of budgeting in the state. Well, a FEW of the voters get to decide. I popped by my local polling place just to see the crowd size - I already voted absentee - and let's just say that the traffic was, er, light.
So here are a few lessons as we watch the results tonight:
• Money Isn't Everything - This race may finally put to rest that axiom of California politics about cash being king. The No side - and mind you, groups only raised money opposing for certain ballot measures - raised about $4.5 million dollars, all told. The Yes side raised over $26 million. Despite this 6.5:1 advantage, most polls show the first five measures on the ballot, the ones that actually affect the budget, going down to defeat. Prop. 1C, which had NO money against it and the state Democratic Party along with millions from G Tech (the makers of lottery machines) behind it, has consistently polled the worst among all measures. The No on 1A folks used a strategy that conserved dollars but did get out the message, in particular through Web and Google ads. But they were obliterated on the air and through mailers, and based on the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger skipped town and Budget Reform Now doesn't even have a headquarters tonight, it appeared not to matter.
• No Credible Messengers - The main reason these ballot measures are poised to fail is that, in general terms, absolutely no politician in this state has the trust of the people. Nobody could sell the message on the Yes side because nobody could even sell themselves. I've heard about internal polls with the legislature in single digits and the Governor below 30%. We have a crisis of confidence in California, and that stands to reason, considering the extent to which process has overwhelmed personality, making the state largely ungovernable without major revisions to that process.
• Take The Message You Want - The Yacht Party will certainly try to paint this as a victory for their anti-tax jihad, and it's highly likely that the dwindling state political media, and even possibly the Democratic leadership, will believe them. However, regardless of conservatives being "emboldened," the fact is that progressives opposed the special election for very specific reasons, and Democratic leaders must reconcile with that as well. The constraints on governance here in California are undeniable. And yet the time has come to stop finding ways around the mountain of structural problems and pick up the shovel and start digging through the mountain. It won't take overnight, and in the meantime there are solutions - some painful, some creative - that the leadership will have to take. But the message from the electorate, including those that sat this race out in anger or frustration, is that people don't want gimmicks and spending caps and service cuts. They want a functioning government and they don't see one, and they will continue to punish these people who call themselves leaders until they start acting like it.
• Musical Chairs - Curren Price will win election to SD-26 today, shrinking the need for Republican votes to reach the 2/3 threshold in the Senate to 2. At the same time, this will increase the need for Republican votes to reach the 2/3 threshold in the Assembly to 4. There are more targeted seats in the Assembly, so in the short term this is a slight net win. But it's obviously not optimal, and that Assembly seat may not get filled, if the SD-26 odyssey is any guide, until late fall.
The Obama Administration is poised to announce a major deal on tailpipe emissions standards, bringing the whole country under one federal standard that fairly closely appropriates what California passed in 2002 and has been trying to get a waiver from the feds about ever since.
President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine California's tough new auto-emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard to create a single new national standard, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California's longstanding request that its tailpipe emissions standards be imposed nationally. That request was denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
But Mr. Obama is planning to go further, putting in place new mileage requirements to be administered by the Department of Transportation that would match the stringency of the California program.
Under the new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
This is a major victory for California, as well as a step forward for all sides of this debate. Auto companies, who apparently signed off on the deal, can now have certainty about their future production needs. The states can get out of court and provide a better environment for their constituents. And we all can breathe cleaner air while using less oil.
But the hilarious postscript must be highlighted. Politico reports that this deal will be announced tomorrow, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in attendance. As CapAlert notes, there's just one problem: California has a statewide election tomorrow, and Arnold is not an absentee voter. Yes, the Governor, the head cheerleader and supporter of the special election, might miss out on voting in it (although, if the announcement takes place early enough, he could be reasonably expected to make it home before the polls close at 8pm).
You know Arnold can't resist the lure of the spotlight. And better for him to stand at the side of a popular President than try in vain to rescue a flawed set of ballot measures which have probably already failed, given the 2 million vote-by-mail ballots already cast. It probably appeals to him to leave town on Election Day and hide out in Washington. That's par for the course for him, failing to ever accept responsibility for the damage he's caused.
I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.
On Sunday, Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to find religion. No, not by opening his eyes to the reality surrounding him, but by "pleading" and "urging" for voters to pass his spending cap "rainy day fund"
The governor's visits to three African American churches in Los Angeles came as proponents and opponents of the ballot measures marshaled the last of the millions of dollars they have collected for the special election. Schwarzenegger said Sunday he had been told that about 25% of voters are expected to show up, a paltry percentage that underscores the difficulty of the quest for reliable voters.
***
But even among the church crowds who listened to the official pitch there was skepticism about the proposals. Jo Evelyn Payne, 62, a retired loan servicing assistant who lives in Inglewood, said she was wavering over the package. She said she had little faith in California ballot measures and also mistrusts Schwarzenegger. (LAT 5/18/09)
"Governor" Schwarzenegger has been a disastrous leader, and people are now seeing right through his charade, even when he shows up in their churches. The Governor is spinning wildly to get his spending cap passed, but nobody is buying it.
Meanwhile, money has been flowing into the Yes on 1C lottery securitization, perhaps as some Yes campaign folks heed Robert's advice to focus on Prop 1C. It has been getting terrible polling numbers, but as it is the one source of big money for this year's budget it is finally getting some attention. The CDP has put some money into Prop 1C, as has SEIU Local 99. This is late money, but for the yes team, it's better than no money I suppose.
The thing is, as OC Progressive pointed out, that it's quite likely that a rather substantial percentage of the electorate for this election has already voted by mail. Estimates have vote by mail percentage at anywhere from 55-75%, and those votes have already been filled out. So, we'll see the campaigning for the next 36 hours, but the bulk of the work should be done by now.
Finally, from the more humorous side, Steve Maviglio has planned a "tweet heard round the world" for Yes on 1A-F. The big plan is for all those enthusiastic Yes on 1A-F supporters on Twitter to simultaneously tweet something at 9:30 this morning. Normally these things are supposed to be something of a surprise, so people go "whoa, look at that." That didn't happen here, so as long as we know about it, how about a tweet at 9:30 opposing the measures. Here's a suggestion, but you can feel free to edit it:
I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.
I must admit that I was a bit surprised when I saw this editorial at the Tracy Press. It clearly lays out what can only be described as the progressive case against Proposition 1A:
This hastily drafted measure won't work.
Why? Proposition 1A has such rigid provisions, it would lock in a reduced level of public services without taking into account California's changing demographics, population growth and future policies. It would also give the future governors new power without legislative oversight.
1A isn't even a short-term patch on a long-term problem. Most of this measure's provisions wouldn't take effect for two years. In that time, we could repeal the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for budgets and tax increases - and we could work on real budget reform, without the permanent changes that 1A would make to the state's Constitution. (Tracy Press)
It's like reading something straight out of the virtual pages of Calitics.
In ad featuring the California PTA, foes of Prop 1D's efforts have attacked the attempts to grab the First 5 reserve fund. It's not a particularly innovative ad, but it goes right to the heart of the issue, funding for children. You can watch all of the No on 1D ads here.
The willingness to make the "ultimate sacrifice" in defense of our country stands as the enduring value which binds every active duty serviceman, servicewoman, and every veteran of the United States military.