In the last few weeks, CalBuzz has gotten a lot more content and a lot more interesting. It was started by a couple of former political editors, from the Merc and the Chronicle, so they have a bit of experience with California politics. The site itself is an ugly Blogspot blog, but I can forgive a bit of poor formatting if the content is interesting.
At any rate, I bring this up because they have asked all of the presumed candidates for governor to respond to a list of questions. Tom Campbell took up the offer first, answering the full questionnaire in the comments section to the original post.
First, I will say this, Campbell is clearly running to the left of Poizner and Whitman, but that doesn't take a whole lot. On social issues, he wins the moderate argument. He is at the same place or to the left of Arnold on seemingly every social issue. He's not really progressive on immigration, but I think you could find quite a few Dems that would be to the left of his position on that issue too. He spells it all out succinctly, in one run-on sentence:
Here are my positions, with respect for those who disagree: gay people should have the same rights as straight people, including the right to marry, a woman should make the choice on abortion up until the time of viability, we should not drill offshore where it would damage our fishing or tourism industry or run a higher risk of damaging the environment than shipping petroleum does, those who break our country's laws to come here should not be treated as though they were legally here, except that public health should be accessible lest all be endangered by communicable disease, and children K-12 should be in school lest they be recruited for criminal activity, drivers' licenses should not be granted to those who are not here legally , and we should use the California National Guard to assist in making our border more secure.
So, score one point for post-partisan Tom, and his courage to publicly and vocallyoppose Prop 8 should not be taken lightly. That being said, social issues aren't the only positions he shares with Arnold. He is also in love with the business lobby, just like the Governator. He even uses the words job-killer throughout the responses. Here he is on splitting the Prop 13 property tax rolls:
When I was California Finance Director, I'd speak before the California Manufacturers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and other groups, whose members included some employers thinking of moving out of the state. One of the only arguments I had for them to stay was Prop.13's limits on taxing commercial property. If the employer moved to Texas, for instance, where the sales tax is lower and there is no income tax, the property might be reassessed once it was developed to the point that it could not move. That could not happen in California. So the "split roll" idea is job-killer.
He addresses the inequality of long-term homeowneres paying so much less than newer homeowners, and gives an answer about expectations of the purchasers. But the inequality he doesn't address is the inequality between businesses and residences. Business property doesn't transfer nearly as often as residential property, yet he isn't concerned that the owner of a high rise is still paying taxes on property values based in 1978.
And, guess what he opposes democracy, still relying on the broken supermajority system. Because, you know, the majority would run amok and kill jobs.
The rule that used to apply was that a 2/3 vote was required only if the budget spent more than the Gann Limits: that is, more than the previous year adjusted for inflation and population. I'd reestablish that. Keep the 2/3 requirement for tax increases; otherwise, our taxes would rise above their already job-killing level.
Of course, he ignores the fact that if the majority hated the taxes so much, they could simply vote out the majority. It is a basic tenant of democracy, that just doesn't exist in California. Here in California, it is the minority that rules, not the majority.
And he still is a Republican, so there's some garbage about how taxes really, really suck:
On taxes, we need to lower every tax that discourages jobs in our state. We need to get more in line with our competitor states' levels on income tax, sales tax, and business tax. (A good start was in the recent budget deal's adoption of the single sales factor for apportioning multi-state income: before that change, we were actually taxing employers more the more employees they had in our state.) We should eliminate the sales tax on productive machinery, and adopt a capital gains tax mirroring the federal one, to encourage investment in California that leads to jobs. I'd keep Prop. 13; without it, our number one marginal income tax rate, number one state sales tax, and number 3 state business tax make California a very unattractive place to hire people.
In the end, Campbell's social positions will likely doom him in the GOP primary. But, he should not be underestimated if he does somehow squeak into the general election. He is running on Arnold's campaign platform, which was quite successful for two elections. It might be wearing thin these days, but a face lift could bring new life. And the last thing we need is a repeat of Arnold.
The latest Field Poll is out (SF Chronicle here and Field PDF here) and it shows the favorability ratings of various leading contenders for 2010 gubernatorial race in both parties. And while the Chronicle wants to make this an "omg DiFi is the favorite" and "ha ha - Newsom sucks" story, the two most important things the poll actually tells us are:
1. DiFi has very high unfavorability ratings among Democratic contenders, and
2. Nobody - and I mean nobody - knows a thing about the Yacht Party potentials, except that they don't like them.
Let's take this in order. First, the Dems:
Name
Favorable
Unfavorable
No opinion
Dianne Feinstein
50%
39%
11%
Jerry Brown
34
34
32
Antonio Villaraigosa
28
33
39
John Garamendi
27
20
53
Gavin Newsom
25
41
34
Jack O'Connell
10
16
74
Among Dems only Gavin Newsom has higher unfavorables, but not by much, and since this poll was taken right before the election - when Newsom was getting pounded in the press and on the airwaves by the Yes on 8 campaign - this may be a low point for Newsom.
That makes the 39% unfavorable figure for Feinstein rather significant. Sure, she has the highest favorable rating - 50% - of anyone in the field regardless of party, but that's not a great figure for such an established politician. As we've noted before, her numbers among Dems aren't so hot either. I don't see much basis for a DiFi inevitability argument, which the Chronicle is trying to get started.
Jerry Brown has a lot of room to grow, since much of that 32% "no opinion" are probably younger Californians who (like me) were born late in or after his previous terms as governor.
Antonio Villaraigosa has to be considered a sleeper here. At 39% "no opinion" that gives him room to grow as well. He has been building a solidly progressive reputation over the last year, coming out strong against Prop 8 and leading the fight for mass transit in LA (seriously, getting to 2/3 with a sales tax for rail in LA County is a major achievement). As Brian noted a few weeks ago, his endorsements were the closest match to our own. He is also making a high profile link with Barack Obama, serving on his economic advisory team. If you want to run for governor, it is a damn smart move to link yourself to a popular president who won CA by 24 points.
And what of the Yacht Party contenders? They have Bill Simon written all over them:
Name
Favorable
Unfavorable
No opinion
Meg Whitman
17%
16%
67%
Tom Campbell
14
13
73
Steve Poizner
10
14
76
Even with enormous unknown ratings, none of them have a net favorability rating outside the margin of error, and Steve Poizner already has a significant unfavorability rating that will only grow once his links to voter registration fraud get a wider airing. The Chronicle article promotes Meg Whitman as a breakout star, but I'm not seeing it here. All California voters will need to hear is that she's a Republican and that she was an advisor to the McCain campaign and that may be enough to torpedo her.
The only Republican who might have a snowball's chance is Tom Campbell, the moderate Republican, but he didn't fare well in a statewide race in 2000 (losing to DiFi). Of course it's highly unlikely that the "down with the ship" Yacht Party primary voters will vote for a moderate like Campbell.
This goes to show that the 2010 governor's race may well be decided in the June primary, which should be one of the most interesting primary fights we've seen in this state in a long, long, LONG time.
You know how we just finished the Democratic primary for 2008? Well, apparently it's time for 2010. Just a few weeks after Gavin Newsom launched his exploratory bid, we have a poll. Terrific, can we at least get a lollipop or something between merry go round rides?
State Attorney General Jerry Brown leads San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other Democrats making noises about running for governor in 2010 - but if Sen. Dianne Feinstein were to jump into the pool, she would swamp them all, a new poll shows.
On the Republican side, former Rep. Tom Campbell has a 2-1 edge over other possible candidates - ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and ex-eBay chief Meg Whitman.
DiFi is, through sheer omnipresence, a powerful force in California politics. While she would be a heavy favorite in the race, such an election could provide a powerful opportunity for progressive Democrats to seek out and elect our own candidate. Is DiFi better than Arnold? Probably. But setting the bar at Arnold undersells our capacity to elect a progressive governor. We have an incredibly strong bench, why must we mull through candidates of the past?
On the Republican side, Tom Campbell would be a decent opponent, as formidable as any GOP candidate could be in California. He has a well cultivated moderate image, and his absence from politics to have a turn at Berkeley's Haas Business School, leaves only the memory of a moderate without the recollection of the bad votes. His campaign against DiFi allowed Californians to see through his rhetoric of bipartisanship, primarily through his vote for the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton.
Of course, both of these candidates face monumental uphill climbs to take the Republican nomination. The primary electorate is pretty wing-nutty, and won't take kindly to all these "moderates" jockeying for position. A strong conservative could break the logjam of supposed moderates. Maybe Dick Mountjoy will run, I mean he carried 35% in the 2006 Senate race. That's pretty good, right?
UPDATE: Down in the comments, Dave points out that 50%, what the poll gives her, isn't a particularly inspiring number for a politician of such name recognition. If her re-elect number were 50%, one would consider her vulnerable. As I pointed out, I think we have other viable options.
With the passing of Labor Day, we have entered the traditional campaign season: a time for politicians to go meet voters. Yet the reality is that -- even as you are reading this -- many candidates are locked in a small room as part of the daily ritual known as call time. Somewhere along the line, it became conventional wisdom that money equals ads which equals votes, with call-time seen as the most effective way to raise money and thus win elections.
An entire generation of politicians have been evaluated not by their leadership or ideas, but by their discipline when it comes to spending hours on end begging for big checks, one call after another after another after another. It is commitment to call-time that positions a politician as a contender during the primaries, it decides if a candidate is seen as viable in the general election, and it plays a major role in whether a legislator will rise through the ranks into "leadership". In short, call-time is seen as one of the most critical attributes in every stage of politics.
Wouldn't it be nice if politicians could spend the next two months listening to voters instead of talking at donors? The answer is public financing, it is working in other states, and this is the year when it can start working in California.
