Posted on 10/09/2005 6:34:13 PM PDT by RWR8189
There's always a dispute over whether the elections held one year after a presidential election are politically significant. You can argue it both ways, and once you know the results, you can pretty well guess which way each party will argue. Still, it's worth taking a look at them, for voters will be choosing the mayor of the nation's largest city, the governor with the greatest institutional power (in New Jersey), and the governor whose jurisdiction includes Washington, D.C.'s Northern Virginia suburbs. Also, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put several propositions on the California ballot. If passed, they will significantly reduce the institutional strength of the state's Democrats. If defeated, they will show that Schwarzenegger's political capital is pretty well exhausted after two years in office.
New York mayor. This race is pretty much over. Look at the poll results collected by the invaluable www.realclearpolitics.com, and you will see that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is well ahead, a Republican winning absolute majorities in Democratic New York City. Manhattan liberals are not about to turn control of the city's police force over to Bronx Democrat Fernando Ferrer, and at least some polls show Bloomberg leading among blacks as well as whites. Crime continues to decline at astonishing rates in New York, and few voters want to see that change.
It's interesting that New York City, one of the nation's prime liberal constituencies, has elected an undeniably liberal mayor only once since 1969. That was Democrat David Dinkins, elected in 1989 and rejected in favor of Rudolph Giuliani in 1993. The last undeniably liberal mayor before that was John Lindsay, elected by pluralities rather than majorities in 1965 and 1969; each time he carried Manhattan by more than his citywide plurality and lost the four outer boroughs. Crime shot up during his term, and the city lost 1 million people in the 1970s. The voters' reaction was obviously negative. New Yorkers may be liberals, but they're not crazy.
New Jersey governor. This one is getting closer. Jon Corzine spent $65 million getting elected to the Senate in 2000 and seems to be spending similar magnitudes now. In between, Corzine has contributed millions to New Jersey's county Democratic machines and has gotten in return support from the crucial party bosses (George Norcross in Camden County and John Lynch in Middlesex County). These were the men who helped to engineer the withdrawal of Robert Torricelli from the 2002 Senate race and the substitution of former and future Sen. Frank Lautenberg and the resignation of Gov. Jim McGreevey. They also helped to sweep aside Acting Gov. Richard Codey in favor of Corzine. New Jersey Democratic politics is not gentle.
Republican nominee Doug Forrester, who lost to Lautenberg in 2002, seems to be an unimpressive candidate. Corzine led him by wide margins in polls from the June primary until mid-September. In the four most recent polls, Corzine's lead has been between 4 percent and 7 percent, and he has run below 50 percent in all of them. New Jersey is a low-information state, so running below 50 percent is not necessarily a danger sign, and Corzine's money will be employed to produce turnout in the state's heavily Democratic central cities. But sometimes you can have too much money. In 2000, Corzine got bad publicity when his campaign bused in residents of Philadelphia homeless shelters and halfway houses to work on turnout efforts. He won, but by only 50 percent to 47 percent. And New Jersey is not quite as Democratic as it was then: George W. Bush was beaten 56 percent to 40 percent in 2000 but only 53 percent to 46 percent in 2004. Corzine surely remains the favorite. But an upset looks possible.
Virginia governor. The most recent polls show Republican Jerry Kilgore (who, in accordance with Virginia custom, resigned his post as attorney general to make the race) with narrow leads over Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine; one poll shows the race tied. Kilgore is hurt by the independent candidacy of Republican legislator Russell Potts. Potts and Kaine supported the big tax increase of popular incumbent Democrat Mark Warner; Kilgore opposed it but does not propose repeal. Kilgore is from far southwest Virginia, hundreds of miles from the Northern Virginia suburbs, and Kaine has a liberal record as mayor of Richmond, including opposition to capital punishment, a liability in most of Virginia. In 1993 and 1997, Republicans closed strongly by appealing to bedrock conservative sentiment, but that didn't work against self-financer Warner in 2001. This is a state George W. Bush carried 54 percent to 45 percent. But this race could go either way.
California referendums. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put his reputation on the line by backing ballot propositions that, if passed, would break the power of important Democratic interests: Proposition 74, which would increase the time required for teacher tenure; Proposition 75, which would require public-sector unions to get approval to use members' dues for politics; Proposition 76, which would impose limits on state spending; and Proposition 77, which would take the power to redistrict legislative and congressional seats away from the (heavily Democratic) Legislature and give it to a panel of retired judges. Last spring, the public-employee unions started spending vast sums on TV ads attacking Schwarzenegger, and his approval ratings have plummeted. Polling before this month has showed his ballot propositions trailing—usually a sign of impending defeat, since Californians tend to vote against propositions they're not sure of, and support for propositions tends to decline during campaigns.
Polling up to late September showed 76 and 77 losing, 74 ahead by unimpressive margins, and only 75 leading by significant margins.
But last month, Schwarzenegger's personal and ad campaigns in favor of the propositions started. SurveyUSA polls, conducted by telephone machines from September 30 to October 2, showed all four of his propositions leading by substantial margins. This represents so striking a shift that many political professionals were skeptical of the results. But they appear to be corroborated by Schwarzenegger's internal polling, as reported by California Republican insider Bill Whalen in www.weeklystandard.com and by a television poll taken this week. Here is Whalen's report of the numbers.
Here's what the governor's internal polling shows:
| Prop. 74 | 55% Yes | 44% No | |
| Prop. 75 | 60% Yes | 37% No | |
| Prop. 76 | 58% Yes | 36% No | |
| Prop. 77 | 59% Yes | 36% No |
Here's a survey, done this week, by KABC-TV in Los Angeles and KPIX-TV in San Francisco:
| Prop. 74 | 55% Yes | 44% No | |
| Prop. 75 | 60% Yes | 37% No | |
| Prop. 76 | 58% Yes | 36% No | |
| Prop. 77 | 59% Yes | 36% No |
Schwarzenegger seems sure to be outspent by the unions. He and his political consultant Mike Murphy have gambled by waiting until the last six weeks of the campaign to spend their money and allowing the governor's job rating to remain at perilously low levels for many months. That takes a lot of nerve. I'm still retaining some skepticism about these late poll results. I've seldom seen opinion turn around in favor of ballot propositions so late in the game-though it did with the ballot propositions Schwarzenegger supported last February. Turnout matters here, and Schwarzenegger benefited from low Democratic turnout in the October 2003 recall election that made him governor. To me, this is the most fascinating and the highest-stake election this November. And I hesitate to predict anything about the outcome-except that it will be important, one way or the other.
And here is another lesson you ignored from another well versed freeper.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495358/posts?page=13#13
Even Tom Campbell points out that the change you highlight doesn't mean education spending will go down. Arnie is on the campaign trail saying spending will go up for education.
Remember this?
Schwarzenegger: No, no. We never want to cut anything. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. We want to increase funding for education, because as you know, I'm an education Governor.
So quote the text where it says it authorizes bonds. It doesn't.
You keep quoting paragraphs from a newspaper about what people say, but not a single quote from the PRoposition, because it isn't there.
The proposition provides for the Governor to CUT spending, when the Legislature refuses to do so. Period.
Wrong. It does. See below.
You keep quoting paragraphs from a newspaper about what people say, but not a single quote from the PRoposition, because it isn't there.
Wrong again. I have quoted it multiple times, and will again.
The proposition provides for the Governor to CUT spending, when the Legislature refuses to do so. Period.
It allows much much more than that, as you well know. I have quoted the text, multiple times--in posts to you, no less. Yet you continue to try deceive by ignoring the onerous provisions in this measure.
One more time, from Page 5 of this PDF File:
SECTION 9. Section 1 of Article XIX B of the California Constitution is amended to read:... SEC. 1. (d)(2)(B) The Legislature may provide by statute for the issuance of bonds by the State or local agencies, as applicable, that are secured by the payments required by this paragraph. Proceeds of the sale of the bonds shall be applied for purposes consistent with this article, and for costs associated with the issuance and sale of the bonds.
See also post #78, where I gave you a link to a prior post to YOU, where I provided the exact same quote, yet you try to deny its existence and paint me as a liar.
I dealt with the same from FO about Prop 76 here.
FareOpinion doesn't care how many times she gets busted. Her mission is in service to her agenda. The amazing thing is, even after all this proof that her mouthing of Party talking points are totally contraverted by citation to authoritative sources, SHE BELIEVES WHAT SHE IS SAYING. Such internal dishonesty is the key first step for any effective propagandist.
It's nothing new.
The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the Party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts.
The key word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. -- George Orwell 1984
Since any cuts are permissive rather than mandatory, we have to look at Arnold's record and statements to deduce what hs is likely to do. So far, Arnold has shown absolutely no inclination to want to step into the bold new world of cuts--he defers, borrows and talks about having to raise taxes. See calcowgirl's post #75.
That being the case, I am disinclined to roll the dice with Arnold in the hope he will do what he promised to do pre-Recall--make significant and substantial cuts. Like Bush's Miers nomination, you too want us all to vote YES on #76 on a strictly "trust me" basis.
Not good enough.
It seems to me the CA GOP has adopted the Communist Party approach of selecting the candidates (and/or initiatives) and simply letting the voters approve, or disapprove, their selection, not actually make a choice. At the same time, they deploy their operatives in various forums to promote the party propaganda. The attempt to squelch any dissent, by punishing those members who dare to take an alternative position, is becoming way too prevalent. We just saw it in the Congressional election for the 48th district where, at the state convention of the California GOP in Anaheim, candidate John Campbell attempted to move a resolution which threatened with “expulsion from the California Republican Party” any member of the state GOP who “supports, advocates, or assists in any way” the campaign of Congressional candidate “Minuteman” Jim Gilchrist. [See this thread.] Similarly, the CA GOP made a Rules change to endorse Schwarzenegger for the 2006 election before any primary. [See this post or this thread]. So much for voter choice. I don't know how to stop it, but it is a disturbing sign.
The propagandists and their supporters are dominating FR, attempting to silence any intelligent discussion about the measures. It is tiresome, but anything short of refuting their BS equates to surrender, IMO. If these are good propositions, they should be able to withstand scrutiny.
Excellent point.
The propagandists and their supporters are dominating FR, attempting to silence any intelligent discussion about the measures. It is tiresome, but anything short of refuting their BS equates to surrender, IMO. If these are good propositions, they should be able to withstand scrutiny.
----
Well said, CCG. Well said, indeed.
re the California polls, both show identical results. Is this
right ?
The Leadership Institute has a great training program in grass roots activism.
Good Grief! That's hideous!!!
Was this before, or after Arnold made his supportive statement about the work of the "Minutemen?"
I'm sorry to say that I've seen more than a little inordinate fear of "the democratic process" in my dealings with the Party over the past decade. Too many "King Makers" and not enough "democratic process!" It just gets stinkier and stinkier!!! I wish it would stop!!! It is shameful!!!
>>Was this before, or after Arnold made his supportive statement about the work of the "Minutemen?"
The Campbell action was just about 4 weeks ago, well after Arnold's comments about the Minuteman Project.
Who IS this John Campbell? Who the hell does he think he is?? Did his concept get adopted, or not???
>>Who IS this John Campbell?
He's currently one of our State Senators.
Campbell was the fair haired selection of the Orange County New Majority and Lincoln Club to replace Chris Cox in Congress. Apparently his suggestion was not acted upon, according to reporting of the event. See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488322/posts
Campbell wasn't able to get the 50%+ required for an out-and-out win, so there will be a run-off in December between Campbell(R), Gilchrist (AI), Young (D) and minor candidates from the Libertarian and Green parties.
Well, I'd sure be voting for "American Independent" for the first time in my life were I voting in Orange County for CONgressperson!!!
I'd be voting for Gilchrist too. Re Campbell, his departure does indeed raise questions. As of October 6, 2005:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12831310.htm
In ancient Greek drama, a playwright would sometimes resolve an apparently impossible problem by wheeling on stage a big piece of equipment bearing an actor playing a god. It was called ``god in a machine,'' or deus ex machina. In modern times, we bring the calvary.
You had the feeling that something like that was happening in San Jose politics when word leaked out that San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce President Pat Dando was floating the idea of ex-Rep. Tom Campbell running for mayor.
Campbell isn't going to do it. He's told friends that he's not interested. For now, he's running Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for Proposition 76, which would put curbs on automatic growth of state government. Then he's committed to return as dean of the Haas School of Business at UC-Berkeley.
But the story of the attempt, which first appeared in the San Jose Business Journal, says something about our mayoral campaign and the way business sees it. For a variety of reasons, none of it is very encouraging.
The first individual in CA that can encourage it's citizens without using glaringly obvious B.S. will truly lead this state out of the proverbial wilderness and then go on to Washington, D.C. like Reagan did!!! (if he/she can find the damned money to run through TV)
I hardly think McClintock
is the stooge which you portray ~
a robot of the party line
with prop picks gone astray.
Replace your reference to FO
with Tom McClintock's name,
then tell us just how stupid
is his prop~supporting game.
Nice job of crimestop there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.