High turnout seen for special election (Calfornia)

Los Angeles Daily News ^ | Nov. 5, 2005 | Steve Geissinger

[FairOpinion]

SACRAMENTO - About 42 percent of California's 15.8 million registered voters are expected to turn out for Tuesday's special election, a relatively high turnout that political experts said could hurt the chances for the governor's reform measures.

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Friday said his prediction was based on absentee ballots, experience with similar elections, voter registration, record campaign spending, interest in local measures and "even the anticipated weather."

Experts said the relatively high turnout in Democrat-leaning California makes it more likely at the polls that Democrats and independents will outnumber Republicans, who are traditionally dependable voters but are in the minority.

Coupled with recent polls showing Californians' support for the ballot measures is flagging, officials said the outlook is dim.

"At this point, it now looks like all four of the governor's measures will be defeated," said Tim Hodson, director of the nonpartisan Center for California Studies in Sacramento and a political science professor at California State University, Sacramento.

Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and opponents' campaigns embraced the turnout forecast as a positive development and said their sides were the ones winning the efforts to turn out core voters.

While the projected voter turnout is higher than the last state special election - 36 percent in 1993 - it is far short of the 76 percent in last year's presidential election or the 61 percent who showed up for the 2003 recall which put Schwarzenegger in office.

"At 30 percent to 33 percent turnout, the governor could have expected something to be close," said California State University, Sonoma political science professor David McCuan.

Experts said wild cards remain, including whether Proposition 73 - requiring parental notification of a minor's abortion - draws more conservatives to the polls.

[FairOpinion]

High turnout usually favors Democrats, and you can bet that unions will be hauling people to the polls, trying to defeat the CA reform propositions.

VOTE! Don't let the Unions and Democrats win!

CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y

=====

LATEST: Judge allows extra union dues to fight Calif ballot Props 75, 76, Nov. 4, 2005

THE CA PROPOSITIONS; Democratic and Republican activists discuss the propositions
Dean urges voters to reject measures governor supports [California]
Davis opposes Schwarzenegger's reform initiatives
CA: Feinstein to oppose Schwarzenegger's special election initiatives
John Alden (Marin cnty Dem Party chairman): Vote no on Prop 76 - we need better leaders
Top Democratic leaders at Penmar Park rally to 'swat' governor's special election measures. Key note speaker: Angelides, Dem candidate for governor
Liberal groups (Moveon.org) try to link special election to broader GOP agenda
Open letter from Phil Angelides (opposing Schwarzenegger and the Propositions)
McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties
CA: McClintock stumps for governor's ballot initiatives
Ad watch: McClintock in radio spot supporting Prop. 76 (includes actual text)
Supporters of the CA Propositions 74-77 include CA Club for Growth, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, Ray Haynes, San Fernando Valley Town Hall Conservatives, Republican Party, and many others. Click on the link for a more comprehensive list.
And you can see from links above who are the ones opposing them: Democrats, Unions, Gray Davis, Howard Dean, Phil Angelides, MoveOn.org, various Dem party chairmen, etc.

[dr_who_2]

Judge allows extra union dues to fight Calif ballot Props 75, 76, Nov. 4, 2005

From Dianne Feinstein's (Demagogue-Ca) website:

Senate Unanimously Confirms Morrison England for District Court June 25, 2002 -- Nominee Unanimously Selected by Bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee -- Washington, DC - The U.S. Senate today unanimously confirmed the nomination of Morrison England to serve as a Federal District Court Judge in the Eastern District of California. "The Senate confirmed Judge England in 96 days. During the Clinton Administration, the average federal judge was approved in 196 days. I think this demonstrates that California's Judicial Advisory Committee is working," Senator Feinstein said. "I am pleased that the Senate approved Judge England, and I am confident that he will be an outstanding jurist for the Eastern District." Judge England's name was forwarded to the White House by California's new bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee, which Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) established with Gerald Parsky, President Bush's State Chair for judicial appointments.
Grrrrr....

[FairOpinion]

"Judge England's name was forwarded to the White House by California's new bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee, which Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) established with Gerald Parsky, President Bush's State Chair for judicial appointments. "

===

Thanks for the information. I think I am going to be ill. Another judge selected by the Dems. But why do the Republicans go along with this?

How many judges were selected by Republicans that Clinton nominated? I bet it's a VERY short list, with probably ZERO names on it.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. I don't believe a high turnout favors the dems. I think a low turnout does .. because that's how Gray Davis got re-elected. The repubs stayed home because they didn't really like their candidate.

This time things are different. We're talking about defeating the ultra liberal legislators - and most repubs are for that.

I think a high turnout means people on the conservative side are motivated to stop the ultra left wing legislation, and the rule by unions.

[FairOpinion]

I hope you are right.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I saw a female Sacramento reporter (Jill) on Fox this morning, she says this election means the difference in whether it's even worth voting anymore, that the dems have this state so sewn up that votes literally won't even make a difference in the future and that is what is at the crux of this vote and why so much mis-information has been put out to defeat Arnold.

[Amerigomag]

I don't believe a high turnout favors the dems.

The conclusion is sound reasoning with regard to certain initiatives.

The higher the partisan Democrat voter turnout, the greater the likelyhood that Prop 74, 76 and 77 will fail.

The higher the voter turnout, regardless of partisan affiltion, the greater the likelyhod that Prop 73 and 75 will pass.

Props 78, 79 and 80 will fail regardless of turnout or partisan affiliation.

[SierraWasp]

"The repubs stayed home because they didn't really like their candidate."

You left out one extremely crucial hyphenated word in that sentence! It should have read like this: "The liberal-to-moderate repubs stayed home because they didn't really like their candidate." (Meaning the honorable Bill Simon, of course!)

[SierraWasp]

This is one of the articles I was asking ccg whether or not anyone had posted. Thanks for posting this FO.

[SierraWasp]

Here's another arrow for your bulging Gerald Parsky quiver!!! (and another reason I left my beloved Republican Party!)(actually, it left me, to be more accurate)

[FairOpinion]

Actually THIS is the really important article:


Judge allows extra union dues to fight Calif ballot Props 75, 76

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516389/posts


"The state employees' union can collect extra money to fight two ballot measures from workers who had objected to having their dues used for political purposes, a federal judge ruled Friday. "

[CyberAnt]

Of course! I voted for Bill.

[SierraWasp]

Well... There you have another sign that is one of many that my prediction of Arnold being the CAGOP Terminator is coming to fruition, beginning this coming Tuesday!!!

I'm not enjoying this, but neither did I enjoy the abandonment of conservatism by the CAGOP in 2002, or especially in the Recall initiated by conservatives!!!

But, such is life in volitile CA politics. Even Donkeys in an Elephant suit can't get elected/re-elected in CA when you wake up the dragon call "Organized Labor," especially when it's organized GovernMental EnvironMental Fanatical Orgainzed Labor!!!

Even Dan Lundgren could have defeated Gray Davis if somebody hadn't stuck a bee in the bonnet of ALL CA Labor Unions with Prop 226 in the Primary immediately preceeding the General Election!!!

Now prediction is easy because history repeats it'self!!!

[FairOpinion]

So, are you advocating that we should just keep rolling over for the Dems and Unions, because it's too hard to defeat them?

[SierraWasp]

Good! See my version of how Gray Davis got elected in the first place in reply #13 toward the end.

You might be right in you thoughts about a high turnout, but I feel strongly that anything other than the lowest possible turnout will give the Anti-Everything people a total, not so clean sweep of everything which will lead to A.S. being a one termer, just like his co-star Jesse Ventura in the movie "Predator!"

[SierraWasp]

Only when you insert a red-hot poker in the anatomy of such well organized opponents as government employee UNIONS!!!

I love Prop 75, but it motivates these militants all too well and they just had a tune-up in June 1998 that they used to end a string of two Republican Governorships! They haven't forgotten how to defeat such Propositions and the Party that backs 'em only half-heartedly with all talking/typing and no actual action like their phonebanks, etc.!!!

To them, this is nuclear war and the only way they see to survive is to defeat the measure and they will with anything above minimal turnout! Haven't you heard the Prison Guards Union ads? They are deeply moving and will have an effect on turnout!!!

All I'm saying is, as I expected, the powers that be in the CAGOP and in Arnold's camp have seriously underestimated, or are making some kind of desperation move that simply is way too risky in the face of recent history!!!

[CyberAnt]

The dirty little secret is - the majority of union members do not support the union bosses - union members are conservative and they vote that way.

The unions are in very big trouble. It doesn't matter how "motivated" the union people are - the anti-union people in their organizations are the majority - I think it's something like 58% - I remember seeing a number like that some time ago - and the anti-union people have grown stronger since then.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Parsky, the big black whore of RINO politics.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Whoops, should said big black hole... Freudian slip. *cough*

[SierraWasp]

Well, I'm not going to argue this until the election gets done next Wednesday, but if you're talking about ALL unions, I might agree with you partially. But you can't apply your 58% to the "true believers" in GovernMental unions.

It's kinda like me being raised in an extremely fundamentalist Christian organization that I left 45 years ago. To this day, I have never joined another religion of any kind and still, whenever news comes out that the organization is under scruitiny, or attack... the pangs of concern still well up in me!!!

The idea of "one for all and all for one" is long lived and powerful, especially when it is connected so directly to the ultimate force in our society... The GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO FORCE ANY ISSUE!!!

So, your "dirty little secret" is only partially true and the part this ballot measure is aimed at is less involved with said "dirtly little secret!"

Also, how does your "dirty little secret" play against the very recent results and history of Prop 226 that you seem to want to conveniently forget in support of said "dirty little secret?"