Newsflash: CNN declares Arnold new CA Gov

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Ned
Being pro-business and pro-jobs is shorthand for fiscal conservatism here in the US. Yes it is a form of propaganda, but all politicians use simple catch phrases to get their message out. It makes things simpler.

That's true. Still, if I had to choose between one that talked about being pro-jobs and pro-business and one talking about being for fiscal conservatism I'd chose the latter (if in fact it did mean the same thing). But I guess it's something seriously wrong with me.

I wouldn't say it makes it simpler though.

[Ned]

Re: Voter Turnout

Originally posted by pchang


Even 53.3% was much larger than the last election.

Blacks amounted to 6% of the vote. I believe they have at least 10% of the population. Perhaps Jackson was right about the changes in the voting places. Or, perhaps they didn't like Gray Davis and didn't care about Bustamante.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And the state of California's economic output exceeds Canada's by how much again?

We also exceed France and China as well. We're only $50 billion $50 Billion behind the UK so if Arny can reform the regulations to convince businesses to stay in California instead of leave then we might just pass up the UK as well.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It wasn't "de-regulation". Producers couldn't pass off their costs by charging consumers market rates. How does de-regulation allow middlemen to reduce the profits of producers?

That was part of it but there was also the little thing about Enron manipulating the market and forming a cartile with other power producers to restrict supply. They figured by removing 1/3 of the available power they could make a killing selling the remaining 2/3s.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dissident
There's no sense voting for Arnold. He won't be able to do anything. I believe he could be effective if he had a majority in the state legislatures.

As I recall in 1966 people kept saying that Ronald Reagon couldn't possibly make it as Governor because an actor just doesn't have the experience in politics to make it work. It turns out that his lack of experience really helped because Reagon went after people's sacred cows and by axing a few pork barrel projects we freed up enough money to really improve the state highways and public Universities.

It's true that the Republicans are the minority party in the state house but the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes means raising taxes will not be possible so the only option will be to cut. One thing is sure though the people are pissed off at the do nothings and abstructionists who populate the government offices. I don't anyone in the state house wants to be seen as the guy who's preventing the budget from being balanced because that person will most likely get hit with a recall vote.

The government is legally required to spend 40% of the state budget on education and they're just barely making 40% right now so it would be illegal to cut education spending. That other 60% is mainly highways and social entitlement spending and the politicians have been raiding the highway funds for years so they could get the money for what ever the latest welfare scheme was popular at the time. Since the roads are something which voters look at and use every day I'm betting they'll get money and welfare will be the item which will get the deepest cuts.

[chequita guevara]

Jefferson was born on a ship on the way from Scotland to America. He had his birth records falsified.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
MtG: About possible efforts to gun for Boxer in 2004.. You said you doubt the GOP would want to make a big effort to go after her, but didn't you make the same argument doubting Arnold's chances in this election saying that the GOP would feel no need to back Schwarzenegger in this election?

It seems to me, on a materiality scale, that GOP support for Schwarzenegger was pretty lukewarm. I haven't looked in detail at his campaign fund financing, but while some people here were predicting Bush would come out and campaign for him, and the RNC would shell out a lot of money, IIRC, neither happened. The state party endorsed Schwarzenegger late, saying the party needed to get behind one candidate (and suggesting McClintock fall on his sword) but that doesn't strike me as a major move either.

The state party is fairly cash poor, and has a lot of state and local races to try and support in 2004, plus the announced priority is delivering Calfornia to Bush's reelection effort. That doesn't give me any reason to make me think that the RNC is going to pop 15-20 mill here (which is about the scale it takes to move a race for Senate) that could go to several other states with vulnerable Democrat Senate seats or to Bush's reelection. A Senate vote is a Senate vote, it doesn't matter what state it's from. Boxer has a big liberal frootloop base in northern Cal, she has the advantage of the incumbency, and all she really needs to do in the south is almost break even everywhere except Orange County and write off Orange County entirely. Look what the state Republicans have run against her the last two times?

You make a good point though about California elections being more expensive, but the same would have go for the DNC in that it would cost money to defend Boxer.

Boxer has the incumbency advantage, and a strong base of voter and financial support in the liberal bay area. Boxer also has a decent amount of unspent money from her last outing.

As I understand, Boxer is considered to be evil personified by Republicans in California, and with this victory under their belt they should be particularly encouraged to keep up their attack.

The Califronia Republican State Party and Gov. Schwarzenegger should be able to raise a fair amount of cash, and if they manage to nominate a moderate candidate, I'd think Boxer could face a challenge..

The problem is simple: They have minorities in both houses of the legislature, and only one in eight statewide offices - and they'd love to get the Secretary of State, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner offices. Strategically, replacing Boxer is the least strategically appealing in terms of state or national politics. If they had stronger positions in those other offices, or more cash by far, or if this wasn't a presidential reelection coming up, then you would likely have a different equation, but Boxer gets more of a pass simply because there are much higher priorities.

As far as the national party and it's position on abortion, it doesn't really make sense to "moderate" just because of California. Like Ben said, pro-lifers are the most consistent Republican voters, and the Abortion issue is the key to Republican dominance in the South and Midwest, who together far outweigh California in electoral votes.

Agreed - the national party will not move to the center. The current strategy has worked in their view. (Although I blame the ineptness of the Democratic Party in getting their message in tune with the electorate more)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That was part of it but there was also the little thing about Enron manipulating the market and forming a cartile with other power producers to restrict supply. They figured by removing 1/3 of the available power they could make a killing selling the remaining 2/3s.

Too bad there's never been any evidence of collusion, and that the other parties never had a third of the power supply period, let alone a third they could manipulate out of the market.

And too bad that people forget that 30% of the state never "deregulated" because they're not under CPUC jurisdiction (i.e. the munis, inluding Los Angeles, Anaheim, Sacramento, Riverside, Burbank, Glendale, Imperial Irrigation District, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Redding, Modesto, DWR, etc.) and the vast majority of them had the same problems. The one main exception, Los Angeles DWP, actually gouged the market more on a price basis than any private sector participant.

[pchang]

turnout

where did the 53% come from? Was this percentage of eligible voters? 70% is the percentage of registered voters. Comparing registered voters to registered voters, only a little more than 50% of the registered voters in CA voted in the last statewide election.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Too bad there's never been any evidence of collusion, and that the other parties never had a third of the power supply period, let alone a third they could manipulate out of the market.

There have been several people who have plead guilty to fixing the market and using various schemes to create a false power shortage and to raise prices. Not all of them were in Enron so the question is did they all just decide out of the blue to start these fixing schemes at the same time or did they work together to some degree?

My money is on them working together.

[Ben Kenobi]

We have a balancing of rights with abortion, with the right to life contesting with the right to privacy. Extremists emphasize one or the other. Moderates recognize the contest of rights and try to balance the two.

Ned:

Look at it this way.

The argument from privacy is a smokescreen to disguise the true position of the politicians. Every politician who cites the right to privacy will invariably say that this right always trumps over the right to life. Find me a prochoicer who says otherwise.

Therefore there is no concrete difference between your characterisation of a prochoice extremist and the moderate.

[TCO]

Re: Primaries

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Primaries are the one tool the state and county party organization have to throttle real choice as to candidates.

Worse than school safety patrol but not as finky as moderators.

[TCO]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I was pulling for Mary Carey.

We should call you fast hand.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ned:

Look at it this way.

The argument from privacy is a smokescreen to disguise the true position of the politicians. Every politician who cites the right to privacy will invariably say that this right always trumps over the right to life. Find me a prochoicer who says otherwise.

Therefore there is no concrete difference between your characterisation of a prochoice extremist and the moderate.

I am not going to dispute the fact that Democrat politicians have this absolutist view because the current Democrat party panders to the radical feminist movement. However, the view of balance comes straight out of the Supreme Court. AFAIK, Roe v. Wade is still the case that guides all other court cases on abortion. Most of the cases test just how far states can go banning or regulating abortions. There may be cases upcoming, such as the Scott Peterson case, where the right to life is tested where the woman's right to privacy is not involved. Scott is charged with murder of his unborn son, IIRC. It will be interesting.

[SKILORD]

I see Jesse 'The body' Ventura again. A good Governor, utterly raped by the local media and ignored by the larger media due to his failure to be a failure.