No "Wave" in California
Governor Jerry Brown. Senator Barbara Boxer. Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. Attorney General Kamala Harris (probably). In an election where the phrase "RED WAVE" was ubiquitous, California remained a solid wall of blue.
The results were striking. Underfunded uber-incumbent Jerry Brown beat gazillionaire outsider Meg Whitman by 12 POINTS in a year when anti-incumbancy red was the color of our national mood ring. Hardline right-winger Carly Fiorina also failed to beat perpetually unpopular liberal Barbara Boxer by double-digits in the year of the conservative uprising.
So what's the deal? Has California become bluer or did the GOP just select a truly horrible crop of candidates?
Regadless, it will be interesting to see how this new regime goes about trying to fix our seemingly irreparable state. They'll have some help with Prop 25, which finally got rid of the ridiculous 2/3 requirement for passing a budget (despite these horrible ads). But the ties around their hands also got two new knots with Props 26 and 22. These prohibit the state from raising fees without a 2/3 majority or taking local funds, even during fiscal emergencies. So sure, the Democrats can now pass a budget, but they'll have a devil of a time finding any means of funding it.
My take: the fact that all three of these seemingly at odds propositions passed is just further evidence of how stupid it is to put these issues before the electorate. I am not saying a rational arument can't be made for each individual proposition, but I seriously doubt the same majority that voted to ease budget gridlock also wanted to further gum up the revenue stream. I suspect many people simply thought "Oh, I want a budget. Yes on 25." "Ew, I don't like fees. Yes on 26." Issues that complicated demand deeper thought.
How do you feel about this election? Let's have it out below.
The results were striking. Underfunded uber-incumbent Jerry Brown beat gazillionaire outsider Meg Whitman by 12 POINTS in a year when anti-incumbancy red was the color of our national mood ring. Hardline right-winger Carly Fiorina also failed to beat perpetually unpopular liberal Barbara Boxer by double-digits in the year of the conservative uprising.
So what's the deal? Has California become bluer or did the GOP just select a truly horrible crop of candidates?
Regadless, it will be interesting to see how this new regime goes about trying to fix our seemingly irreparable state. They'll have some help with Prop 25, which finally got rid of the ridiculous 2/3 requirement for passing a budget (despite these horrible ads). But the ties around their hands also got two new knots with Props 26 and 22. These prohibit the state from raising fees without a 2/3 majority or taking local funds, even during fiscal emergencies. So sure, the Democrats can now pass a budget, but they'll have a devil of a time finding any means of funding it.
My take: the fact that all three of these seemingly at odds propositions passed is just further evidence of how stupid it is to put these issues before the electorate. I am not saying a rational arument can't be made for each individual proposition, but I seriously doubt the same majority that voted to ease budget gridlock also wanted to further gum up the revenue stream. I suspect many people simply thought "Oh, I want a budget. Yes on 25." "Ew, I don't like fees. Yes on 26." Issues that complicated demand deeper thought.
How do you feel about this election? Let's have it out below.
posted by Dan at 11:05 AM
22 Comments:
Countdown until California enters receivership . . .
I'm sort of surprised that neither Gubernatorial candidate ran on a platform of calling for a new Constitutional convention. Seems like the only fix to this mess. Maybe that was strategic; I don't know.
The House elections went as expected, though notably a whole mess of moderate Dems got ran out of office, making the Democratic caucus much more liberal (and hopefully united) than before.
The Senate went about as expected too. It's hilarious that the tea party single-handedly cost the Republicans the Senate by electing nutjob opponents.
While I doubt it will happen, I'm naively hopeful that the new Republican majority in the House will take a Paul Ryan-approach to politics (raising taxes on the rich if needed) than a Pat Toomey approach (to fix the economy, all women need to become housewives).
A positive day overall, though a very disappointing election for California.
Nationwide, a red House will make for less boring political conversation in Washington, but it will have very little impact on the country. As Obama's veto pen keeps most of his most economically destructive legislation (e.g. $1 trillion dollar health care tax, Dodd-Frank, etc.) safe from moderate, common-sense reforms, there will be little that the reps can do except avert further damage. As a potential result, not all of the Bush tax cuts may expire, and the estate tax may be trimmed down to a sensible rate once more.
Perhaps there is even cause for optimism though, despite a liberal administration and Democratic Senate. As the specter of leftist government intervention recedes from the fearful minds of ever-cautious investors, we may even see a modicum of economic growth in the next few years.
But for California the situation is the reverse. In a statehouse where nearly 40% of all legislation was vetoed by a barely-Republican governor, the era of big government may be back in full force. Far from reassuring California businesses that now is the time to grow, expand, and hire, our so-called progressive Democratic leadership will undoubtedly send an array of job-killing, but simplistically well-intentioned bills to governor Moonbeam and his rubber stamp. No traditional job is safe from the ire of Green-obsessed legislators and overzealous regulators. As a near plurality of Californians wallow in unemployment four years from now, at least we will man the halls of the welfare offices with the comforting knowledge that we contribute .001% less to global warming than before.
Needless to say, if you have been upset with what was coming out of Sacramento before, now may be the time to consider that 3L visiting year at Harvard.
Minuses: Will now certainly be unemployed upon graduation.
Pluses: My Boalt JD will make an excellent paperweight, and hopefully I'll be getting a slightly larger welfare check!
12:19 is a socialist.
Regarding the possibility of Bipartisanship going forward, the best case scenario for a divided government is that the issues get less ideological and more practical. Unfortunately the new crop of Tea Pary idealogues makes that scenario less likely. I am hoping the Tea Party members in congress will serve as a common enemy agaisnt which rational Republicans and Democrats can get stuff done. Like maybe a jobs bill.
12:19 is right.
"As a near plurality of Californians wallow in unemployment . . ."
12:19,
I'm honestly not sure what this means. How can a plurality of people be unemployed?
12:19 for President!
Then we can blame him for our economic troubles, even though (1) we were drowning in them before he was President, and (2) the actual short-term effects his policies can have on the economy are, in reality, quite limited. I am sure he wouldn't object to this treatment considering it is his M.O.
12:19 is just pissed that the current crop of Republicans don't have the intellect to back up traditional conservative reasoning with rational logic. Either that or she's Meg Whitman.
In fact, I can't think of a better way to stimulate the economy than to encourage Republican billionaires to run failed campaigns for office.
Too bad Prop 19 didn't pass; 12:19 needs help thinking straight.
My guess? 12:19 is Beetle Aurora Drake. Remember that guy? You know he still lurks.
11/03/2010 2:38 PM: Look up plurality in the dictionary. Multiple people are unemployed, hence a plurality of people are unemployed. However, OP said "nearly a plurality." Hence, one person is unemployed. Good job OP.
Why did the Republican tech CEOs lose? My theory is that people who actually like tech live in liberal urban areas and voted Democrat. On the other hand, the rural independents despise the wealth of Silicon Valley and rejected the tech-money Republicans. Just a theory, though...
Amazing. Obama is anything but "leftist." He's a center right democrat in the same vein as Bill Clinton (as opposed to FDR). It's a bastardization of the terms socialist and leftist to try and paint Obama (or any big-business dems, which most of them are bar a few like Kucinich) as anything near the left.
It's also bizarre that we have all this bullshit talk about fiscal sense when the two Presidents who were incredibly fiscally irresponsible were Reagan and Bush II. Bush II is responsible for our current mess. Clinton gave him a balanced budget and a solid economy and he wasted it on two stupid wars. We lived in a welfare state under Bush. Instead of welfare going to poor people, it went to Halliburton, KBR, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and the like. Wake the fuck up.
As for CA resisting the wave, I give that a shrug. CA chose to continue putting minorities in jail for doing a drug that's less harmful than alcohol, which is just shameful.
stoners are considered to be minorities? i had no idea...
It's weird that "plurality" can mean both "more than one" and "a winning margin less than a majority".
Example: Candidate A won with a plurality of the vote (40%), Candidate's B and C lost with a plurality of votes (30% each).
If you think that's weird, take patent law, which will teach you that "a" means "one or more" (as opposed to a plurality, which means more than one).
Here's some food for thought - not in particular over the CA GOP freshmen, but the GOP frosh in general.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/03/gop-frosh-class/
I do still check here on occasion, but no, 12:19 is not me. Too positive.
I agree with 12:19. We need the moderate, common sense Republicans to take back the country for us real Americans from the radical, socialist, job-killing Democrats. If Obama hadn't raised taxes after he forged his birth certificate and used ACORN to steal the election, we could've avoided this recession and the $13 trillion Democrat-created deficit. Bush's tax cuts worked so well for private sector job creation in the 2000s that we must extend them forever. After all, 39.6-35 = socialism. Tax cuts plus restoring Medicare Plus and increasing defense spending should spur the return of prosperity while balancing the budget.
Palin/O'Donnell '12!
Ah there he is. Good to see you, Beetle. I really have missed you. That is not sarcasm.
i only want to have it out with your spelling of ubiquitous. i stopped there.
typo. The "I" is right next to the "O." Why? Because keyboards are dumb.
Post a Comment
<< Home