Hey Sacramento pols: cut the "supermajority" whining

Desperado . . . . (5.00 / 1)

Even Cheneyesque fearmongering isn't getting the Yes on 1A campaign's poll numbers above the freezing mark, so what else have they got?  They're so desperate, they might as well try having the party establishment schreech "I'm a victim of the party establishment's rules."

Why don't you come to your senses / you've been out riding fences for so long now . . .  

---

by: Be_Devine @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:30:14 PM CDT

Kinda funny (5.00 / 1)

How certain people who have been extremely active for years and years in the party act as though they were blindsided by the 60% requirement. Also kinda funny how this hasn't been enough of a concern to those people in years past to complain or take action towards change.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:36:15 PM CDT

Since (5.00 / 1)

it obviously served their purposes in stopping those crazy lefty resolutions in the past.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 16:33:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's about the irony, not the rule (2.00 / 1)

I'm no fan of the 60 percent rule. Nor of party candidate endorsements (why we support one Democrat over another I don't know; I think voters ought to decide that themselves).

What I've pointed out is the irony of the same folks attacking the 2/3 budget requirement defending the 60 percent threshold saying a higher threshold is needed to express the conviction of the party and other crazy stuff.

I mean, let's face it. All the Props had majority support, a few of them were endorsed, and the big one was supported by a whopping 58 percent. If there's anyone using the rules for their spin advantage, it's folks who get 42 percent of the vote and declare it a "win."

Facts are stubborn things: the overwhelming number of Dems at the convention supported the Props.

---

by: sacguy @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 17:53:40 PM CDT

If you want to equate... (5.00 / 1)

...a partisan endorsement to the method by which we pay for our schools and hospitals, that's your choice.

I'm agnostic on whether the CDP should require a 60% threshold to endorse. But they do. And by that rule Prop 1A lost.

A more accurate comparison would be if a few progressives  killed a regressive tax that wasn't going to solve the budget mess, and someone focused on their use of the supermajority rule rather than their case against the flawed proposal.

Oh, wait, that's precisely what happened here...

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 18:07:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Steve, stop digging. (5.00 / 1)

I'm not defending the rules one way or the other, but the fact is that those are the rules, and now you're trying to spin away those rules as a "quirk" when they are, in fact, anything but, and these very rules do allow for simple majority endorsement when it serves the interests of incumbent legislators.  Would you like to change the rules?  I'll help.  And remember that you're now on record as categorically opposing the existence of endorsements in party primaries.

You, for one, ought to be really embarrassed that despite the flood of mail, email, and threats of imminent destruction, you could only manage 58% of the delegates on the floor despite the fact that a full third of the delegates at the convention were appointed by electeds and nominees.

And as a last touch, I would sincerely doubt that anyone would describe 58% as "overwhelming" and "whopping".  You're trying way too hard.  The irony, in fact, is that now, the leadership is complaining about the 60% threshold  because they can't get enough grassroots activists on board with them, when in the past it was always the other way around.  Your spin in and of itself signals that things are different now.

---

by: Dante Atkins @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 18:35:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your own guy (0.00 / 0)

Paul Hogarth, blogged that the rules, are, in his words "arcane."

---

by: sacguy @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You really don't get it . . . (0.00 / 0)

It's one thing to make arguments about why the rules should be changed in the future.  It's quite another to act surprised (SHOCKED, I tell you!) to find this "quirk" in the rules that requires a 60% vote in favor of an endorsement.  Especially when the feigned surprise comes from the party establishment that wrote the 60% rule and constantly defend perpetuating it.  This stammering faux outrage shows just how desperate the Yes on 1A campaign has become.

One can point out the hypocrisy of the establishment crying foul over the enforcement of its own rule book while, at the same time, arguing that that rule should be changed for future votes.

Oh, and Dante, I didn't know that Paul was "your guy."  Are congratulations in order?

---

by: Be_Devine @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:20:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By overwhelming... (5.00 / 1)

You mean 758 of the approximately 3,000 delegates? Hardly overwhelming. I think one should consider that the vote was held at around 1 pm, and just under half of the delegates had already left.  Surely the Prop 1A folks should get some credit for keeping people in the building, but it is hardly clear if the vote would look at all similar if the vote was held when more delegates could vote.

And those who did vote Yes on 1A were hardly excited about it. Check out this photo of my fellow AD-13 delegate Nick Carlin from the front page of Chronicle this morning.  Not really a ringing endorsement, as this scene was repeated all over the floor.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 18:38:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2300 delegates (0.00 / 0)

Actually there were ~2300 credentialed delegates according to the credentials report.  Only 1300 voted in the first vote of Sunday, around 12:30.  What happened to the other 1000?  No matter what side of the issues you're on, stick around and vote!  The last vote, about 2 hours later on challenging the decision of the chair, had about 500 votes.  And there were two attempted quorum calls which clearly would have passed had the maker not withdrawn their motion.

The fact that the most important votes of the convention take place on Sunday isn't a secret, and it pisses me off to no end that people leave early.  I had a 5.5 hour drive home and I still stuck around.  Didn't anyone learn their lesson in San Diego 2 years ago?

---

by: runchadrun @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 09:52:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Change is needed (0.00 / 0)

It pisses me off to no end that they schedule the most important votes to occur at the end of the day on Sunday.  Everyone knows that people leave Sunday afternoon.  So why are we spending Sunday morning handing out thousands of awards for things like the Most Important Janitor in The Southwestern Yolo County Regional Office?  No disrespect to the award recipients, but it seems that voting on the highly contentious issues should take a priority and should happen first thing Sunday morning.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:31:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think "irony" is the right word (5.00 / 1)

Thinking that two totally different things should be treated in two different ways is not ironic, it's intellectual.  There's a word for your oversimplistic and purposefully deceptive lumping of votes on party endorsements and votes on state budgets.  Can you guess what it is?  

---

by: Be_Devine @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 18:55:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's see... (5.00 / 1)

33% of all delegates are appointed by the same folks that brought us these wonderful props.

CTA and the 1A campaign hired a firm to run a sophisticated and intricate floor program, had direct control over 177 delegates, paid high school kids $25 an hour to canvass (leaving their staff free to wrangle delegates).

Steinberg, Bass, Perez, Monning, Brown, Torres, Leno, Romero and others spoke in favor of the props ad nauseam all weekend (although Bass' convention speech was met with crickets and Perez had to get the Labor Caucus chair to quiet the catcalls during his blatantly dishonest speech).

1A has been on radio, tv, in the mail.

And you guys lost.  Couldn't get to 60 despite starting with a base of 33%.

FAIL.  There is no spinning this.  You can't use the party's mail permit now, for the cheap mail.  And the 1B people can't use the party name on any mail that talks up 1A.

MAJOR SYSTEM FAIL.  

---

by: jackfolsum @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 21:30:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]