Daily Archives: August 4, 2006

Arnold Schwarzenegger

CA-Gov: Where does the Governator Really Stand?

Which Arnold will show up on any given day is always a tough question.  He goes through more flip-flops than the Teva Corporation (ba-dum-ching!).  The CDP has a new page on their site chronicling Arnold’s Flip-Flops.  There are plenty of them.  I’d also like to point out another one from an unlikely source, “Ask Dog Lady”, about Mr. Schwarzenegger’s attempts to cut shelter funding.

However, Mr. Schwarzenegger is about to get a bigger test.  The legislature is expected to pass a series of laws that test his “moderate” status. 

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been performing a delicate balancing act in his campaign for a second term — wooing independent voters who are likely to sway the election while trying not to alienate business interests that are helping finance his campaign.

But a number of bills likely to emerge from the Democrat-controlled Legislature in the weeks ahead could test the governor’s centrist strategy at a critical point in his re-election bid. On issues from greenhouse gases to children’s health care to wages for low-income workers, Schwarzenegger potentially faces a series of thorny decisions just as he reaches the home stretch of his campaign against Democratic Treasurer Phil Angelides. (SJ Merc 8/4/06) 

Among the bills that will be headed to the Schwarzenegger’s desk, there will almost certainly be something to do with the minimum wage and likely at least one environmental bill that Schwarzenegger would otherwise veto.  And finally, because Schwarzenegger flip-flopped on health care for all children, expect to see Wilma Chan’s children’s universal health bill .

But, I love how the Schwarzenegger campaign is playing this: everybody knows our guy’s record: 

“I do think the legislative Democrats will try to help Angelides by sending bills to the governor that are difficult to veto,” Stutzman said. “But I don’t think the governor will be solely defined by whether he signs or vetoes them. He already has an established record.” 

Yes, why would the people judge a Governor by what kinds of laws he makes?  Why ever would they look at his veto records?  Why would the people possibly care whether he vetoes some stupid enviromental laws.  I mean, hello environazis, he painted his bus green, isn’t that enough for you! Of course the real problem is that the people of California don’t know his record.  He told us that he was going to provide health care for all children in the state, and then vetoed that.  He told us that he was a moderate, and then pursued a right-wing agenda in the Special Election.  What kind of record is that?

Arnold Schwarzenegger

The GOP duo’s feelings on the Minimum Wage

1 Comment

One of the positions that Arnold takes that is most antithetical to his so-called “moderate” status is his position on the minimum wage.  Sure, he’s happy to raise it a buck now.  But what is Arnold afraid of when he says that he is against indexing.  Indexing would tie the minimum wage to some measure of inflation, presumably the consumer price index (CPI).  If Arnold believes that the state’s minimum wage workers should get $7.75 in two years (as he has indicated), why does he not think they deserve the same amount of real dollars in five years?  In ten years?

More in the extended…

Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, said the bill’s intent was to alter natural market forces that determine what employers were willing to pay for labor.  “In the world of reality, the Legislature cannot do that,” he said. “It may as well command the tide not to come in.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed a less aggressive version of the bill last year, which would have raised the minimum wage by $1 over two years without the Consumer Price Index component.  This year, the governor signaled a willingness to sign a bill increasing the minimum, but spread over three years instead of two and without the indexing provision. Officials in his administration also sought to tie the minimum increase to legislation that would have weakened a law that requires overtime pay after an eight-hour day or 40-hour week.
“The governor’s concern is that this bill ties government’s hands and does not provide the flexibility it needs to address changing economic conditions,” said Vince Sollitto, a spokesman for the governor. (SF Chronicle 9/8/2005)

First of all, Mr. McClintock: You are wrong.  In this reality, the reality that real Americans live in, the minimum wage is an important floor.  Do we really want a country where employers can pay $2/hour?  The answer to a large majority of Americans is no.  Why would we work towards making the poor poorer?  And, I would also point the Republican duo to Myth and Measurement, a report on minimum wage increases by David Card and Alan Krueger that inicates that minimum wage increases don’t actually decrease the number of jobs.  Rather, minimum wage increases stops employers from bottom-feeding and gets more people to work.  And by the way, here in San Francisco, we’re using the tide for our own purposes: energy creation, Go Gav!

No, it’s become painfully clear that the hard-right CRaP (California Republican Party) is concerned more that certain monied interests get a few more bucks than ensuring that our workers are paid a fair wage.  In America, we have standards that must be met.  A constant amount of real dollars, accomplished by indexing, would be a truly fair wage. 

And if we’ve learned anything about Arnold Schwarzenegger since the recall election, it’s that he’s bought and paid for by his “non-special” interests.  You see, according to Arnold and his “running-mate”, Tom McClintock, California’s poorest workers are “special interests” but big businesses aren’t.  See, don’t you get it? Rich people: voices of the people, Poor people: Special intersts.  But whatever you call them, one thing is clear: Arnold always serves his “interests”:

The bill is opposed by industry groups that are among Schwarzenegger’s biggest backers, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and the California Restaurant Association.

Uncategorized

What We Learned From Francine Busby’s Loss

7 Comments

(There are plenty of lessons to be learned from CA-50. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Many expected a perfect storm of discontent would put a Democrat over the top in the June 6th special election to replace convicted felon Randy “Duke” Cunningham, even in the notoriously red 50th Congressional district. So why then did squeaky clean soccer-mom and school board member, Francine Busby lose to Brian Bilbray, a carpet-bagging, former Republican-Congressman-turned-lobbyist, by 4 points, 49% to 45%, especially given the central issue of corruption?

We wanted to find out. So we at The Courage Campaign joined forces with Matt and Chris at MyDD and raised the money and hired Wright consulting to conduct a post-mortem poll of the district. Over 21 days, we spoke to 503 special election voters as well as 188 who voted in 2003/4 but sat this one out. The full results can be found HERE.

Follow me over the flip for a stroll through a summary of our results and analysis.

Remember all the theories that were offered up as explanations for Busby’s loss? We polled them and what we found was that conventional wisdom was just wrong.

Take immigration. Conventional wisdom held that in this Southern California district, Bilbray’s harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric riled up the base and turned them out for the Republican. In actuality, our data shows that Republican turnout was not impressive and, in fact, voters were evenly split between Bilbray’s anti-immigrant rhetoric (44% felt it was closer to their personal view) and Busby’s more progressive immigration message (42%.)

contrary to many pundits, both moderates and Independents were far more drawn to progressive immigration messaging of the sort Busby gave rather than the harsh, punitive rhetoric from conservatives in the district (Q17b and Q17c). It is possible that such harsh rhetoric kept the Republican base together, but it should also be noted that no one, not even conservatives, believe that Republicans in Congress will be able to thwart Bush and enact harsh immigration legislation.

And what about Francine Busby’s eleventh hour gaffe in which she said “you don’t need papers for voting…you don’t need to be a registered voter to help…” to an immigrant crowd?  Some thought that comment single-handedly lost her the election. On the contrary, our results show that the voters who thought less of Busby as a result of her comments were mostly pre-disposed to voting for Bilbray already; in addition, most voters had already made up their minds or had voted by the time this statement was repeated in the media. There is no evidence to suggest that this was the key swing issue in the election.

This “gaffe” was widely publicized in local and conservative media. While the “gaffe” was widely known (61% of voters had heard about it, Q11), and while it hurt her image among many voters (41% of those who heard about it said it gave them a less favorable opinion of her, Q11a), those voters were overwhelmingly within Bilbray’s conservative and Republican base (Q11).

And then, of course, there was the theory that Busby’s base did not turn out. According to our data Democrats were motivated and showed up in huge numbers relative to their registration in the 50th.

Voter registration in the district is 29.7% Democratic, 44.5% Republican, and 25.8% Independent / Other (source here). The partisan breakdown of the MyDD / Courage Campaign poll, which has the final vote results within one-tenth of one-percent for all candidates, was 39% registered Democrats, 43% registered Republicans, and 18% Independents / Others (see Q5). In other words, Democrats turned out in force, Republicans were slightly below par, and Independents barely showed up at all.

After all the theories, after all the armchair quarterbacking, it turns out that it was this very basic fact, that Independents did not turn out for Francine Busby, that cost her the election.

While Francine Busby won a plurality of the Independent / Other vote (she received 40% to 34% for Bilbray) (Q5), given low Independent turnout (18%) and the heavily Republican nature of the district, this margin was insufficient to win the election. One major problem for Busby was that third-party candidates received a surprising 26% of the Independent vote (Q5).

As Chris Bowers has said:

In a district this Republican, in order for Democrats to win, they need a large Independent turnout and a large margin among Independents. Francine Busby got neither.

So then we asked ourselves why this was. Clearly, there was an opportunity here for Busby. While the district is “red,” voter discontent at the federal level runs high.

58% of voters surveyed (60% of all independents) said the country is on the wrong track.  Compare that with just 37% of voters (38% of Independents) who feel California is on the wrong track.

Similarly, Bush approval mirrors that of the nation. Only 36% of respondents approve of the job the president is doing (just 24% of Independents.) By contrast, Arnold Schwarzenegger enjoys a 66% approval rating (63% among Independents.)

In a district where a decisive majority thinks both that the country is headed in the wrong direction and that the President is not doing a good job, how could Busby lose?

Mistake number one: she ran on the “culture of corruption.” This message simply didn’t play. While Cunningham may have been corrupt, since there was no evidence that Bilbray was, Busby could not effectively convince voters that she would be any different.

In an open-ended question where poll participants gave reasons for their vote, less than 2% cited Republican corruption as a reason for voting for Busby (Q9). Further, while people in the district viewed Bilbray as more corrupt than Busby (Q18b), Independents in particular still view Democrats as being corrupt, and as such do not believe Democrats can solve the corruption problem in Washington (Q20a.)

Mistake number two: Francine Busby failed to define herself. While she had positions that distinguished her from her opponent, a cohesive identity did not emerge among voters on either candidate.

When poll participants were given a battery of character and candidate quality phrases, in all but two cases the combination of “neither” and “don’t know” was the most common response…Never once did a majority of participants in the poll ascribe a characteristic to one candidate. (Q18a through Q18h.)

In fact, we found that neither candidate succeeded in making a credible case that they would make a bit of difference in D.C., whether it was Busby’s promise to “clean up Washington” and her defiance of Bush’s war plan, or Bilbray’s stance on immigration, which was well to the right of Bush. In other words:

Voters did not believe either candidate’s vow to change President Bush’s policies…Thus, while Independents hold an outlook very similar to Democrats on a range of people and issues, including the Bush administration, the direction of the country, and public policy, they are not turning to Democrats (or even bothering to vote).

Which leads us to the following hypothesis and strategy for November:

Swing voters want politicians who will stand up to George Bush, stop his agenda, and hold him accountable for problems that have occurred under his watch both at home and abroad.

That’s right, no more “culture of corruption,” and no more laundry lists of things we’ll do if in power. WE WILL STAND UP TO GEORGE BUSH period. Hell, it’s working for Ned Lamont among Connecticut Democrats and we think it can work against Republicans nationwide. To see if we’re right, we’re back in the field doing some follow-up polling, the results of which we’ll be releasing soon. Like the first poll, we’re relying on the netroots to help fund it, so if you’re so inclined, we’re taking donations HERE.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to your thoughts in comments here or over at The Courage Campaign.