Daily Archives: August 28, 2006

California

Phil within 4.7% (Zobgy/WSJ) Some Terrible Campaign eh?

7 Comments

(while there are some questions about zogby, i think the race will be close. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I get so sick of hearing how bad Phil A. is campaigning when it’s obvious he’s more interested in actual voters than media attention at this time. That’s GOOD campaigning. While the lead that Phil initially had BEFORE Gov. Muscles started campaigning has slipped it is a very good indicator that the margin is this close at this time.

Even though I have a LOT of experience I’ve kept my mouth shut because I’m over involved in Federal Campaigns.

But now we have a new Zogby/Wall Street Journal poll that should put to rest the TERRIBLE CAMPAIGN MEME. Phil A. within 4.7% with a MOE of 3%. And the WSJ doesn’t do junk polls.

You don’t have a terrible campaign and be this close before Labor Day. Phil is making huge connections up and down this state with actual voters and not relying on TV just yet. Eventually he’ll have to and I hope he brings his A game to that effort.

Yet it’s my conviction that he will do better overall be doing the one thing that all the Republican winners have done for years, up to Gov. Muscles, and that’s press the flesh until they couldn’t stand it and press it somemore.

There’s even a name for campaigning up and down Hwy 99. It’s the ‘Pete Wilson Strategy’ as it energizes an entire voting block that is usually forgotten by Democratic candidates as the area isn’t a Democratic  strong hold.

Yet Phil is up and down the Great Valley without stop and into the Coast as well.

More power to him. Use the media when you need to but press the flesh of an actual voter whenever you can. Too many Democrats have forgotten the basics of winning elections, IMHO, and that’s one.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California

Arnold: The money goes in, the favors go out.

In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy for governor by claiming that he would fight politics as usual.

Here’s how it works: Money goes in. Favors go out. The people lose. We need to send a message: Game over.(CADem.org)

Has that happened? Well, qualitatively we all know that this hasn’t happened.  We know he’s taken hundreds of millions of dollars. We know he’s been a slave to corporate interests.  He’s vetoed bills that his corporate masters don’t approve of.  He fights for corporate interests at every turn, and he’ll throw anybody under the bus for few bucks or some added power.  Unions, the environment, uninsured children, you name it.

And we’ve seen how the money comes in with unsuprising timing.  But, he’s also been so obvious as to engage in a pattern of appointing big donors to government positions.  This from the not-so-liberal San Diego Union Tribune:

But Schwarzenegger has carried on the political tradition of providing favors – in the form of coveted state appointments – to generous campaign donors.

At least 13 of Schwarzenegger’s appointees, their spouses and their companies have contributed more than $1.4 million to his campaigns, according to campaign disclosure forms and a review by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has received sizable campaign contributions from people he has appointed to the Del Mar Fair Board. Contributions include money given by the board member, spouse and businesses owned by either.

Schwarzenegger has hired some donors for key positions in government, but has also made several appointments that bestow prestige rather than pay. He has named five major donors or their spouses to the unpaid Del Mar Fair Board, one of the most sought-after appointments in state government. (S.D. U-T 8/28/06):

Incidentally, one of the appointees: Brent Wilkes, the good buddy of Duke Cunningham and Dusty Foggo. He’s since resigned.  Do you think it’s because ol’ Brent is a known agent of bribery?

So Arnold: The money comes in, the favors go out. Now we just have a whole lot more money coming in, and a whole lot more favors going out. You want change? Vote Phil. Vote Yes on 89.

Uncategorized

how far are we to the magic 2/3 majority?

3 Comments

while i’m aware that CA’s bipartisan incumbant gerrymandered districts make swinging much of anything difficult to say the least, and while getting to that magic number would not guarantee that said democrats actually voted to do such a thing,  i noticed that the CA democrats would need only 5 assembly seats and 2 senate seats to override the governor’s veto, pass a budget, or raise taxes.

while i’m really hoping that we can just get angelides in the statehouse outright this election cycle, getting to that magic 2/3 number would make the whole budgetary process a hell of a lot simpler, and bypass the yearly headache of begging republican budget votes with pork barrel party favors and pledges to go into debt w/ bonds rather than just fund government like responsible adults.

so my question to the house is this: is there any hope of taking some of those state seats, or is it locked up and our hopes of passing budgets in some semblance of sanity impossible until the next redistricting? in a big dem year like ’06, can we squeeze some wins out where nobody’s looking?

Uncategorized

What’s in the R. poll of CA Independents

4 Comments

(The GOP is pushing the push-poll line – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I posted this at my DD as well.  I was polled by phone about an hour ago and I want to share what was in it with any curious Californian.  See “extended text.”  I use “cuvdog” as my id at myDD.

CA Democrats: what’s in the R “poll” of Independents.
by cuvdog, Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 09:54:35 PM EST

I was polled by telephone at 6 pm Sunday.  I am a “Decline to State” in CA-48.  I’m sure I was targetted because I live in a red Congressional district.  I’m sorry that I didn’t record the poll better; if you ask questions about particulars I’ll do my best to remember.

You know the drill in telephone polls.  My poll centered on Bowen vs. McPherson and Brown vs. -?-.  Chung?  There were questions on some of the others but not many.  I was also asked about voter id, electronic voting, trust of elections in CA, and abortion.

Again, if I’ve missed anything, ask.  I’ll do my best to remember. 

I was to rate 1 to 5 my likelihood of voting for candidates based on specific statements (5=definitely yes).  I was asked negative questions about Bowen, positives about McPherson.

Bowen’s negatives:  Enron investment and not returning the money, in favor of the car tax, in favor of giving illegal aliens drivers licenses.

McPherson’s positives:  Bipartisanship, unanimous approval of his appointment by the Legislature, elected to office though a Republican in Santa Cruz, opposition to car tax, opposition to illegal aliens’ drivers licenses, his endorsement by the CTA, support for making the office of Secretary of State nonpartisan.

I was asked about Jerry Brown, negatives of course, and nothing about his opponent.

Jerry Brown negatives: two questions on his opposition to capital punishment, his support for a prisoner’s Bill of Rights (mention of pornography), his support for an “incest exception” for fathers with their own daughters, his support for gay marriage, his tenure as mayor of Oakland (a “violent city”).

I was asked if I favored making it such that people have to produce identification to vote.

I was asked if I trusted California elections.

I was asked an up or down question on electronic voting.

I was asked a 5-step nuanced question about abortion.  Step three: I’m against partial birth abortion and in favor of parental-informed laws, but basically pro-choice.  Step four:  I’m against partial birth abortions but am pro-choice.  Step five:  I am pro-choice.  Government should not be involved.