(Another perspective. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

x-posted on MyDD

Think of this as a follow up post to Matt Stoller’s post that touched on wasted money in CA, why we came close too losing a seat and why Arnold’s landslide victory didn’t come with coattails.

In the year and a half I have spent out here in California I have learned a lot of things.  One of the biggest lesson is that politics is just bigger here, especially the money.  $646,091,654 was hauled in by all campaigns in California this year alone.  One person can give $100,000 to governors races.  Anyone with $1 million can pay people to gather signatures and get an initiative on the ballot.  Once it is up there they can collect unlimited sums to pass it.

Yeah, I know all of this sounds like an endorsement for Prop. 89, but it isn’t.  That initiative was way before its time and tried to do to much at once.  The way to campaign finance reform in California is public financing of elections that does not just rely on corporate taxes to finance it.  Reforming the ballot process needs to be dealt with separately.  The attempt this year to do both at the same time and make corporations pay the biggest burden allowed way to many people who should be endorsing public financing to work for its defeat.  It should help kick off a discussion of the next attempt at reform, but that was not the vehicle.  It will take a number of years of coalition building to get it passed.

The other major thing I have learned, particularly this year is that the California Democratic Party is pretty ineffective.  Here is the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs writing over at the insider CA Majority Report.

As Joel Wright put it, the California Democratic Party simply failed. The Party says it attempted about 750,000 contacts. As of the end of October, it had made about 135,000 actual contacts. With 7.1 million registered Democrats, Democratic registration at about 42% and dropping, decline-to-state at about 20% and rising and a headwind of considerable speed at the top of the ticket, we might think that a bit more attention would be given to voter contact and turn out; it was not. And even though the state is hopelessly gerrymandered, what might have happened in a year of a Democratic tsunami had a real turn out machine been at work? Might we have won at least the Doolittle seat in Congress? Might Propositions 86 and 87 have passed?

They had 51 offices across the state and hired organizers.  We got little out of it.  The CDP is contending that they focused their efforts in LA County, where turnout was 3% higher than 2002.  The problem with that is that 2002 was historically pretty low turnout levels.  We were looking to reach 1998 numbers and failed miserably.

While our GOTV was bad, the Republicans was even worse.  They spent $20 million on a micro targeting special, run by the supposed genius Matthew Dowd.  Arnold refused to campaign with the other statewide candidates, but promised them that the big GOTV operation would make up for it and bring them to victory.  It didn’t.

The effort, Victory ’06, cost $20 million. It was a colossal failure. Just take a look at the relative voter turnouts in two important counties for each partisan camp.

In Alameda County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 4 to 1, turnout was 55 percent. In Riverside County, where Republicans enjoy a big advantage in voter registration, turnout was 35 percent.

To be sure, the Riverside turnout percentage will rise after all the late absentee ballots are counted, but this much is clear: Republicans weren’t able to turn out their voters.

55 is pretty bad, but man 35 is atrocious.  Arnold campaigned for himself.  While he won 93% of the his own party that made it to the polls, he did nothing to encourage them to get there in the first place.  Yesterday, the major independent pollster laid out what happened for the press.  This is from the LAT political blog.

Craptacular Turnout: “Another way that California distinguished itself from the U.S. in this election was voter turnout,” DiCamillo said. “While turnout was up nationally, interest was high, here in California we probably set an all-time low for a statewide election in turnout. It’s hard to believe that we would have a lower turnout than the [Gray Davis-William Simon gubernatorial] race of four years ago, but it seems that way, all the votes are not yet counted but it will probably be somewhere in the 50% of registered voters as a turnout. We’re probably looking at a structural, long-term factor of low turnout. In primary elections we’re looking at 1 out of 3 registered voters turning out. In general elections we’re looking at about 1 out of 2. I think that’s going to carry on for the foreseeable future.”

Really Absentee Voters: “A lot of this has to do I think with the changing demographics of California voters,” DiCamillo said. “If you look at the two fastest-growing voter registration groups…they’re Latinos and nonpartisans. Both of those voting groups are much less frequent voters than older voters, white voters, partisans. In the primary, for example, 89% of all voters were Democrats or Republicans. So even though we have this massive increase in nonpartisan registration, they don’t show up at the polls. They’re infrequent voters.”

So what should have been spent on politics this year?  Matt is absolutely right about voter registration and outreach to Latinos.  Our problem in California is not that the public does not support progressive values, it is that the voting public does not reflect the demographics of California.  The PPIC put out an interesting poll in August that compared the political opinions of voters to non-voters.  I am borrowing liberally from Frank Russo’s post.

Bond issues such as the affordable housing bond (Prop 1 ) would easily pass. 80% of nonvoters would support it, but fewer (49% according to the PPIC, higher according to other polls) of likely voters favor this bond issue.

California would provide more services and pay higher taxes. Nonvoters prefer higher taxes with more services to lower taxes and fewer services 66% to 26%, but likely voters are in favor only 49 to 44%.

Even Proposition 13, limiting property taxes, might be changed?or at least a dialogue started. Nonvoters think this has been a bad policy by 47 to 29%, but likely voters think it has been good by 56 to 33%.

Odds on the Governor?s re-election would also change with nonvoters disapproving of him 61 to 21% as compared with voters approving 48 to 42%.

It would be easier to meet the two-thirds requirement for passing local special taxes including school construction bonds.

There are large racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences between voters and nonvoters that underlie much of the differences in opinions:

The majority of likely voters are age 45 or older (62%), have household incomes of $60,000 or more (56%), and have college degrees (53%). By contrast, the vast majority of nonvoters are younger than age 45 (76%), and only 18% have household incomes of $60,000 or more, and only 17% have college degrees.

Although no racial or ethnic group constitutes a majority of Californians, whites are 70% of likely voters, and Latinos, Blacks and Asians are underrepresented in the voting population.

Although one in three adults in California are foreign born, 90% of likely voters are native born.

A vast majority of likely voters (77%) are homeowners whereas 66% of nonvoters are renters.

The bottom line is that while our party’s efforts were bad, the Republicans are even worse.  Voters in California are not representative of residents.  We need to put together a massive grassroots voter registration drive and GOTV effort.  California can lead the way for the rest of the country, but we will not move forward by spending $40 million on progressive ballot initiatives that don’t have a shot because we don’t have the voters in the first place.  There is a lot of potential here.  The Republicans have already started moving right.  They have no bench behind Arnold.  We can ensure Democratic domination for decades, but he have to put in the hard work.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

At first I applauded yesterday’s announcement of Dem candidate for CA Lt. Guv John Garamendi’s Monday press conference with Stem Cell Initiative Founder and Bd Pres of the Calif Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Bob Klein and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom on the importance of stem cell research to the nation. (University of California, 600-16th – in front of Genentech Hall, St. San Francisco, 12:15pm. Be there.)

Like many of us, I’d been following the delicious way Rush Limbaugh turned Michael J. Fox’s recent ads on behalf of Dem candidates who favor medical research into a national news story.

Then I got to wondering how much – if anything – is known about the truly critical choice California faces in the Lt. Governor race. After all, most of us, even if we live in CA, don’t know much at all about the L.G.’s scope of work, let alone it’s relationship to stem cell research. And if we live anywhere else, we certainly can’t be expected to understand why this CA race should be of national concern.

More below the jump. I’ll unpack and shed some light.

In 2004, a great year for turnout, 59.1% of Californians voted for Prop. 71, which asked

Should the “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” be established to regulate and fund stem cell research with the constitutional right to conduct such research and with an oversight committee?

Read the summary from Smart Voter.

Fast forward to 2006 and the Lt. Guv’s race, where California’s significant 2004 victory could be stalled – if not crippled – because of a back-door effort by the far right to elect Tom McClintock – a staunch foe of 71 – who promises to block stem cell research. And because the largest promise for that research, by far, lies in California, with McClintock in the Lt. Gov’s chair, all Americans will lose.

You can hear what this poster boy for neo-conservative public policy says about many of the real life issues we care about. Garamendi’s folks quote him on video.

Wearing the white hat we have John Garamendi. Enviro, articulate advocate of universal health insurance and staunch supporter of stem cell research on humanitarian, public health and economic grounds. Icing on the cake: he knows perhaps as much about the challenges and possibilities for election integrity as Debra Bowen

Happily, significant elements of the CA msm are coming out in favor of John Garamendi, and, thanks to Mr. Fox, there is more coverage of stem cell research as a political albeit non-partisan issue. How nuanced that coverage will be remains to be seen. A crowd at Monday’s press conference may help.

I don’t know when California last had a remarkable Lt. Gov, but read about the powers of the office and consider who you want making decisions about your health, your education, the air you breath, the water you drink. Think about what it will mean when the second highest Constitutional office in the state – with one of the largest economies in the world – is held by a man who is absolutely committed to convening the best minds to create a universal health plan for CA.  A man who has the political will to implement it. Consider what it means for all of us.

I asked Don Reed, Co-chair of Californians for Cures why I should care abut the out-come of this race, and got an earful:

Imagine if you really truly hated something–I mean genuinely despised it, so much so that you were publicly listed as first in the official opposition to it–and then were given POWER over it?

That is the situation California’s new stem cell program will face, if conservative Republican Tom McClintock becomes Lieutenant Governor.

McClintock’s opposition to Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Act is definitely not a secret. On the voter pamphlet his name is the first one listed among the enemies of the research program.  

“Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Tom McClintock, California State Senator’…”http://ca.lwv.org/…

So how does Mr. McClintock feel about Proposition 71? He calls it “a self-serving sham…perhaps the worst ballot measure that we’ve seen over the past decade…open season on  California taxpayers…” Reporter Marc Strasman of California Politics Today interviewed McClintock, and said he (McClintock) “compared the proponents of Proposition 71 to snake oil salesmen who come into town, take the people’s money, and leave them poorer… Private companies… would `make out like bandits’ while citizens will not even have the right to ask about what the research is buying.”

This evidences a flagrant disregard for the truth. I have attended virtually all of the 84 meetings, and the public is not only welcomed to attend but also invited to participate in every decision. To the best of my knowledge Mr. McClintock has not attended any of the meetings, so he may wish to claim ignorance.

His remarks reveal a contempt for the research, which I find troubling. “Snake oil”? I have personally held in my hand a laboratory rat which had been paralyzed, but which walked again after having been treated with embryonic stem cells.

As the father of a paralyzed son, I am eager for the research to move forward, and it frustrates me to see rampant ignorance getting in the way. The lawsuits already blocking full implementation of Proposition 71 are backed by opponents of the research very much like Mr. McClintock’s supporters among the religious right.

As Lieutenant Governor, McClintock would place up to five members on the oversight committee that runs the stem cell program.

What kind of people might he appoint? It is scary to consider.

As a Californian, McClintock, is staggeringly out of step with the state he wishes to lead. This is perhaps why he came in third in a recent gubernatorial election.

As a Senator, how has he done? Not many politicians can claim to have received F grades from groups as widely varied as Sierra Children’s Advocacy Institute, Congress of California Seniors, Planned Parenthood, American Association of University Women, Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality, California Labor Federation, California School Employees Association, Consumer Federation of California, the Alliance for Better Business — just to name a few. http://www.garamendi.org/…

Who supports McClintock? The Religious Right, for one. http://www.sfgate.com/…   If anyone thinks the Religious Right supports the  California stem cell program, they should please let me know, I would be glad.

He is spectacularly funded, more than $3 million for his campaign, (http://www.electiontrack.com/…) compared to rival John Garamendi, with (I think) under $1 mil.

Bottom line: this race is not in the bag and it matters. It quite directly matters for stem cell research, for environmental protection, for health policy and for leadership and investment in education.

The money trail is particularly daunting. As with the races for CD-11, CA-50 and CA-4, the Repugs are pouring resources into this race. As of the end of October, McClintock had $852k on hand compared to Garamendi’s $290k. I leave it to wonkier minds than mine to make sense of the contributors.

So what can we do? If we can get to San Francisco this Monday, we can show up at the press conference and demonstrate popular support for Bob Klein, John Garamendi and Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Before heading out to phone or canvass, we can do the drill: Get Informed, Get Involved, Contribute. We can show up and beat the drums and we can spread the word. Count this diary as part of spreading the word: worth doing if many people read it. So please, recommend, comment and do all you can do to keep California Blue. And sane.