PPIC released its latest statewide poll, and as you might expect for a governor who walked through the feces that his predecessor left all over the floor, his numbers are down slightly.  However, it’s not that they disapprove, so much as they just aren’t sure.

In the poll, 49.5 percent of adults said they weren’t sure what to make of Brown’s job performance, compared to 33.7 percent who approved of it. Last month, 39 percent of California adults said they were unsure about Brown’s job performance and 41 percent approved. (CalWatch)

His big test will be this budget, and whether he can shepherd it out the door.  His numbers are ultimately going to rest on what happens in the likely June special.  Meanwhile, the Legislature is down in the low twenties.

The poll also included several questions about health care.  Apparently roughly one-half of all Californians want to lose weight.  Meanwhile, large majorities are satisfied with their health, and similar numbers call themselves generally happy.

 

Did you hear the good news?

On Sunday, my campaign released a new poll of 400 likely 10th Congressional District special primary election voters that found our campaign holds a double digit lead over other Democratic challengers. When initially asked, 31 percent of likely voters chose me, while Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Assemblymember Joan Buchanan, and Anthony Woods received 21, 17, and 9 percent of the vote respectively. When voters were given a rundown of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, our lead grew to 36 percent, compared to 22, 20, and 9 percent respectively. The poll was conducted by respected California pollster Ben Tulchin. If you are interested in more information, please see our press release and Ben Tulchin’s memo. We are understandably excited by the results.

But enough about polls. In three weeks (or now for those who vote-by-mail), the people of the 10th Congressional District will face a choice. The challenges we face in Washington and in our region are as complex as they are diverse. The debates over health care, economic development, and education will shape the course of our society for decades to come, and I think I am the best candidate to fight for our side on each of these issues in Washington.

More over the flip…

I’ve seen the videos on YouTube and the blogs; I know what health care reform is up against. We need leaders in Congress who have stood strong for single-payer health care and have the pedigree to demand attention to the issue. I served eight years as California’s State Insurance Commissioner, where I was a resolute advocate for universal access, and during my time in the California legislature, more than 20 of my bills addressing the health care issues impacting California, CD 10, and the nation at large were signed into law. In Congress, I will join progressive Democrats in continuing the fight for single-payer health care. I think a robust public option is an acceptable compromise given the political realities we face, but I also believe that any health package without the public option is a wasted opportunity, and that is why I signed Dr. Howard Dean’s pledge to demand the public option.

We also need a leader in Washington who understands the importance of embracing our new green industrial revolution. I talked about the subject last week at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at UC San Diego, and I would encourage you to read my prepared remarks here. As the chair of the California Commission for Economic Development and chair of the California State Lands Commission, I’ve worked hard to promote job-creating industries that point the way to a cleaner economy.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, UC Berkeley, and a number of community colleges or CSU campuses are either in CD-10 or employ many residents of CD-10, and these institutions lead the way in cutting edge alternative energy research, green building modernization, and other green industries. Congress will look to CD-10’s representative for guidance on these issues, and that is why we need a leader in CD-10 with a proven track record of addressing sustainability and green innovation. As a state legislator, I authored the first high speed rail bill and the first alternative energy tax credit in California. My work is directly responsible for the wind turbines that exist near Fairfield and Livermore. In Congress, I will work closely with President Barack Obama, his green jobs advisor Van Jones, and my fellow members of Congress to craft legislation that propels us to a green future. Given the harmful effects of climate change, the rapid industrialization of developing nations, and the need to create pathways out of poverty for many struggling Americans looking for long-lasting employment opportunities, this may be our most important mission for the next 20 years.

But the green economy is not possible without a renewed commitment to education at all levels. California is near the bottom in per pupil spending, and our colleges and universities have seen drastic student fee increases, course cuts, and staff reductions. If we do not invest in a generation fluent in math, science, technology, and reading skills, we will fall behind as a nation and stint our growth. As a University of California regent and California State University trustee, I have never supported an undergraduate fee increase. At CSU this upcoming academic year, budget cuts forced the system to reduce their qualified student enrollment by 45,000 students, robbing those students of their future potential and our state’s future growth.

I’ve pushed those bodies to back an oil severance charge to help reduce the cuts to higher education. When the state is suffering and students are being denied admission, why should we allow the oil companies to extract our oil for free? In Congress, I will fight for federal funds to help boost career technical (vocational) education and to bring more interactive technology to the classroom. Our global competitors have already prioritized scientific and technological literacy; we must catch up.

My vision and my record are clear, and I am proud to have received endorsements from President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, General Wesley Clark, the California Teachers Association, California Nurses Association, California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO), and a number of local officials and unions. I am honored by the outpouring of support I’ve seen in my run for Congress, and our polling reflects what I already knew from the hundreds of doors I’ve knocked on and the dozens of community events I’ve attended. I am the frontrunner in this race, because the voters believe I am ready to bring a powerful voice to Washington on the issues that matter most to our health and future economic prosperity. If you support my campaign, thank you. If you’ve volunteered for us, thank you even more. If you would like more information, please visit our website at http://www.garamendi.org. As the only candidate who has represented all corners of the 10th Congressional District, I look forward to continuing my public service in Congress, working with you to fight for a brighter future.

Dave Johnson, Speak Out California.

As the state’s budget woes grow it is increasingly difficult to gauge what the public wants (or even understands.)  The information channels are stuffed with corporate/conservative propaganda and astroturf like the “tea parties” but there is little comprehensive, accurate and truly objective information available to help the public understand what is happening.  For example, few stories about the budget explain that a minority of only 1/3 of the legislature is blocking the passage of a budget, or that a budget was passed by the legislature in January and was vetoed by the Governor.  Few stories explain the extent of budget cuts the state has already made.

The uninformed public isn’t helping solve this.  Turnout for the special election was only about 28 percent of our 17.1 million registered voters, which is about 20% of the 23,385,819 eligible voters.  So the election didn’t tell us what about 80% of our citizens want to do.  It did show that a solid majority of 20% of us didn’t want those particular ballot initiatives. But what does this mean?  While 31% of Los Angeles County voters were for proposition 1a, just this last November 68% voted for the Measure R sales tax increase. This corresponds with other gauges of the meaning of the special election.  So the special election provides little guidance for policymakers.

An April Field Poll of Californians showed that Californians are against raising taxes and against cutting school budgets, health care and higher education.  Should we conclude from this that they are just in favor of bankruptcy?  Before we conclude bankruptcy is what people really want, we need some polling to see if people understand what it would mean to their own lives.  For example, do pepole understand the economic effect from laying off all of the state employees, teachers, etc., closing down the schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, prisons, and stopping all the firefighting and police services that people expect.  Are they really in favor of this, or do they just not understand what they are asking for?

Meanwhile, the poll found that 74% approve of increasing taxes on millionaires, and 56% favor legalizing and taxing millionaires marijuana.  So maybe there is some guidance from that.

These figures on taxes are supported by an April 15 Gallup poll finding that 48% of Americans think they are

paying the proper amount of taxes, but 60% believe the wealthy are

under-taxed (and “23 percent think they pay their fair share, and 13

percent feel that they are overburdened”).

The SEIU has just released a TV ad which they will be spending $1 million to run, along with a new website,  CommonSenseForCA.org. They are asking for a balanced approach to fixing the budget, not just through cuts but also with new revenue.  Here is the ad, and please visit the website. 

Let us know what you think.

Click through to Speak Out California.

In a diary Robert wrote this morning, a commentor “Sane Democrat” unleashed a troll-worthy response of how Democrats are dependent upon a few voting blocs: Millionaires, Gays, Welfare recipients, and State/municipal workers. Of course he is wrong on the underlying statement that we are dependent upon these voting blocs, but we do have the support of those voting blocs.  I was suspicious of his categorization, so I thought I would take a peek at the data. You know the real facts and all. Luckily, the Field Poll recently (7/24/08) released a poll of the generic Congressional ballot and the crosstabs are available via CapitolAlert here.

The thing is, Democrats have the support of all but a very few voting blocs in the state. I’ll rattle them (mostly)  off here:

the egregiously poor, the working poor, the middle class, the upper middle class, the wealthy, Whites, Asians, African-Americans, Latinos, Catholics, the employed, the unemployed, renters, homeowners, high school graduates (or less), trade school graduates, college graduates, postgraduates, union members, non-union members, super liberals, mildly liberals, middle of the roaders, youngens, young-ish folks, middle aged, seniors, married Californians, divorced, never marrieds, people in LA, people in the SF Bay Area, other NorCal folks, people in the Central Valley, women, men, and, oh yeah, Democrats.

phew! That’s a lot of voters who prefer Democrats. The list of voters who prefer Republicans: San Diego/Orange County (within the MoE), Other South (within MoE), strong and moderate conservatives, Protestants (within MoE), and Born-again Christians (within MoE), and oh, yeah, Republicans.

Ordinarily, you would say that we should have 2/3, if not more, of the Legislature. Unfortunately, if you are bothered by such things, we have clumped ourselves in such a manner so that we live almost exclusively with like-minded people. Thus, Republicans congregate in certain regions, as do Democrats, and drawing maps where we can win, say 80% of the seats, is tough, if not impossible. But, I’ll spare our readers of another lecture on redistricting other than to sayNo on Prop 11.

Wow, it’s a good time to be a Democrat; now we need to consolidate and expand these leads through grassroots action.  Oh sure, I guess you elected officials can come along for the ride…

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento

For the week ending November 3, 2007

Key bills and issues we’ve been following during the

Past week and beyond

This is usually a pretty quiet time in Sacramento. While this situation remains pretty much the case,  the slowly dying Special Session still remains. With the big battle over water ending in a stalemate, the debate over  health care reform showed a glimmer of activity this week as the Assembly Health Committee held a full-blown hearing on the Governor’s health care proposal. There wasn’t any progress to speak of, although the Speaker, Fabian Nunez pledged to keep working to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, few in Sacramento believe either side will make necessary concessions to make that happen.

When times are slow, polls become more interesting-at least to those political wonks who are otherwise suffering withdrawal from relative inactivity. This week was no different as the well-respected Public Policy Institute of California came out this week with the latest on several fronts. Among these are whether the people feel California is moving in the right direction or not (which is just another way of asking whether people are optimistic and hopeful about their future) and how the Governor would fare should he decide to take on Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010 for the U.S. Senate. As you can see, a lot of inside baseball here, especially since even the baseball season is finally over.

The ballot measures for 2008 are again coming to life, especially since right-wing Congressman Darrell Issa, who brought us the Davis Recall in 2003, has announced he will bankroll the return of the Electoral College measure. For those who thought this blatant right-wing power grab was dead, this measure will split California’s electoral votes from a winner-takes-all to a split of electoral votes by Congressional District. Translated, this would likely give the Republican candidate 20 electoral votes—or the size of Ohio or Florida. Since the Republicans haven’t won California in years, this is as good as giving them a 40 vote turnaround in the Electoral College, enough so the conventional wisdom holds, to steal the election for the Republicans. And since it is felt that Rudy Guliani is the one most likely to benefit from this ploy, and there are many dirty footprints leading to his door on this measure, the Dems are howling. All this makes for good copy, of course, and keeps the political junkies busy during an otherwise slow period before the election cycle kicks in. Of course, this year, the election cycle seems to have started months ago and seems to be in overdrive already.

With so much bad press recently for Speaker Fabian Nunez’s spending habits, the Term-Limits/Extension measure Prop. 93 appears to be sliding out of favor dramatically with California’s likely voters. Added to the woes of current members hoping to extend their terms in office is the announcement by billionaire State Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, that he will help bankroll the opposition to the measure. Even though the supporters of the measure have a substantial war chest, this measure looks like it may go down with a big thud.

And now for the week’s goings-on:

Health Care in the  Governor’s Special Session

The Governor finally got his opportunity to publicly roll-out his insurance-based health care plan. With his normal theatrical flair, the measure had a full hearing before the assembly Health Committee this week. Ever gracious Health Secretary Kim Belshe, presented the Governor’s now more specifically formulated proposal to a skeptical committee. Because the measure assumes that the insurance industry remains in the play—and in fact, insists upon it, there was no discussion of one of the fundamental questions in the entire debate: what benefit (if any) does the insurance industry bring to the delivery of health care to Californians? The Governor’s proposal simply presumes a benefit, although it is seriously challenged.

In fact, the basic premise of real universal health care is that there is one entity that is responsible for paying out to the healthcare providers (like the very successful and cost-effective  U.S.  Medicare/Medical system). No insurance companies, no profits, just one agency that oversees payments. That allows everyone to choose their own docs and healthcare providers who will be able to practice without insurance company interference, get paid a fair fee and discard all the bureaucratic tape of having to deal with the thousands of different plans in California alone.

But, unfortunately, the Governor’s proposal would require that all Californians buy health insurance and on that basis all Californians would be covered. Even assuming for the moment that this is a good approach, the Governor’s proposal makes the purchase of insurance mandatory, but doesn’t say what that cost would entitled us to receive and doesn’t cap the cost that the insurance industry can charge for the various services, medications, etc. that we would be getting for our premium payments.

Without any controls, the measure was predictably poorly received. In addition, there is no agreement on how to fund the program. The Republicans won’t support any system to pay for the coverage and the Dems don’t like the mandatory requirement aspects of the proposal. The Governor wants to cap employer contributions at 4%, but this is even less than what companies who are already contributing for health premiums are paying now.

During the hearing, it was exposed that the Governor’s proposal is not clear as to who is covered under the mandatory provisions requirement. Nor is there a mechanism to contain costs of premiums that the insurance industry can charge.

Another cause for concern is that minimum insurance would mean minimum coverage, so that those unable to afford much would likely end up paying for something that doesn’t provide them with the care they would need anyway- meaning they would be paying for nothing…not a very good system.

About the only point of agreement in all this is that insurance companies would not be able to reject providing insurance (such as it would be) for pre-existing conditions. Although this might seem to be a good place to start negotiations, neither side appears to be willing to concede on any of the above mentioned points. This is often referred to as a stalemate.

Hopefully, at some point, we’ll be able to get back to a meaningful discussion of whether healthcare should be available to everyone and if so, how we can construct a profit-based, yet more cost effective and equitable system to delivering meaningful healthcare to all?

For an excellent piece on the problems with the Governor’s proposal, check out Consumer Federation of California’s Richard Holober’s piece here.

Polls: a snapshot of what the people are thinking today

When times are slow, polls take on a particular interest. This week’s offerings from the highly regarded Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) are no exception. One of the most consistent areas the PPIC investigates is how the public perceives the present and future- taking the pulse of the public’s optimism or pessimism regarding the days to come. While it tends to fluctuate significantly, trends are often discernable and serve to highlight the kinds of policies and leadership the public wants or believes it is getting.

Right track or wrong track?

The current pulse shows that Californians are evenly divided on whether they believe the state is on the “right track” with 42% believing we are and 42% believing we’re on the “wrong-track”. For those who think we’re headed in the wrong direction, 21% cite immigration and uncontrolled borders as the reason we’re going the wrong way. This represents a 6% increase from the 15% who felt immigration was the number one problem in California in 2005. Thirteen percent of those who think we’re headed down the wrong path cited education and school cuts as the second most serious problem in the state.

Those who believe the picture is rosy and headed down the right path attributed their optimism to the Governor (21%) while 19% attributed it to the state’s economy. For a further discussion of this data, check out the Sac Bee article here.

The importance of college and higher education

And while on the subject of higher education, a strong majority of Californians believe that one of the keys to success is obtaining a college education. Sadly, 56% of Californians believe is harder to get that education today than it was a decade ago. The PPIC poll shows that an impressive 76% see our state’s higher education system as a key- to our quality of life and economic well-being. There is little doubt that we need to do more in California to improve access to this vitally important path to economic opportunity and well-being. For more on this subject, check out Frank Russo’s excellent piece here.

Boxer vs. Arnold for U.S. Senate in 2010:

For real political wonks, polls showed that if there were a match-up today between Senator Barbara Boxer and Governor Schwarzenegger, it would be a statistical dead heat. While this has many progressives concerned, the governor insists he has no interest in the seat and doesn’t intend to challenge the Senator who, by virtue of her seniority, now chairs the very important Senate Subcommittee on the Environment. While one would like to take the Governor at his word, he has been known to change his mind at the very last minute—as he did when he announced his decision to run for Governor on the Jay Leno show. Not only did that announcement shock his staff, but his wife as well. So, we’ll have to stay-tuned on that one.

New or re-heated  initiatives on the horizon

Just when we thought the right-wing power-grabbers were sufficiently embarrassed and humiliated to put the Electoral College scam measure on the ballot, they’ve found a new champion to come to their rescue in the form of Darrell Issa redux. This is the measure that was originally fronted by a group with the ignominious distinction of being led by a Republican operative best known for biting the backsides of women. While this measure would certainly bite the back-side of democracy by breaking up California’s electoral votes, and possibly handing the Republican presidential candidate an undeserved victory in the 2008 Presidential election (not exactly something new), it needs a quick insurgence of cash to ensure it can qualify for the November 2008 ballot. With only a few weeks left to qualify, we’ll be seeing a lot of paid signature gatherers misleading unsuspecting voters to sign their petitions. It will be ugly and is already the subject of litigation as the Dems are not going to let this piece of undemocratic mischief see the light of day, if at all possible.

Proposition 93- The term limits/expansion initiative

The measure, sponsored by the leadership of both houses of the legislature, got some bad news this week as the polling shows that support for Prop 93 plummets dramatically when the public discovers that it will give sitting members additional time in the legislature. While the current term-limits rule has wreaked havoc on our legislative system, this proposal has far too many skeptics seeing it as an obvious attempt to keep the current leadership in power longer than it should be. Given the negative couple weeks Speaker Fabian Nunez has had over his disclosed uses of campaign funds, it is little wonder that the public is souring on this measure. For more on this story, click here.

From the Speak Out California In-box

While we often receive emails from our readers (who for some reason would rather email than post on our blog!), this week was particularly heavy on concerns and outrage over Senator Dianne Feinstein’s support of Judge Mukasey’s confirmation. Several of you were indignant that the Senator would support a candidate who will not condemn water-boarding as torture. While we generally try to focus on California issues and activity within the state, we, too, are very concerned about approving someone who hasn’t the courage or perhaps the moral compass to condemn torture sanctioned by the government of the United States. We urge those who share this concern, to let Senator Feinstein’s office know of your displeasure. Certainly, at the least, we as Californians are entitled to know why she has given her critical vote to confirm under these circumstances. To contact her office, click here.

The Rest of the Story

Our blogging offerings for the week:

Keeping big business happy at our children’s expense— A look at the conduct of the federal agency tasked with protecting our health and safety as consumers and as parents, while our children are exposed to dangerous and unsafe toys.

The Power of the Words, We the People— a look at how “we”, the people, are really “we”, the government.

To read and comment on these entries just go to:  www.speakoutca.org/weblog/

Until next week,

Hannah-Beth Jackson and the Speak Out California Team

Welcome to your Saturday Night EENR! Tonight’s theme is a big blue map.

Tonight’s stories below the fold:

• Bill Maher Stalked by Big Blue Map
• Carpenters Building a Big Blue Map in Nevada
• True Blue Majority
• YouTubes You May Have Missed
• JRE Diary Roundup

Bill Maher Stalked by Big Blue Map

Suddenly, big blue maps are showing up everywhere! Talk show host Bill Maher is even being stalked by one. Check it out sneaking up behind him in this next clip! Oh yeah, and John Edwards is in the clip too.

I will be carefully checking Open Secrets after next quarter’s fund raising reports come out. I expect Bill Maher to put his money where his mouth is, otherwise you never know what that big blue map may be capable of. Mwahahahahahahahahaha!

Carpenters Building a Big Blue Map in Nevada

In Nevada today, John Edwards spoke to the Carpenters Union, which has endorsed him, and laid out his plan to train low-income workers and connect them to good paying union jobs.

“Right now, our public jobs programs send job seekers into low-wage jobs and do nothing to help build the middle class. I have a plan called Training Works to connect hard-working Americans to smart training for good-paying, union jobs that actually exist,” Edwards said at the Carpenters International Training Center.

Along with his Training Works plan, which includes Career Ladders to train low-wage workers on the job for higher-wage, higher-skilled jobs in their same field, Edwards talked about his Green Collar Jobs program to create over 1 million new jobs in the ‘new energy economy.’

Carpenters Union International General President Doug McCarron spoke about why the Union has chosen to endorse Edwards.

“The Carpenters Union chose Edwards as the candidate with the best chance of winning the White House and the person who will best represent hard-working families,” Carpenters Union International General President Doug McCarron said.

The Carpenters Union is one of the largest and most politically active unions in Nevada. The union, which represents over 12,000 members in the state, endorsed Edwards last month. Edwards has also received support from the United Steelworkers of America and the Transport Workers of America, giving him the largest bloc of labor support for any presidential candidate in Nevada.

McCarron continued, “John Edwards has committed to campaign in all 50 states when he wins the nomination. He believes that all Americans, whether they see themselves as Democrats, Republicans or Independents, want real change and bold leadership, and he is confidant that his message of telling the American people the truth and fighting for real change will win these voters and states.”

And this segues nicely into our next story…

True Blue Majority

Yesterday, John Edwards was in California to receive the official endorsement of the California SEIU, 656,000 members strong. During his speech, Edwards described his True Blue Majority initiative, a strategy to campaign in all 50 states and build a super majority for the Democrats in Congress.

“The press and the pundits think the most electable candidate is the one with the most money and the most ties to Washington,” said Edwards. “The problem is the press and the pundits have confused the candidate who would win an election inside the Beltway with the candidate who can win an election in the rest of America. I believe any candidate who takes money from lobbyists and special interests is not electable, and I believe any candidate who defends the broken system in Washington will not win.

Edwards continued: “The most electable candidate is the one with the best ideas who is committed to bringing change to every corner of America. The people who want change don’t just live in blue states or big cities. They don’t just live in swing states – they live in every state in this country, and on every street in America. I believe that if we offer real change, if we reject the broken system, say no to the corporate interests and stand once and for all with the people, nothing can stop us. We’ll not only win the White House, we’ll elect super-majorities in the House and the Senate as well.”

Just how likely is it that Edwards could win over red and purple states and help candidates for the Senate, the House, and on down the ballot in those states?  Plenty likely, according to a Global Strategy Group polling memo released earlier this week.

The memo by Edwards campaign pollster Harrison Hickman examines polls from many different polling organizations to come to its conclusions.

Nationwide general election polling shows John Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the 2008 general election for President. Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani. Against the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards’ average margin of victory is identical to or better than that of Barack Obama, and significantly higher than Hillary Clinton’s average margin.

Edwards also outperforms the other Democratic candidates in match-ups with Republican candidates in key battleground states including Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio. Further, unlike other Democrats who must “run the table” in states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play. This provides alternate scenarios – and a margin for error – when it comes to amassing 270 electoral votes.

More detailed analysis is available in the memo.

There’s the big blue map again! It’s following me!

YouTubes You May Have Missed

Here are two YouTube videos from the Edwards campaign that came out two days ago, but they don’t have very many views.  I didn’t see them, and I suspect you may have missed them too.

You Are The Guardians

Rebuilding New Orleans

JRE Diary Roundup

John Edwards is Fighting to Restore Real American Leadership by jamess
Iowa shakeup, California SEIU WILL work for Edwards in Iowa by Wade Norris
Following Senator Edwards’ Example on FCC Media Consolidation Question by Karita Allegheny
John Edwards is a Friend to Women by Todd Bennett
Hope… by Chaoslillith
Edwards for a True Blue Coalition by AJ WI

Contribute to turn the map blue! Remember, your donation is matched up to $250.

We’re big! We’re bad! We’re blue! Let’s get MEAN!