Replies

re: special elections and turnout ...

You make a good point. Had the special election been about a candidate, or a social issue like immigration or abortion or guns, we might well have won. But when a special election is about a union-related issue, the union can brainwash its members and the people who are close to them. In this case, unions convinced people that their jobs, salaries and pensions were threatened. (Americans are always nervous about their economic prospects anyway.)
The intensity of self-interest on their side overcame the less-intense interest in the common good on our side.

Not hard to see in advance. The time to talk about the common good is in a regularly scheduled election when the marginal folks are more likely to be voting anyway.

I think Arnold wanted to avoid running for reelection next to a set of propositions that look for reform at the same time.

I think Arnold has no choice at this point, that the left is gunning to remove him.

He needs to make lots of appearances to discuss the problems on radio and television. Maybe he should go to a few basketball and Monday night football games and should get two minute interviews for himself for free.

The unions blew their financial wad and are beyond broke. They are certain there will be no similar propositions against them in 2006. But there needs to be propositions in 2006 that bring out the conservative base, that are appealing to the so called moderates and that jeopardize government employee unions and teachers again.

OK, maybe he doesn't want to directly place the propositions I'm talking about there, but he needs to get some pack or private interests to set them in place for 2006. It's good for the state and himself as well.