Posted on 11/22/2005 6:32:44 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO - A microcosm for what went wrong for Gov. Schwarzenegger in this month's special election can be found in part of East Highlands.
The San Bernardino County area supported the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis. More than half of its registered voters are Republicans, like Schwarzenegger.
Yet 53 percent of voters there opposed the centerpiece of Schwarzenegger's "year of reform" agenda: Prop. 76. They also opposed another Schwarzenegger-backed measure, Prop. 77, the redistricting initiative. Across the region, places where voters backed the 2003 recall and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger swung against the governor Nov. 8 and opposed the propositions he promoted, particularly Prop. 76.
"I would just prefer that he work through the Legislature," said James E. Ward, of Riverside, who supported the recall but voted against Prop. 76 and the other three measures endorsed by the governor.
Ward, 72, lives in an area near Riverside Community College where, in 2003, about 56 percent of voters supported Davis' ouster. Two weeks ago, though, only 43 percent of voters there backed Prop. 76.
The measure would have limited state spending and given the governor more power over the budget. On the campaign trail, Schwarzenegger said people should vote for the proposition because it would build on the recall and improve state government.
Ward didn't buy it.
"I don't think the initiative way is the way to have good government," he said.
The turnaround evokes an era when the Inland area frequently was up for grabs at election time.
In recent years, though, Republicans have solidified their political dominance in the fast-growing region. Only a handful of Inland Democrats hold state or federal office.
Schwarzenegger's campaign team was banking on those trends to help cancel out opponents' coastal strength.
Statewide, voter turnout was about 43 percent. But in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, turnout was in the mid-30s. The governor's supporters and GOP activists have blamed this month's result in part on the Inland area's low participation.
Semi-official results and 2004 voter registration data, though, indicate that in some parts of the Inland area, significant numbers of Schwarzenegger's fellow Republicans opposed the governor's propositions, as well as Democrats and independents.
Most voters in some GOP-leaning precincts around Redlands, Yucaipa and Calimesa opposed Prop. 76, for example. In Riverside County, Republican-leaning precincts in Riverside, east Hemet and Desert Hot Springs also seemed to go against the measure.
The semi-official results also suggest that Schwarzenegger aides were wrong when they predicted that having Prop. 73 on this month's ballot would boost support for the governor's measures. Prop. 73, which failed statewide, required teens to notify their parents before having an abortion. In Riverside County, a majority of voters in 564 precincts backed the proposition. Of those, though, Prop. 76 passed in only 263.
fyi
---unfortunately sometimes, the voters get what they voted for--those that didn't vote need not complain--
Very interesting. (in my best Arte Johnson voice)
I'm confused. On earlier threads, I heard a number of folks doubting that conservative areas' GOP voters "sat on their hands" (didn't vote) or outright opposed 74-77. This article seems to confirm exactly that, for San Berdoo county anyway.
I suppose San Bernardino could be an "outlier" area rather than typical of conservative counties?
They consistently elect Ray Haynes.
Numbers are a funny thing. When someone wants to spin a story, they can come up with almost anything. This article focuses on Props 76 and 77 alone, both of which contained a host of conservative reasons to oppose them.
Had the same presentation been done based on Props 73 through 75, the author would have found that the Governor's initiatives were strongly supported. Take Riverside as an example. Voters supported Props 73 through 75 by 59.2%, 52.2%, and 54.1%, respectively. Republicans represent 46.5% (1,163,778) of registered voters in this county.
This author is attempting to spin this as voters being "against the governor" or "hurting Arnold." Perhaps if he performed an adequate analysis, he would see that voters probably saw the initiatives as less about Arnold and more about the content of the measures themselves.
The conservative Republican who elected Schwarzenegger expected him to act conservative. He didn't. His actions were those of a traditional liberal. Increase the size of government, increase spending and force increased taxes.s
They expected him to propose spending decreases. He didn't. He proposed spending increases.
They expected him to veto the big budgets submitted to him from the legislature. He didn't. He approved them.
They expected him to cut spending to balance the books. He didn't. He borrowed money to support the spending increases.
Thye expected him to decreas taxes and fees. He didn't. His actions and policies increased taxes and fees and for good touch transfered an extended burden to their children.
None of which are reasons why they should not have supported Props 74 and 75 overwhelmingly. You're just talking about hatred and/or distrust of Arnold (the latter, not undeserved!). If conservatives vote No (or refuse to vote Yes) on conservative measures just because Arnold happens to be identified with them, they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
The article didn't say that. The article said that Republicans who voted against Davis two years ago voted against Prop 76 this year.
Prop 76 wasn't a conservative measure by any stretch of the imagination. It tried to do 3 things (incidentally against California law -props are limited to one concept) and did each poorly. Prop 76 was simply bad legislation which is often the case with initiatives.
Republicans touted it as method to guarantee a midyear correction during an emergency. Democrats called it a power grab. It was neither and it was both.
Republicans worked hard to bury the fact that for a second time, after promising the electorate that he wouldn't, Schwarzenegger again asked the electorate to bypass constitutional protections and borrow more money to finance general fund expenditures.
Schwarzenegger was never asked and never admitted that Prop 76 gave his lending buddies a free ride if California ever hit the skids again. Prop 76 protected the Prop 58 lenders, and only the Prop 58 lenders, from having to renegotiate their payments if California goes bust. Prop 76 put everything on the table in troubled times except repayment of the Prop 58 bonds. They were to be repaid before California paid anyone for any reason.
Prop 76 presented an unspoken promise with flawed logic. The unspoken promise was that a bloated budget could be trimmed by the executive without the advise and consent of the majority in the legislature and it could. The flawed logic came when the author of the bloated budgets is examined.
It's the executive, not the legislature. Why would the executive drastically reduce spending when they proposed and promoted the spending? They wouldn't. If the executive were willing to make the "hard changes", the executive would have never made the bloated proposal in the first place and/or would have vetoed a bloated budget given back to them by the legislature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.