Posted on 01/13/2006 4:35:43 PM PST by FairOpinion
A recent poll shows the born-again "moderate" Republican governor has gained back some popularity, especially in the Bay Area, and is now in a dead heat with Democratic competitors.
"Our survey demonstrates that Schwarzenegger's retreat from the more conservative rhetoric and agenda he brandished during the latter part of 2005 has paid off among middle-of-the road voters," said Melinda Jackson, director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University.
The governor's job performance rating among voters in a Democrat-leaning state has climbed from 36 percent positive and 53 percent negative in September, to 40 percent positive and 51 percent negative this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidebayarea.com ...
Those are high conservative vote areas and all had low turn out, even by your numbers.
Actually, it isn't explained by that. I had saved the numbers the SOS published right after the election, and in all the counties listed above, the change from initial results reported to final reported numbers ranged from 0.4% (Kern) to 1.5% (San Joaquin). San Diego went up 1.0%, the remaining counties listed either 0.7% or 0.8%. The data included in that blog appears to just be bad data.
http://www.oc.ca.gov/election/Live/e29/results.htm
Orange county itself shows it only had a 26% turn out in some areas which was pathetic.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/13/MNG0JFNH1L1.DTL
Republican strongholds left Schwarzenegger in the cold
Past allies were no-shows at polls -- or opponents
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Stockton -- Voters in some of California's most reliably Republican counties deserted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in droves Tuesday, either sitting out the special election or working actively against the governor's political agenda.
While Schwarzenegger's supporters argue that the landslide defeat was a one-time reaction to an unpopular special election, it's a result that threatens the chances of Schwarzenegger -- and other Republican candidates -- in next November's statewide elections.
It wasn't easy for Jessica Anderson, a high school administrator from Stockton, to vote against the governor's initiatives. A registered independent, she supported Schwarzenegger in the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis and is generally satisfied with the job he's done, but couldn't back him in the special election.
"I didn't feel (the initiatives) were as clear or as thorough as they should have been,'' she said as she sat outside a Starbucks in Stockton. "I'm for reform and for our governor, just not for the way these were done.''
In addition to independents like Anderson rejecting the governor's agenda, Schwarzenegger suffered from low turnout in Republican strongholds around the state.
"You want to know what our problem was?" said Todd Harris, a spokesman for the governor's campaign. "Just look at the turnout in places like Riverside and San Bernardino counties.''
While the statewide turnout was 43.2 percent as of Friday afternoon, it was only 36.2 percent in San Bernardino County and 37 percent in Riverside County. The turnout was a dismal 30.9 percent in Stanislaus County and 39.5 percent in San Joaquin County, even though both have Republican majorities.
"The Republican base was lethargic and demoralized by national events, as well as what was happening in California,'' said Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento. "It was a tough time to energize Republican voters.''
Schwarzenegger's opponents didn't face the same problem. Measures on teacher tenure (Proposition 74), public employee unions (Proposition 75) and state budget reform (Proposition 76) directly threatened labor unions and education interests, while a plan to change the reapportionment process (Proposition 77) could have cost Democratic leaders as many as 10 seats in the Legislature.
They aren't my numbers--they are the Secretary of State numbers, which are clearly at odds with the blog data you provided to support your argument.
Low compared to what? Special elections always have low turnouts, with the exception of the Recall which. What source are you citing? Here is the historical participation in Special Elections:
Registered Votes Cast % of Registered Nov. 6, 1973 S 13,512,000 9,089,819 47.62 Nov. 6, 1979 S 15,083,000 10,006,957 37.38 Nov. 2, 1993 S 20,797,000 14,524,623 36.37 Oct. 7, 2003 S 21,833,141 15,383,526 61.20 Nov. 8, 2005 S 22,487,768 15,891,482 50.14Comparative Voter Registration and Participation in Statewide Elections -- 1910 through 2005
Regardless, none of the figures support your contention that Conservatives didn't turnout, as their is not partisan participation available, let alone information on "conservative" participation.
??? Your link takes me to the Congressional election for the 48th district where John Campbell beat Steve Young (and Jim Gilchrist) to replace Chris Cox.
I'm sorry--you are correct. The first numbers reported were very low and do explain the difference. They were corrected as of December 17, or earlier. I was initially comparing the final results to those that they reported on December 17, and only saw the 1 point difference.
That also explains the numbers reported by the SF Chronicle, that reflected the earlier numbers (which didn't include over 1 million absentee ballots, apparently).
A. I am not a Republican Party Operative. I do not receive a wage nor am I involved in any Republican Operations.
You, however, have never answered my question as to which party YOU are involved with. It's obviously not Republican, given your nonstop despisal of them while you pretend to use Ronald Reagan as your straw-man "icon" that you might twist posts and reality while you pretend to be a conservative.
Now then. In re yours to me:
Not that a Republican Party operative from the Carolinas would even care but as long as the misinformation is being published as flippent gospel ( Prop. 187 never died a legislative defeat; it was strangled in the courts), I'll correct the record:
Go back and reread that Post #836, where you *think* you are quoting me. You aren't.
I was citing Peter Robinson of National Review. Dollars to donuts Mr. Robinson, not known for skewing and excerpting data and cites in order to score points, was more than likely referring to the majority win of 187 IN 1994 by the people of CA, and how the Dems and ACLU dragged 187 to Judge M. Phaelzer who overturned the will of the people. However, you must jump ahead, instead, to a later event with regard to 187 in your bizarre post? Read on.
I'll cite John Guzzardi at VDare: Not, IMHO, a Republican nor necessarily conservative website:
Hmmm. Should I, Joseph R. Guzzardi, your humble correspondent, be a candidate to replace the despised Gray Davis as Governor of California?
Nevertheless, I have this advice for those still in the hunt: if you want to win high elective office in California, talk about the elephant in the living room - immigration. If you want to waste your time, your money and ultimately fail, pretend there’s no such thing.
Pete Wilson, the last Republican winner, attacked illegal immigration. Bill Simon, Tom Campbell, Dan Lungren, Matt Fong, etc never mentioned the “I” word and were buried at the voting booth.
To get an insider’s perspective, I spoke with former Republican California Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, the chairman of the Recall Gray Davis effort, to ask if he thought immigration would be an issue.
“No,” said Kaloogian without a moment’s hesitation. “This recall effort is about the $35 billion deficit and the energy crisis.”
Yeah, yeah. My friend and VDARE.COM colleague Steve Sailer predicted this would be the official response.
But Kaloogian’s theory of what may motivate voters has two glaring flaws:
Illegal immigration is inexorably tied to the budget deficit. Californians pay nearly $10 billion annually to educate K-12 non-English speakers. Add a few billion more for Medi-Cal services to illegal aliens and lo and behold you’re talking about one-third of the state’s deficit.
Californians really don’t understand the energy crisis. We know there was malfeasance, we know we got screwed but we don’t really know what happened. When I asked 10 friends—all college graduates—to explain step by step how the energy crisis evolved, none could respond. But guess what? They all knew about and understood illegal immigration! And that subject made them hotter than the energy debacle.
Illegal immigration has been a festering boil with California voters since 1999. That’s when Davis, in a smoke-filled room deal with then Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, the California Latino Caucus and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, killed Proposition 187, a citizen’s initiative to ban services to illegal aliens. Five million Californians voted for Proposition 187.
For a blow by blow account of how the slippery Davis, constitutionally bound to defend Proposition 187, instead worked in tandem with the Mexican government and its agents to ax the measure, see this link to Glenn Spencer’s American Patrol.
Of special note in the sordid, sickening saga is Davis’s romance with Zedillo. In February 1999 Davis, in one of his first official acts, flew to Mexico to woo Zedillo. And three months later, Zedillo toured California with Davis at his side.
After Davis completed his dirty deed, Antonio Villaraigosa, then California House Speaker and never one to miss a chance to add his two cents said, "As leader of the State Assembly, I say President Zedillo had a great impact in defeating Prop. 187."
Echoing the sentiments of enraged Californians, FAIR Executive Director and lawyer Dan Stein said:
"In no democracy in the world are the results of an election overturned without the voters having their day in court - that is, until today. The decision to drop the appeal of Prop. 187 has absolutely nothing to do with its constitutionality. This is a capitulation by Governor Davis to pressure from an elite group of pro-illegal immigration politicians and organizations. The implications of this are as frightening for the future of self government in our country as they are outrageous."
Davis’s refusal to support the will of Californians prompted American Patrol’s Glenn Spencer to initiate a recall effort. Not least because of a total news blackout by the mainstream media—not one word was written - the recall effort failed. But that was then and this is now.
----end of snips
Here, below, we now have Steve Chapman, assertively more Libertarian:
"Today's action signals that the era of hate politics is truly over." So said Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante of California in 1999 when Democratic Gov. Gray Davis dropped the state's appeal of the federal court decision that had overturned Proposition 187.
Bustamante's provocative rhetoric raised an obvious question the liberal media was never inclined to probe: What did Prop 187 have to do with hate?
Enacted in 1994, the proposition was completely colorblind. Foreign nationals residing illegally in California, it said, would not be entitled to attend public schools or receive state-funded social services or non-emergency health care. It did not target taxpayers of any particular ethnicity for relief from this burden, nor did it target illegal aliens of any particular ethnicity for denial of state funding. All taxpayers were relieved; all illegal aliens were denied state funding.
California voters were never confused about this. In 1994, 59 percent voted for Prop 187. In June 1999, one month before Davis suspended the state's legal defense of the law, a Los Angeles Times poll indicated that 60 percent of registered voters still approved of Prop 187 and only 35 percent opposed it.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger voted for Prop 187, and has named former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, the proposition's most prominent supporter, as co-chairman of his campaign.
Republican State Sen. Tom McClintock, also running for governor, is making illegal immigration and Prop 187 top issues.
"I intend to enforce all provisions of Proposition 187," McClintock said in an Aug. 25 interview with the editors of Human Events.
"When it was challenged it was the governor's responsibility to defend it," he said. "(Gray Davis) refused to discharge that responsibility. I intend to see that Proposition 187 does have its full, fair hearing in court, and the best way to do that is to begin to enforce it.
--end snips
And now we have Glenn Spencer, American Patrol:
Governor Davis Spurns Five Million Voters, Kills Prop. 187
September, 1999 -- FAIR
In a transparent effort to appease ethnic interest groups, newly elected California Governor Gray Davis has used a blatantly rigged legal maneuver to overturn the will of 5 million California voters and kill Proposition 187, the law that banned state funded non-emergency benefits for illegal aliens.
California's Proposition 187, a voter-sponsored initiative, was passed in 1994 by 59 percent of the vote. Opponents challenged its constitutionality, and immediately got a favorable ruling from U.S. District Court judge Mariana Pfaelzer. The judge used tortured reasoning to block the law, and many observers felt her decision was unlikely to survive on appeal.
As the chief law enforcer of the state, Governor Davis was constitutionally bound to defend the law, even though he had been an outspoken opponent of 187 when it was an initiative. So, in a maneuver designed to avoid having Pfaelzer's ruling overturned by a higher court, Davis entered into a legal "mediation" with 187's opponents. Thus, both sides in this contrived "mediation" process were out to scuttle the law. Not surprisingly, both "sides" in the rigged mediation procedure quickly agreed to kill it.
-end snips
(Wait for it; there's a glaring contradiction revealed later in this post).
Re read that article again: Glenn says that 'BOTH SIDES" blew it. You lay this at Pete Wilson's feet. When in fact, the local "groups" and activists (conservs and Republicans) standing up for 187 during the 1999 event were PART AND PARCEL of the so-called "negotiation" group. And Glenn implies they "meant" to blow it.
BS.
So, now tell me where you got YOUR information from. Got an url? Or just your recollection?
Oh, wait, let me add another from Glenn Spencer:
Gray Davis said that Proposition 187 was passed by the people in a process designed to go over the head of governors like himself. He said that as a governor he is not a judge and he promised to uphold laws passed by the people. People interpreted that as saying he would support Proposition 187 and defend it.
Proposition 187 was scheduled to be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at the about the same time Gray Davis became governor. Instead of allowing it to proceed through the appeals process on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Davis, according to recall advocates, devised a scheme to derail it. He performed what some are calling a partial birth abortion on Proposition 187. He called it mediation.
Mediation is designed to bring two sides of an issue together to try to reach an out of court settlement, thus saving everyone time and money. In this mediation, however, only opponents of Proposition 187 were invited.
--end snips.
Again... In this mediation, however, only opponents of Proposition 187 were invited
I remember this. Republicans, Conservatives, Grassroots were CHECKMATED in 1999 by what Gray Davis and his usual gang pulled.
But you want to turn this into a witchhunt against "REPUBLICANS" and by pretending you are a "conservative". So, again, please provide the source of your post. You?
While the statewide turnout was 43.2 percent as of Friday afternoon, it was only 36.2 percent in San Bernardino County and 37 percent in Riverside County. The turnout was a dismal 30.9 percent in Stanislaus County and 39.5 percent in San Joaquin County, even though both have Republican majorities.Final Numbers per Secretary of State:
That grassroots effort paid dividends Tuesday. Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced counties, which voted overwhelmingly to replace Davis with Schwarzenegger and then backed both of the governor's budgetary initiatives in March 2004, had a total turnout of 39.5 percent.Statewide turnout 50.14% San Bernardino County 42.97 Riverside County 44.39 Stanislaus County 43.05 San Joaquin County 44.28So, it was low turnout that helped his measures before. Perhaps the confrontational campaign, motivating high union turnout in the bastions of liberalism did not work to his advantage?
The nine-county Bay Area, one of the most Democratic regions in the state, had more than 46 percent of its 3.3 million registered voters cast ballots.
The final turn-out number for the nine-county Bay Area turnout was 56.01%.
The people who did turn out, Republicans as well as Democrats, consistently rejected Schwarzenegger's initiatives, even in most areas friendly to the governor. Only Orange County, alone in supporting all the governor's initiatives, and the small Gold Country counties of Sutter, Placer and El Dorado supported both Prop. 76 and Prop. 77.
They did not "consistently reject Schwarzenegger's initiatives." 33 of 58 counties favored Prop 73, 27 counties Prop 74, and 34 counties Prop 75. 32 counties passed both Props 73 and 75, the two most conservative measures. Voters did selectively reject Props 76 and 77, which passed in only 5 counties, each.
Schwarzenegger's supporters can't argue that the voters who did go to the polls were too liberal to back the agenda of a Republican governor . Many of the same voters who rejected his initiatives turned around and voted in favor of Prop. 73, a measure sponsored by anti-abortion groups that would have required doctors to inform a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on an unmarried woman 17 years old or younger. In San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced counties, the parental consent initiative won 55 percent of the vote or better. It pulled 64 percent of the vote in Merced County.
Prop 73 passed by greater than 65% in 4 counties, more than 60% in 12 counties, and by more than 55% in 24 counties. However, in the nine-county Bay Area, it was defeated by 67%. This is the same area that also opposed Prop 75, with 64% voting against it.
There's a way for even the humble partisan to avoid embarrassment and disrespect on this forum yet still participate. Stop posting convenient ignorance, whether RNC mantra or uninformed opines designed to make the Kool Aid more appealing. This forum is no stranger to political partisans behaving as trolls. There have been many. Some are Democrat but most are Republican.
A common trait, after arriving, is for faithful trolls to quickly attempt to distribute their brew:
And yet, Ms Saunders and others seem to suggest that Schwarzenneggr should take a "Wilson" approach, and do the right thing (stand on "conservative principles),
When the ingredients of their hallucinogen are discovered and disclosed by a watchful local, they lash out:
Give it a rest. You are not legit. If I wanted to talk to a Democrat, I'd go to THEIR forums. I prefer to not talk to liberal operative Democrats in Free Republic, meaning, YOU.
The Republican party faithful should come to FreeRepublic. To learn, to contribute but not to troll for converts. Not to sour the mix, or insist upon imported ingredients but rather to learn from some accomplished chefs, using local ingredients and time honored recipes.
From my last post to you, You have no commentary on your SUPERIOR "facts" (of which you are not backing up through url, just your recollection, it seems) against those of Peter Robinson, National Review.
Do you think Mr. Robinson has "no idea" what he's talking about? Do you think he's a "Republican" hack? Do you think he doesn't represent the "real genuine conservatives".. like... you?
No need to discuss, eh? Just your need to go after me personally.
Same ole' tactic from you, Amerigomag: Slash and Burn politics while pretending you are a conservative.
Conservative Orange County 35.75%
That pretty much the best barometer as to how many conservatives came out. The conservatives did not come out in numbers at all.
You have to also figure that since the numbers reflect all voters and because we know every teacher/union/government employee came out to vote, that the number of Republicans/conservatives that came out were few compared to normal.
So the numbers were both low and heavily skewed toward all the opposition who were present to vote along with their families that election.
I had public employees at my door when they were off duty trying to get votes against these props, I've never had that before.
It's an apathetic California conservative voter in some elections that screws us.
The Governor and people can only give us propositions for the people to vote on when the Legislature of the state are extremely liberal as ours are.
The Legislature is s screwed up that if the people don't act when the people or Gov gets behind props, then all we are doing is emboldening more liberalism by not voting.
IMO, we should have at least all come out to pass the union proposition.
Can you please cite which comment in Amerigomag's post you are challenging as inaccurate, requesting a URL to support it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557792/posts?page=859#859
Other than Judge Pfaelzer being cited as Judith vs. Mariana, I can't see anything in his post that is inaccurate.
I can only believe that you are now trying to misrepresent the data or do anything possible to bolster your unsupported contentions.
The number you quote (35.75%) is the percent of votes cast to ELIGIBLE voters, not REGISTERED voters as is quoted in all of the other news stories and on this thread.
Secretary of State website: Voter Participation Statistics by County (PDF FILE)
While I agree with that, most of those not directly affected by unions probably thought it was an issue to be dealt with by the union and its members. Union members were motivated to show up to vote--others much less so as they didn't think they had a dog in the fight. It was also reported that the Proposition would have limited impact had it passed.
CA: Prop. 75 loophole limits its impact - Advocacy by unions would still be legal.
They were trying to make it more difficult to use union dues without permission and that put the fear of God into all the corrupt union leaders.
Are you up to speed in the most recent happenings regarding the schools in Orange County?
I believe they don't have enough students to justify all the schools now based on projections of future numbers.
This to me means the teachers union will try again to get some of the school sites sold and will try and have that money go to their salary increases.
Many schools were funded by bonds over the next 20 years and the money made from any sale I assure you will not go to pay off those bonds.
These are crooks, and I've seen this situation many years ago as a kid. Many campuses were sold and later they claimed they needed more campuses and they had to be built and financed with bonds again being the teacher's union got to spend the money from selling the old schools.
Lots of corruption regarding the teacher's union.
They are a major cancer within CA politics.
I agree. I hate the unions and the corruption within. But this measure would have done little to nothing to curb the actions you speak of. And, they certainly have nothing to do with the bogus argument and inaccurate figures you have been posting contending that it the loss of Prop 75 was due to "conservatives not voting." I note that you did not acknowledge the bogus numbers you were trying to float in posts #884 and #893 above. Why not have an honest debate, with honest information, about how to fend off the liberals instead of always blaming it on the conservatives?
The proof of the inaccuracy of your assessment of that prop would be the hundreds of millions they spent against the prop and the way they mobilized their people to vote.
How can you say this was nothing when the unions responded like their very existence depended on it?
Sierra--you tried to declare this thread dead at 200.
Amerigomag said something about "undead" at 700.
What do we call it at 900?
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.