CA: Election turnout looking paltry-Activist fatigue,voter disenchantment cited as possible reasons

Sac Bee ^ | 6/3/06 | Laura Mecoy

[NormsRevenge]

MANHATTAN BEACH -- Trying to fire up a lackluster crowd at a "get out the vote" rally, City Councilman Jim Aldinger asked who would be working over the weekend to get Californians to the polls on Tuesday.

Only a handful of the 80 activists raised their hands at the rally Thursday for gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides.

Campaign consultants reported similarly tepid responses from volunteers around the state -- even though an expected low voter turnout and an extremely tight gubernatorial primary could make this year's "get out the vote" efforts more decisive than in past statewide campaigns.

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson said Friday he expects 38 percent of registered voters to cast ballots in Tuesday's primary election. That amounts to about one in four of all Californians eligible to vote.

That would place Tuesday's turnout among the lowest ever for a California gubernatorial primary in a year when the polls indicate this could be one of the state's closest-ever gubernatorial primaries.

"The winner will be the person who has the organization to turn out the vote," said Democratic adviser Kam Kuwata.

--snip--

He said the low voter turnout should give Angelides the edge over state Controller Steve Westly because the Democratic Party and organized labor ...

--snip--

With the special election last year and the 2003 gubernatorial recall, California has had at least one statewide election in each of the past four years.

"The activists are kind of burned out from election to election to election campaign activity," said California Labor Federation Political Director Bryan Blum. "There is only so much time they can devote year after year for elections."

The federation still plans a final flurry of "get out the vote" activities, with precinct walks and phone banks scheduled from Sacramento to San Diego.

[FairOpinion]

Must we go through this for the umpteen millionth time?

It's Arnold OR a Dem. Defeating Arnold -- which you and your little group advocate tirelessly and viciously -- under the guise of "conservatism"-- WILL INEVITABLY RESULT in a leftist Dem, Angelides of Westly being elected.

THEREFORE you ARE advocating electing a leftist Dem as CA governor.

Simple logic -- ANYONE with a modicum comprehensive ability can see this.

QED.

[calcowgirl]

Simple logic is absent in your post.

I do not advocate Democrat wins. I advocate holding our elected officials to their campaign promises. Arnold ran as a "fiscal conservative" and has failed to act as one. When he fills his office with leftists, appoints leftist judges, pushes through costly enviro-wacko programs, etc. I will criticize him for it. If Republicans don't hold him accountable, who will? Certainly NOT the Democrats!

By the way, he just appointed another leftist last week (to head the Dept of Corporations). NAACP Legal Defense fund, husband of anti-war activist and civil rights attorney. Maria sure can pick 'em!

[calcowgirl]

I'll give ya credit for that one. 'Bonus points' will require a bit more. ;-)

[Torie]

Here is an interesting little factlet. 27% of "conservatives" favor free nursery school, funded by taxing the rich. What you we to make of THAT?

Conservative Yes No   Undecided
             27% 63%   10%

Meanwhile, on the flip side, 30% of liberals oppose it. 

[calcowgirl]

I'd say 63% of them have it right.

Field poll:

Voter preferences about Proposition 82, the Pre-School Education Initiative 
(among likely primary election voters) 
Would vote…
                         Yes    No    Undecided
Conservative             27%    63    10 
Moderate                 42%    42    16 
Liberal                  61%    30     9

[Torie]

One would think it would be more polarized. It suggests that the labels have a certain lack of content to them. Even more odd is that the numbers are even in the Central Valley (pretty conservative), as well as pretty even in the very liberal Bay area, and LA County, with the most pro area Nortern California outside the Bay area (quite conservative). It is only Socal outside LA county, where the numbers are pretty decisively against. It is a very odd pattern, and suggests that liberals without kids, or well to do, are against, and conservatives with kids, and not well to do, are for.

Conservatives will take hand outs with the best of them. That is my hypothesis.

[calcowgirl]

Some of the articles I read could offer other reasons.

The way the law is written, many people who already send their kids to preschool (and can afford it) would be covered in this plan. As such, many of the super-liberals oppose it because they think it should be more of a welfare program for the poor.

On the right side of the aisle, you see opposition for many reasons:
- Oppose state funding for more social programs
- See it as an opportunity for Reiner-like-minds to get access to children earlier
- See the requirement for credentialing of pre-school educators as unnecessary and destructive to many private institutions in operation today
- etc.

[Torie]

So why do 27% of conservatives support it? I offered my hypothesis. What's yours?

[calcowgirl]

Stupidity?

I do agree with your first statement that "It suggests that the labels have a certain lack of content to them."

[FairOpinion]

If Arnold gets defeated in November -- WHO, if not a DEMOCRAT will be governor????????????????

By advocating Arnold's defeat, you ARE advocating a Dem victory. FACT. PERIOD.

And how come I never see you criticize the DEM LEGISLATURE?????????? who IS the main cause of CA's problems. What do you think will happen when we have a Dem governor and a Dem Legislature?

[FairOpinion]

"But I have posted that McCain is tempermentally unsuited to be president, come to think of it. Do I get bonus points for that?"


NO, but you get my agreement. :)

[calcowgirl]

By advocating Arnold's defeat, you ARE advocating a Dem victory. FACT. PERIOD.

Please quite posting lies. Do you even read my posts before responding? I have not advocated Arnold's defeat. One more time, I said:

I advocate holding our elected officials to their campaign promises. Arnold ran as a "fiscal conservative" and has failed to act as one. When he fills his office with leftists, appoints leftist judges, pushes through costly enviro-wacko programs, etc. I will criticize him for it. If Republicans don't hold him accountable, who will? Certainly NOT the Democrats!

And how come I never see you criticize the DEM LEGISLATURE??????????

Pardon me? Now I know you don't read my posts! I criticize their actions all the time! And I keep hoping our Republican Governor will correct those actions by use of his Veto Pen.... alas, to no avail.

[calcowgirl]

Correction:

Please quite quit posting lies.

[Torie]

Here is an interesting poll that just came out within the last hour in California about Bush. First, there is not much difference in Bush approval ratings vis a vis Hispanics, Asians, and Anglos, with Asians being the most pro Bush by a bit. What is more interesting, is that the more education you have, the more anti Bush the numbers, right up the line, with those with post graduate degrees being 77-19 negative on Bush, but the generally most pro GOP group, those with just a college degree, being also hostile, while those with a high school degree are the most pro Bush. That is quite curious. The overall numbers of course are terrible for Bush.

Education                     Approve  Disappove
High school graduate or less 	36% 	55 	9 
Some college/trade school 	30% 	65 	5 
College graduate 	        25% 	66 	9 
Post graduate work 	        19% 	77 	4 

[calcowgirl]

Interesting poll.
I note that 23% of "Conservatives" say they favor Feinstein over Mountjoy.
I surmise these are the same "Conservatives" that want the state to pay for preschool baby-sitting.

[Torie]

Ping

[Miss Marple]

Here is my explanation, in a nutshell. The more educated the voter, the more likely they are to watch CNN, pBS, and read Time of Newsweek. More educated people also have friends in academeia, law, or the tech industries...and peer pressure is a factor in political opinion. I don't find it so curious.

[Torie]

They don't watch Fox News, or surf the web to check out NRO or Weekly Standard? Who reads Time or Newsweek anymore, except on the net, when it was de rigour reading, hard copy, by mail, when I was a kid? The dirty little secret is that the media is less monolithically liberal than it used to be. Trust me. I was there to witness the creation, back before rocks cooled.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Not too surprising. I figured out some time ago that the Democrat party's base of support is from all the extremes... the extreme rich, the extreme poor, the extreme overeducated (without common-sense) and the extremely stupid. The GOP represents everything in between those polarized areas.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"The dirty little secret is that the media is less monolithically liberal than it used to be."

I've seen little evidence that that is the case. There may be more outlets, but what has been liberal for decades remains so (if not even more than once was). Decades ago, most major cities had at least one prominent Conservative paper, and you're now hard-pressed to find ANY. Even many of the media conglomerates (often founded by Conservatives) are now quite liberal. To me, an oft-cited "fact" by the left is how quite a few outlets are "owned by Conservatives." That may be true, but it doesn't particularly matter who OWNS it, if the publication's editorial staff remains firmly on the left. I guarantee you wouldn't find many left-wing owned outlets that would tolerate a Conservative editorial staff.