Posted on 11/12/2006 8:13:41 PM PST by calcowgirl
WHAT label can be put on the California electorate, circa 2006?
Clearly this is not a conservative state, not with our penchant for borrowing and Jerry Brown set to become our next attorney general. Yet it's not quite liberal, either: Faced with the chance Tuesday to stick it to two of the left's most hated bogeymen - Big Tobacco and Big Oil - through Propositions 86 and 87, Californians declined.
Conventional labels don't apply here. Far more than partisanship or ideology, the key factor in California's 2006 statewide races seems to have been money. In almost all cases, the campaigns that spent more, won.
Although we don't yet have official figures on expenditures from the final three weeks before the election, campaign spending from the start of 2006 through October 21 turns out to have been a surefire predictor of which candidates and propositions ultimately came out on top.
Start with the state's constitutional offices, of which only two - governor and insurance commissioner - were claimed by Republicans, and rather deep-pocketed Republicans at that.
Now, it's true that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Steve Poizner were also among the more liberal choices the California GOP had to offer, and that might have accounted for some of their success in this blue state. But then, so was Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, whose much-heralded moderation wasn't enough to keep him in office. And while Schwarzenegger is a movie star and a popular incumbent, Poizner entered the race with roughly zero name recognition.
Something more was at play here, and it was greenbacks.
Although Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides' campaign spent a staggering $36 million, Schwarzenegger's topped it with an even more staggering $40 million. Billionaire Poizner's campaign buried Cruz Bustamante's in cash, spending nearly $13 million to the outgoing lieutenant governor's piddling $1.6 million.
McPherson actually held a small spending edge over rival Debra Bowen in his effort to hold on to the Secretary of State's Office, but the $200,000 difference was so small as to be inconsequential in the low-budget contest. That may explain why this election proved to be the state's closest, with Bowen besting McPherson by just 3.8 percentage points.
In all the other races, one candidate had decidedly more funds, and that candidate invariably got the win.
For lieutenant governor, the victorious John Garamendi spent nearly $5 million, compared with loser Tom McClintock's less than $3 million. Democratic Controller-elect John Chiang outspent rival Tony Strickland, $2.7 million to $1.6 million. Incoming Treasurer Bill Lockyer nearly tripled the expenditures of his easily vanquished opponent, Claude Parrish. And the state's next attorney general, Jerry Brown, outspent Chuck Poochigian by more than $2 million.
(snip)
But even though the moneyed campaigns overwhelmingly won this time, it would be wrong to conclude that cash automatically begets victory at the polls. Contributors want to back a winner, so their money naturally tends to flow to the campaigns that have the best shot. Put another way: Cruz Bustamante didn't lose because he raised so little money; he raised so little money because he was sure to lose.
But it would be naive to think that the relationship doesn't go both ways. There's a reason why campaigns invest a fortune in robo-calls, mind-numbing commercials and simplistic slate mailers - they work. At a time when the public tends to be less informed about politics and current events, it's all the easier for politicians to manipulate voters with expensive, well-calculated campaigns.
Which is why we Californian voters in 2006 proved ourselves to be not so much liberal or conservative, but highly suggestible.
Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News editorial-page editor. Write to him by e-mail at chris.weinkopf@dailynews.com.
I call it 'feel goodism'
we'll see how good it feels paying for the feeling down the road.
Conservatives didn't stop being conservatives. They just expressed their displeasure with those in power that didn't act conservatively, and like they were in charge.
Also, there was the factor that the American people bought the Democrat's promises without seeing that they were hollow. The public needs to start thinking critically rather than buying the bumper sticker slogans.
The Jerry Brown fans may be a bit hasty. There is a law suit that was tabled before the election that is based on the fact that Brown isn't qualified to be Attorney General according to Californian law. The law says the candidate must have been able to practice before the Supreme Court for five years. Brown only has three and a half. Not only that he was on inactive status for ten of the last fourteen years.
Don't give up yet.
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes for buyer's remorse to set in?
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.