1
   

Dem Landslide Begins with Kaine, Corzine Wins!

 
 
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 09:24 pm
OMG I can hardly wait for 2006!

Soon, we will get the results in Kalyfawnia and I expect at least 3 0f 4 of the Governator's props to go down in flames!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,309 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:31 pm
73, 74 & 75 passing as of 9:15 (Cali time). 76 & 77 failing in early returns.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:59 pm
2 winds make a landslide?

Interesting perspective.

12 months is a long time---especially in politics.

Things don't look too good for the Republicans right now, but don't count your chickens...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 12:00 am
JustWonders wrote:
73, 74 & 75 passing as of 9:15 (Cali time). 76 & 77 failing in early returns.


I confess that this has no meaning to me re: Arnold's success.

Please spare me the google research. Are these results good or bad for the Gov?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 04:17 am
It looks like all eight failed. Thus, no, not good for Arnold.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 06:55 am
The landslide was in New York where Republican, Bloomberg, won by the widest margin ever for a Repub mayor there.

But....it doesn't matter which Party wins as long as the right person for the job gets elected.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 07:02 am
A noble sentiment, Big Wabbit--one neither common nor commonly applauded by partisan members . . .
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 07:08 am
Yeah, Set, not enough people think that way. It sure would be nice though if people did. Oh well.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 07:43 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
73, 74 & 75 passing as of 9:15 (Cali time). 76 & 77 failing in early returns.


I confess that this has no meaning to me re: Arnold's success.

Please spare me the google research. Are these results good or bad for the Gov?


Prop 74 would have made it possible to fire bad teachers (those receiving two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations).

Prop 75 would have prohibited unions from using members' dues for political contributions without their consent.

These are the two I most closely followed and I'm disappointed they failed. None of the teachers I know would be averse to the extended waiting period (3 years) for tenure, but then, they're good teachers.

I heard many union members complaining about the unions' perceived misuse of their dues for political gain in the run-up to the '04 elections and thought 75 might have a chance early on. The unions mounted a massive (and expensive) opposition and it also failed.

I don't think anyone (Californians or otherwise) expected 77 to pass (redistricting).

Disappointing, yes, but I can't get too worked up about it. This is my very favorite part of politics - the elections - the will of the people voiced through the ballot. I may not always agree with their choices, but I respect the outcome if the fight was fair.

In the case of California, the people have spoken and now have to live with the results. If there are those who don't like the results, but didn't vote, then they need to just sit down and shut up LOL.

I'm not so much concerned with whether it's good or bad for Arnold. He will succeed or fail if he runs for re-election under his own power.

I don't particularly see the failure of some of these proposals as necessarily being good for California, but that's only my opinion, and they're the ones that will have to live with their choices.
0 Replies
 
rodeman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:08 am
6:00 am California time.......All of Arnold's props shot down in flames.
While I voted against all of the props, my hope is there will be one more proposition on the next ballot. One outlawing propositions..
Let the damn legislature and governor do their jobs.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:29 am
Brand X wrote:
The landslide was in New York where Republican, Bloomberg, won by the widest margin ever for a Repub mayor there.

But....it doesn't matter which Party wins as long as the right person for the job gets elected.


Bloomberg has distanced himself from the Republican Party and especially Bush, this election was more or less non-partisan as many city elections are.

Bush came back from Venezuela to Rush to Kilgore's side in Virginia, and Kilgore was soundly trounced.

California voters rejected all four of Arnold's props. This was most definitely a referendum against the Governator's leadership. He was the one who called the special election in the first place, wasting a lot of people's time and money.

The only real loss for Dems was in Ohio where DEm sponsored election reforms lost but, all in all, things are looking very good for the Dems in 2006.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:17 am
On the presumption that taking redistricting out of the hands of partisan control (seems clearly the way to go, but I haven't studied this at all) then it is a pity the initiatives in California and Ohio both failed.

Here in New York City, Bloomburg has a good reputation and relationship with most New Yorkers it seems. He's up and about the city pretty constantly. If there is a parade or other such event, he's in it. But here on the east side you'll often see him in little local restaurants, chatting up the folks. The impression is that he's a likeable and charismatic fellow. Policy-wise, he tends to get the nod from leftie locals (Alterman, for example, said he'd vote for the fellow IF Bloomburt's relationship with Bush wasn't so tight).

The unhappy aspect to this mayorality race - and the race in NJ and so much else in politics now - is the money necessary to be a candidate. Anyone here on a2k who has 50 million to spend such that they can represent their community?
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:20 am
blatham, the California initiative would have put the power to redistrict in the hands of three retired judges. That is not a solution.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:44 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Yeah, Set, not enough people think that way. It sure would be nice though if people did. Oh well.


How many people do you think there are who vote for someone they understand to be inferior to their opponent, simply because that person belongs to a political party they endorse?

Whether Kilgore or Kaine was actually the right person for the job, I have to believe that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for either candidate believe their man would prove to be that right person.

It's not only possible, but likely that a significant number of voters believe their man to be the right person simply because of his party affiliation, but that is something quite different than the notion of a partisan who votes for a candidate he knows to be inferior simply because of party to which he belongs.

Political candidates of both parties are likely to say just about anything to get elected. With the increasing reliance upon polls, candidates are even more susceptible to the influence of the prevailing wind of perceived immediate public opinion. In this environment, the basic platforms of each political party can offer assistance to the voters in making their choice.

This is by no means a perfect method for deciding how to cast one's vote, but it beats relying on the quality of television ads or the physical appearance of the candidates.

What I would welcome is a greater willingness, among citizens, to objectively measure the actual service of the winners, over time, irrespective of party affiliations.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:48 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
Yeah, Set, not enough people think that way. It sure would be nice though if people did. Oh well.


How many people do you think there are who vote for someone they understand to be inferior to their opponent, simply because that person belongs to a political party they endorse?

.


It worked for George W. Bush. LOL
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:57 am
blatham wrote:
On the presumption that taking redistricting out of the hands of partisan control (seems clearly the way to go, but I haven't studied this at all) then it is a pity the initiatives in California and Ohio both failed.

Here in New York City, Bloomburg has a good reputation and relationship with most New Yorkers it seems. He's up and about the city pretty constantly. If there is a parade or other such event, he's in it. But here on the east side you'll often see him in little local restaurants, chatting up the folks. The impression is that he's a likeable and charismatic fellow. Policy-wise, he tends to get the nod from leftie locals (Alterman, for example, said he'd vote for the fellow IF Bloomburt's relationship with Bush wasn't so tight).

The unhappy aspect to this mayorality race - and the race in NJ and so much else in politics now - is the money necessary to be a candidate. Anyone here on a2k who has 50 million to spend such that they can represent their community?


There was a good read in the NYTimes the other day regarding California's redistricting. This paragraph in particular resonates::

Quote:
Honest observers on the left and right have long complained that California's voting district map is a masterwork of cynicism that assures victories for incumbents as well as party hacks seeking open seats. The fix is so complete that in 2004 not one of the 173 state legislative and Congressional seats being contested in California changed party hands. Robert Stern, president of the liberal-leaning Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, told me that California's elections are "less democratic than the Soviet Politburo."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/opinion/07stewart.html?oref=login
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 11:07 am
Hate to expose your ignorance about Cal politics, JW but even Warren Beatty ackowledges that California's redistricting scheme needs to be fixed. That is not news.

But putting the redistricting in the hands of three judges would have made the matter even worse.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 04:43 pm
Republicans have not won a Virginia governor's race since 1973, and that they still hold a majority of governorships nationwide (currently 28-22)....same as last year.

Forgive me if I still don't see the landslide.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 04:54 pm
JustWonders wrote:
blatham wrote:
On the presumption that taking redistricting out of the hands of partisan control (seems clearly the way to go, but I haven't studied this at all) then it is a pity the initiatives in California and Ohio both failed.

Here in New York City, Bloomburg has a good reputation and relationship with most New Yorkers it seems. He's up and about the city pretty constantly. If there is a parade or other such event, he's in it. But here on the east side you'll often see him in little local restaurants, chatting up the folks. The impression is that he's a likeable and charismatic fellow. Policy-wise, he tends to get the nod from leftie locals (Alterman, for example, said he'd vote for the fellow IF Bloomburt's relationship with Bush wasn't so tight).

The unhappy aspect to this mayorality race - and the race in NJ and so much else in politics now - is the money necessary to be a candidate. Anyone here on a2k who has 50 million to spend such that they can represent their community?


There was a good read in the NYTimes the other day regarding California's redistricting. This paragraph in particular resonates::

Quote:
Honest observers on the left and right have long complained that California's voting district map is a masterwork of cynicism that assures victories for incumbents as well as party hacks seeking open seats. The fix is so complete that in 2004 not one of the 173 state legislative and Congressional seats being contested in California changed party hands. Robert Stern, president of the liberal-leaning Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, told me that California's elections are "less democratic than the Soviet Politburo."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/opinion/07stewart.html?oref=login


Yes, that's my sense of it too. The reason I qualified my earlier rah rah was that I'd seen (several days previous, god knows where) an article addressing the potential pitfalls from switching over to a judicially-determined system. I didn't have time to read it, but passed by with the dim notion that the author was credible.

Re California, one comment I heard yesterday (I think it valid, given the present situation there and Arnold's crash in public approval) was that some portion of the "no" vote on redistricting arose out of a suspicion that Arnold's motives in pushing the initiative were less than altruistic.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 04:57 pm
Coastal, although who see me as their partisan opponent here may not believe it, i have never been a voter along party lines. I do try to inform myself, and i remain sceptical in any election. I vote against candidates more often than i am voting for someone. If i cannot discern a significant difference, or cannot inform myself to my satisfaction, then i will vote for women when the field is largely male, i will vote Democratic in a Republican area, or vote Republican in a Democratic area. In the election of judges, when it is difficult to effectively inform oneself, i tend to vote for women and minorities on the principle that they are underrepresented on the bench. I make my most thorough effort to inform myself on ballot initiatives and tax levies when they will appear on the ballot.

It is not easy to be a responsible voter, and simply following partisan lines does us all a disservice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dem Landslide Begins with Kaine, Corzine Wins!
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 04:40:54