*Official Election 2005 Results Thread*

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

It's looking like there's a good chance that will happen. With 71.1% reporting, Prop 73 has 49.2%, Prop 75 has 49.5%, and the others are doing much worse.

We just need returns yet to come in from Los Angeles county to cancel out returns from more conservative areas. Los Angeles county has 21.4% reporting, and is currently going 47.5% for Prop 73 and 43.6% for Prop 75.

Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.

No, Arnold's Props would have been very bad for California, particularly Props 73-76.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Counties with a lot of outstanding ballots:

Count / not reporting / Reg. voters / Prop 73 / Prop 75
Alameda 70% of 704k / 32% / 32%
Contra Costa 45% of 492k / 41% / 45%
Los Angeles 73% of 3,842k / 47.5% / 43.6%
Orange 24.6% of 1,491k / 60% / 64%
Riverside 18% of 776k / 60% / 54%
San Bernaardino 36.2% of 753k / 58% / 50%
San Diego 12.8% of 1,383k / 55% / 58%
Santa Clara 14.3% of 762k/ 38% / 42%

Statewide 24.9% of 15,891k / 49.2% / 49.1%


I think we took them all down.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, Arnold's Props would have been very bad for California, particularly Props 73-76.

Uh.. yeah... as ya'll are doing so well financially now.   You were offered reform  and failed to accept it.  It is your state's fate, and I guess we'll just have to leave you to your own demise.

Why don't we "reform" your state by nuking it? You can't reject it, it's "reform".

Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.

Arnold's rejected propositions were about giving him and his corporate masters more power, not improving California.

So putting redistricting in the hands of an independent group of judges to prevent political bias is giving power to supposed "corporate masters"?  Puhleeeze....

Putting redistricting in the hands of retired judges who were mostly appointed by Republicans would have had the same effect on CA as the recent redistricting in TX. It would have helped Tom "Scandal of the Day" DeLay maintain control of the House in '06. So, yes, it would have helped Arnold's "corporate masters."

You do know that the DeLay thing was done in the state legislature, right?
See - that's the way ya'll redistrict now.  You do it the Delay way.  Arnold offered you reform.

Clearly a mid-decade redistricting in California would have eliminated Texas's mid-decade redistricting gerrymander.


All  of Arnold's Props are under 49%!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's over, all of Arnold's Props have lost. Maybe he can refund the $60 million he wasted by calling this worthless election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At least Sanders torched Frye in San Diego.

All in all... a status quo election. Ballot measures defeated in CA and OH, NJ and VA retain Dem Govs and by similar margins as 2001 (though the GOP only got the AG in '01, this time Lt Gov and AG).

Totally meaningless with regard to 2006. Totally. Anyone suggesting otherwise on either side is just not rational.

It is clearly relevant to the 2006 California governor race.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Public service announcement for our Democratic friends:
YALL HAD THIS SEAT BEFORE.  THIS IS NOT A PICK-UP FOR YOU.  YOU BARELY HELD ON TO A SEAT YOU ALEADY HAD.  END TRANSMISSION.

"Barely"?  Well, we were supposed to be losing by a small margin until recently.  Instead our candidate broke 50%.

Also, honestly, it's not about holding onto the seat.  Let's look at it this way:  if a Republican held the governorship, and he was retiring, his Lt. Governor runs, and is in a dead heat against a Democratic opponent.  Do you consider it an acheivement if the Republican Lt. Governor wins, or would you just scoff at it like you're doing for Kaine?  It's not about which party holds onto the seat, it's about which candidate wins, regardless of who held office before.

I seem to recall a number of republicans claiming that breaking 50% was a mandate a few years ago.

WOOHOO!!! We got a mandate!!!

</Sarcasm>

Don't you know that only 2.47 point wins are mandates? If you do any better than that, it's not a mandate any more.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I thought 87 had a Dem incumbent, Paula Miller? I'm pretty sure that's the case.

You're right.  I was going the results and looking at races that seemed competitive (30-70%) and comparing with the 2003 results.

Miller narrowly won a special election in December 2004.  In 2003, it was an uncontested GOP seat.  This year, the two candidates from 2004 ran again, but there was also an independent.  Miller won 50-38-12.



Also... Kaine straight up won Virginia Beach. Wow. Bolling and McDonnell, however, won solidly-- which was critical to their statewide wins (especially McDonnell).

[/quote]

McDonnel won solidly? LOL, 50.05%-49.87% is NOT a solid win.

http://sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why did the status quo win every election in spite of overwhelming polling that says people think we're on the wrong track?

Why did an incumbent Mayor win in NYC when people say we're on the wrong track?  Why did an incumbent party win the Governorship in VA when people say we're on the wrong track?

Maybe it's the feds that they're mad at?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Forrester isn't curropt now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2 elections in very Republican districts, 1 of which HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's San Diego.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The California ones failed because they were flawed and were backed by a flawed governor. Actually flawed is the best way to describe Props 77 and 78. Props 73-76 were even worse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're sort of anti-civil unions?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some interesting results; shame to see the redistricting proposal fail in California. It would seem that a majority of CA voters either think that bi-partisan gerrymandering is fine or that they just vote in the way that their Master's Voice tells them to...

VA county results are really weird; especially in NOVA and the SW (compare the Gubernatorial results in both to the results in the other Statewide elections there). Would seem that sometimes voters do vote for people over parties then

Hang on a minute... does anyone know why Kilgore did so badly in the Southeast?

Prop 77 would have done much better if

1. It didn't put all the power into the hands of 3 retired judges. California has actually had Republican governors appointing judges for all but 5 of the last 23 years.

2. If someone less divisive than Arnold was promoting it. Arnold is not very popular.

Some liberals voted for Prop 77 anyways, but the flaws in Prop 77 and the man behind it doomed it.

Prop 77 did make for some interesting splits in endorsements. Against it were Democratic and Republican Congressman, the Democratic party, and the Green party. For it were the Republican party and Common Cause.

I was considering voting for it, before I realized the flaws.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some interesting results; shame to see the redistricting proposal fail in California. It would seem that a majority of CA voters either think that bi-partisan gerrymandering is fine or that they just vote in the way that their Master's Voice tells them to...

VA county results are really weird; especially in NOVA and the SW (compare the Gubernatorial results in both to the results in the other Statewide elections there). Would seem that sometimes voters do vote for people over parties then

Hang on a minute... does anyone know why Kilgore did so badly in the Southeast?

Prop 77 would have done much better if

1. It didn't put all the power into the hands of 3 retired judges. California has actually had Republican governors appointing judges for all but 5 of the last 23 years.

2. If someone less divisive than Arnold was promoting it. Arnold is not very popular.

Some liberals voted for Prop 77 anyways, but the flaws in Prop 77 and the man behind it doomed it.

Prop 77 did make for some interesting splits in endorsements. Against it were Democratic and Republican Congressman, the Democratic party, and the Green party. For it were the Republican party and Common Cause.

I was considering voting for it, before I realized the flaws.

If you'd actually read the proposition, you'd know that the Democratic legislative leadership can block judges they think are partisan under the provisions of 77.  I'm guessing you didn't read the proposition, did you?

Actually I had read it. The point is that these judges would likely lean Republican in a Democratic state.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

NO.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Umm, that's a YES. You're just spinning.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

The union leadership at any rate. As a whole (unless California is on a different planet to the U.K) the effect would have been some initial damage to the unions as a whole but in the longterm they'd gain out of it. And become much more assertive (especially come election endorsements).

Umm, no it would have weakened the unions. Arnold has continually called unions "special interest groups", whether they are teachers, firefighters, nurses, or some other unions. Meanwhile he has broken records for taking money from large corporations. Arnold wanted it so that corporations could easily give money, but unions couldn't. Why do you hate the unions, Al?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

No.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Umm, that's a YES. You're just spinning.

No, I'm telling the whole truth instead of just the parts that benefit me.  The world is more complex that a DKos post.

If you weaken the unions, it'll be harder for them to provide health and pension benefits.  Anyways, why can't the employers or government provide those?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The union leadership at any rate. As a whole (unless California is on a different planet to the U.K) the effect would have been some initial damage to the unions as a whole but in the longterm they'd gain out of it. And become much more assertive (especially come election endorsements).
[/quote]

Umm, no it would have weakened the unions. Arnold has continually called unions "special interest groups", whether they are teachers, firefighters, nurses, or some other unions. Meanwhile he has broken records for taking money from large corporations. Arnold wanted it so that corporations could easily give money, but unions couldn't. Why do you hate the unions, Al?
[/quote]

Arnold endorsed shareholder protection laws during the campaign, actually.  So yeah, you have no clue what you're talking about.
[/quote]
Desperate spinning by someone who works for Arnold. Face it, your boss has taken many millions of special interest money from corporations that he has tried to get favorable laws for. You can quit spinning for your curropt child molesting One-Term-inator boss.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NO.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.
[/quote]

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

Do you think a majority would choose to opt out had 75 passed?

Thats pretty sad that the unions would strip members of healh care and other benefits simply because they chose to opt out of giving political contributions.
[/quote]
Corporations don't have to get permission from every single shareholder or worker to be involved in a political campaign. Why should it be harder for unions?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know that it would weaken the unions, but it would change them dramatically.  First, it would sever the link between Democratic state politicians and service unions, making both more independent of one another.  Second, it would shift the union's focus away from political activities and towards organizing workers.

And yes, its sad that the unions did this.  The really sad thing is that they're all bankrupt now.  They got loan extensions from the banks to keep spending on TV ads, and now they're up to their neck in red ink.  The members are going to paying for this campaign for years in the form of higher dues (They're already greatly elevated).
[/quote]

I don't think you're sad at all that they are low on cash now. You're just sad that the anti-union Prop 75 didn't pass.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Umm, no it would have weakened the unions.

In the short-term, yes. Absolutely. In the long term... no. Quite the reverse.
The main result would be the unions becoming more respectable (union membership is comically low everywhere in the U.S, bar New York) and everything (more members and all that) flows from there.

More respectable? How come this logic doesn't apply to the companies that have given millions to Arnold in exchange for his trying to get special stuff for them? No, we need the unions to stand up to Arnold. Arnold is not respectable. Neither are the corporations that give him millions. If you want it to be hard for unions to stand up to Arnold, I question how why you even have a red avatar.


[qupte]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? "Special Interest Group" is little more than a mild term of abuse for political opponents these days.
[/quote]
So we should only weaken who Arnold calls special interest groups?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excuse me?
[/quote]

You support a Proposition that would weaken the unions, and was soundly defeated by union members. You'd rather have the child Molestinator get through his right-wing anti-union agenda.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, I am sad that the union bosses have frittered away their employees pensions on political campaigns.  And jfern, the government already provides and additiona pension for all state employees, its called CalPers (and its bankrupt, too).

As for me "spinning", you said Arnold didn't favor shareholder protection laws.  I pointed out that he did favor such laws.  In fact, he has endorsed an effort to get exactly such a measure on the June primary ballot.  How is that spin?  I suppose in jfernworld, facts are spin and spin are facts and people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.

As for Arnold taking so much money from corporations, it should be noted that he was outspent 3-1 in this campaign.

"Endorsed an effort"? What does that mean? It hasn't qualified. Anyways, I would have to read said measure. Anyways, it doesn't make sense to vote for anti-union Arnold's anti-union Prop 75 just in the hypothetical case that he decides to make it harder for himself to take millions from corporations sometime in the future.

If you count Big Pharma and Big Energy on Arnold's side, the right may have outspent the left in this election.

Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.

Teacher tenure is a horrible idea anyway, and should be gotten rid of.  Teaching is a noble profession, sure, but not all teachers teach well.  With tenure they can't be fired, and while that may be in the best interest of certain members of the union, it isn't in the best interest of children, and the whole point of public education isn't to help teachers, its to help children.

And the idea that 76 cuts education spending is just  ablatant lie.  It ends education autopilot spending, which is neither an increase nor a decrease.

Well, if they aren't teaching well, then don't give them tenure. Some teachers will burn out after 10-15 years, a problem that obviously Prop 74 doesn't do anything to address. The fact is that tenured teachers command a higher salary, so Prop 74 was going to encourage some penny wise pound-foolish districts to save money by avoding tenured teachers by firing them after 5 years.

It should be noted that California spents around $1000 below the national average per pupil per year, despite its high cost of living. CA=$6k, national average=$7k, the state of NY=$11k. Prop 76 revealed Arnold's agenda for what it was, a very right-wing anti-eduction agenda.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

More respectable?

I think that should be fairly obvious. The allegations that certain unions are little more than fundraisers for the Democratic party would obviously not work anymore. And so on.
More respectable=more members=more money=more political clout and so on.

Unions have endorsed Pataki, Bloomberg, Specter, and so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not the issue here

[/quote]
You can't isolate the 2 issues. The fact is that Arnold wanted to make it harder for his opponents to raise money, but not harder for himself to raise money.  I think Ford is lying when he says Arnold supports the same for corporations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought unions were supposed to represent their members. If something that Governer Sczh Arnie proposes works against the interest of their members, then of course the unions should oppose it. If not... why should they blow their money on something that doesn't effect them or their members?

[/quote]
Ot course they represent their members, and union members overwhelming rejected Prop 75. I suppose you'd like to make it hard for the teachers union to stand up to right-wing anti-education Props like Prop 76? Huh? Because a vote for Prop 75 is a vote for Prop 76.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?
[/quote]
An uneven playing field is bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wtf?
[/quote]

Arnold is extremely anti-union. Why should it be harder for the unions to stand up to him?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excuse me? I think that restrictions on donations by all groups is needed. And I don't think that the proposal would weaken the labour movement in the long run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... what? Shall I run through my arguement again, because you don't seem to have taken the trouble to read it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not that there are many of those in California (% terms anyway). Have a wild guess why.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Not that many? I'm actually sort of in a union, although I never heard from them on Prop 75, I guess they weren't involved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's a tip; don't post shortly after drinking
[/quote]

Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.

And I had sex with a 19 year old when I was 26. So?

The age of consent is 18 in California. Arnold committed a felony there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Unions have endorsed Pataki, Bloomberg, Specter, and so on.

So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the future of the labour movement have to do with corperate fundraising?
 

Ot course they represent their members,[/quote]

Really? What have California unions done for Californian trade unionists recently?
[/quote]
Not sure in general, but they helped defeat Props 74-76 this election. Last year there was some health care Prop that almost passed that they might have helped with. It broke 49%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're babbling now
[/quote]
Don't you see how they're related?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you actually been reading my posts?

[/quote]
Yes, and you would make it harder if Prop 75 had passed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Union density in California is either 16% or 17% (I forget which). That's pathetic (union densities in all U.S states with about four exceptions are pathetic).
[/quote]
Welcome to America. California is probably the most worker friendly state. There are more workplace safety prosecutions in California than the other 49 states combined. Alaska is the only red state with a higher union rate than California.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the organisation you're in?
[/quote]
UAW

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And? That's hardly child molestation.
[/quote]

Whatever you call it, it was a felony.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, I am sad that the union bosses have frittered away their employees pensions on political campaigns.  And jfern, the government already provides and additiona pension for all state employees, its called CalPers (and its bankrupt, too).

As for me "spinning", you said Arnold didn't favor shareholder protection laws.  I pointed out that he did favor such laws.  In fact, he has endorsed an effort to get exactly such a measure on the June primary ballot.  How is that spin?  I suppose in jfernworld, facts are spin and spin are facts and people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.

As for Arnold taking so much money from corporations, it should be noted that he was outspent 3-1 in this campaign.

"Endorsed an effort"? What does that mean? It hasn't qualified. Anyways, I would have to read said measure. Anyways, it doesn't make sense to vote for anti-union Arnold's anti-union Prop 75 just in the hypothetical case that he decides to make it harder for himself to take millions from corporations sometime in the future.

If you count Big Pharma and Big Energy on Arnold's side, the right may have outspent the left in this election.

I didn't say the measure qualified, I said he had endorsed the measure.  Whether the measure qualifies or not is irrelevant to Arnold's position on said measure.

I don't count Big Pharma when we're talking about the four core Arnold iniatives because Big Pharma's spending was not on those initatives.  Pharma's spending was on defeating Prop 79, not advancing Arnold's agenda.

Saying that Big Pharma's spending on anti-79 ads is equivalent to pro-Arnold ads is like saying that we should count Doug Forrester's campaign spending as pro-Arnold spending.

Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.

Teacher tenure is a horrible idea anyway, and should be gotten rid of.  Teaching is a noble profession, sure, but not all teachers teach well.  With tenure they can't be fired, and while that may be in the best interest of certain members of the union, it isn't in the best interest of children, and the whole point of public education isn't to help teachers, its to help children.

And the idea that 76 cuts education spending is just  ablatant lie.  It ends education autopilot spending, which is neither an increase nor a decrease.

Well, if they aren't teaching well, then don't give them tenure. Some teachers will burn out after 10-15 years, a problem that obviously Prop 74 doesn't do anything to address. The fact is that tenured teachers command a higher salary, so Prop 74 was going to encourage some penny wise pound-foolish districts to save money by avoding tenured teachers by firing them after 5 years.

It should be noted that California spents around $1000 below the national average per pupil per year, despite its high cost of living. CA=$6k, national average=$7k, the state of NY=$11k. Prop 76 revealed Arnold's agenda for what it was, a very right-wing anti-eduction agenda.

You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.

So even your "experts" didn't come up for a reason for it to be FIVE YEARS. Arnold's support of Prop 76 is one of the many things that has made it clear that he is anti-education. No wonder,in the recall,  he did best with people with little education, and worst with people with graduate degrees.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LoL

Quick, raise your hand if you think jfern isn't crazy.

Raises hand halfway.

Compared to you, he's a model of sanity.

Compared to a more 'normal' poster :shrug:

Define 'normal' poster.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

Don't. Dodge. The. Question.

You messed up the quotes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So nothing then?
[/quote]

I checked and they almost got that passed. It would have been very good. Win a few, lose a few.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can see why you think they are

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And? 16% is pathetic no matter where you are.

Once upon a time America used to have decent union densities. It doesn't anymore. Have you got any idea why?
[/quote]
Walmart?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One does not equal tuther

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

And? Union density in all U.S states (with a few exceptions where it's merely poor) is pathetic.
I have a nicer map, btw:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh huh. And what exactly is you're job?
[/quote]
Grad student

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You sir, need to stop drinking
[/quote]

In any case, if our insults of Arnold sound inane, that's because everything about him is inane. I wonder if he calls his father-in law an economic girllie man for being McGovern's running mate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.

What experts are those?  Can you cite a reputable source - a professional study done by an impartial university researcher, something from the US department of education, even some half-witted right wing think tank?

Most folks who aren't cut out to teach remove themselves within the first two years.  And the burnouts have far more than five years experience, and many of them are burnt out not from the kids, but from ideologues who prefer to see the budget only in terms of short term gain rather than long term results (it takes years, even decades, for the impact of quailty eduction - or lack thereof - to be felt in the economy.), and short-shrift the schools because the results won't be seen until far after the next election.

Teachers are underpaid given the requirements they have to fufill, given lip service by the same politicans who ream them over and over again; then people wonder why we have a critical shortage of teachers in key areas.   And the teachers end up getting the blame for low test scores even though a lack of people in the profession makes it difficult to have enough teachers to meet the students needs.

And tenure is not a lifetime appointment like a seat on the supreme court.  It only guarenetees that a teacher who has achieved it gets a hearing to show that the firing was 'for cause', rather than for endorsing a candidate for the school board on their own time that the principal dislikes, or blowing the whistle on waste in the administration.

I agree with AL.  You need to stop drinking.

And teachers aren't underpaid, they only work 9 months out of the year for goodness sake.

LOL, another person makes the "California can only have 1 Democrat" mistake.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't know if somebody has already posted this somewhere, but it seems the NJ GOP website has pulled a 'Dewey defeats Truman', but forgotten to rectify it.

http://www.njgop.org/

LOL!