*Official Election 2005 Results Thread*

[The Duke]

Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?

[AuH2O]

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.

Lose as in... Lose seats?  Or lose as in fail to capitalize on an opportunity to make big gains?

Regardless of your answer I agree the Democrats need a clear and nationally unified message in 2006 if they plan on making gains.

"Lose" is sort of subjective. I would say that failing to make clear gains in the House and Senate, along with Gov pickups, would historically constitute a "loss" for the opposition party.

In the current environment, I might describe these as the "break even" points:

Senate: Dems +2
House: Dems +4
Gov's: Dems +2

Those demarcations are arbitrary. But, I mean, if Democrats gain 1 House seat and no Senate seats, I'm sorry, that's a loss in the current environment. And if they lose seats... that's a crushing blow.

Keep in mind, Bush is more or less gone come 2008, because he isn't running, his Veep isn't running, and I doubt Iraq will be as serious an issue by then (it may even turn in the GOP's favor).

The Democrats have one chance to take advantage of Bush's unpopularity: 2006. Let me repeat: that is their only opportunity. If Dems blow it... well, that's all she wrote.

[TheresNoMoney]

But I must tell the Republican Virginians here: Kilgore had no bright ideas either.  

Yep, his campaign was all about negative attack ads and peripheral issues like the death penalty and his opponent being a "liberal" (lmao). Kilgore really didn't present any clear agenda.

[Moooooo]

Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?

Why do I get this feeling had 73-77 passed you'd be singing a different tune today?

By the way, were you on FOX news last night around 1am est?  You sound an awful lot like the Arnolds press guy.  This guy was good. 

"Arnolds not in trouble." 
"Low numbers?  What low numbers? Our internals have the Governor sitting at a little over 50% approval."
"This is no big deal.  All this means is the Governor will have to go to Sacramento and get things done himself."

[The Duke]

Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?

Why do I get this feeling had 73-77 passed you would be singing a different tune today?

By the way, were you on FOX news last night around 1am est?  You sound an awful lot like the Arnolds press guy.  This guy was good. 

"Arnolds not in trouble." 

"Low numbers?  What low numbers? Our internals have the Governor sitting at a little over 50% approval."

"This is no big deal.  All this means is the Governor will have to go to Sacramento and get things done himself."

Of course I'd be much happier if we'd broken the unions forever, but the fact is Nick, the state is in exactly the same shape today it was in yesterday.  The election was about change, but nothing changed.

[Moooooo]

Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?

Why do I get this feeling had 73-77 passed you would be singing a different tune today?

By the way, were you on FOX news last night around 1am est?  You sound an awful lot like the Arnolds press guy.  This guy was good. 

"Arnolds not in trouble." 

"Low numbers?  What low numbers? Our internals have the Governor sitting at a little over 50% approval."

"This is no big deal.  All this means is the Governor will have to go to Sacramento and get things done himself."

Of course I'd be much happier if we'd broken the unions forever, but the fact is Nick, the state is in exactly the same shape today it was in yesterday.  The election was about change, but nothing changed.

I guess your right.  I really didnt have a horse in this race so I cant say whether I think the change would have been good or bad.  Ill leave that debate to you Cali residents.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?

[The Duke]

John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?

That's pretty much what this was.

[The Duke]

Oh, and another reason that nothing passed in the special election is that over 50% were opposed to the idea of a special election, most saying that they thought it cost to much money.

Our 50th ranked education system pays off again, $50 million is nothing to a government with a $120 billion budget.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?

That's pretty much what this was.

Was it? Interesting; have you got a link to the proposal?

In the long run, that's the sort of restriction that ends up making the labour movement as a whole stronger (it did here) but makes certain parts a lot weaker.

[Moooooo]

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?

[The Duke]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Moooooo]

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.

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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).

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[The Duke]

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.

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?

Arnold endorsed shareholder protection laws during the campaign, actually.  So yeah, you have no clue what you're talking about.

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.

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.

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).

[AuH2O]

LoL

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




Just Scoones and Beet Red Though Dumb?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excuse me?

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excuse me?

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.
[/quote]No, he's disagreeing with you (and the Cali unions) on what the best pro-Union course is. Not the same although it may look it at points.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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.