Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 21, 2020, 08:36:25 am
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Gass3268, Virgini)
  Looks like it's over for Arnold
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Looks like it's over for Arnold  (Read 6234 times)
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,962


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 29, 2005, 02:39:05 am »

Support Arnold's re-election
39% yes
57% no

Angelides 46%
Arnold 42%

Westly 44%
Arnold 40%

State on right direction
28% yes
59 % no

Good job as governor 31%

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/29/FIELD.TMP
Logged
Dan
Rookie
*
Posts: 43


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2005, 02:53:44 am »

I wouldn't count Arnold out yet. Remember Pete Wilson back in '94? Remember how he was trailing behide Kathleen Brown by over 23 points and turned the election around and won 55% to 44%. It's too early to count Arnold out now, we still have along way to go before  the June 6th Primaries  and the November 7 General Election.
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2005, 05:22:50 am »

I wouldn't count Arnold out yet. Remember Pete Wilson back in '94? Remember how he was trailing behide Kathleen Brown by over 23 points and turned the election around and won 55% to 44%. It's too early to count Arnold out now, we still have along way to go before the June 6th Primaries and the November 7 General Election.

True...but its hard to make any comparisons to the Republican landslide in 1994.. California was more conservative back then... Pete Wilson was a very crafty politician, Ahnold is an amateur...  Angelides and Westly, imo, are better prepared than Kathleen Brown...  and even if Arnold did not face his own personal popularity issues, he would have to deal with the albatross of President Bush hanging around his neck...

At the same time, the state Democratic party is not very popular either... I get the feeling, however, that voters are tired of lashing out at politicians.  Angelides or Westley will need to find a way to truly rise above partisan politics--and the circus of Arnold--to show that they can get things done for the state...
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2005, 05:27:38 am »

Support Arnold's re-election
39% yes
57% no

Angelides 46%
Arnold 42%

Westly 44%
Arnold 40%

State on right direction
28% yes
59 % no

Good job as governor 31%

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/29/FIELD.TMP

--

according to the poll, Arnold's reelect in the Inland empire is 47/47 and even Central valley voters have a negative view of him.  Thjis seems to indicate potential, imo, for populist attacks on the gov in these traditionally Republican regions.  That, combined with traditonal appeals to the cities and suburbs (where I presume Arnold may, in the end, overperform compared to other republicans) could be the ticket.

With poll numbers like these, though, he shouldn't be too hard to beat...

Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,201


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2005, 07:52:56 am »

Wait under after November's referendum to see. It seems they have an election in California every 9 months!
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2005, 08:57:16 am »

Arnold isn't going anywhere. These polls remind me of the NYC Mayor's race that Bloomberg will easily win after trailing badly some time ago.

Basically any Governor of California is going to be hugely unpopular, because the state is financially screwed due to left-wing legislatures (has the GOP run the legislature at all since the late 1920s?) So it really doesn't matter who wins, they'll be hated.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,619
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2005, 09:01:42 am »

I wouldn't write off Arnold yet - but I'd link to think California is wising up to the gimmick

Dave
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2005, 10:40:07 am »

This is too far off to say much of anything, but this is certainly surprising news, and not good for Schwarzenegger.

Arnold isn't going anywhere. These polls remind me of the NYC Mayor's race that Bloomberg will easily win after trailing badly some time ago.

Basically any Governor of California is going to be hugely unpopular, because the state is financially screwed due to left-wing legislatures (has the GOP run the legislature at all since the late 1920s?) So it really doesn't matter who wins, they'll be hated.

Other than gut instinct, why do you think this?
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2005, 10:49:40 am »

Think about it. A Governor is recalled and then, a short time later, his replacement is in the basement as well. Then there's North Dakota where everyone has a 115% approval rating.

A lot of it has to do with climate: economic, cultural, political. California is a disaster, and the politicians are going to get the blame. There may never- and I literally mean never- be another widely popular Governor of California.
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2005, 10:58:24 am »

Think about it. A Governor is recalled and then, a short time later, his replacement is in the basement as well. Then there's North Dakota where everyone has a 115% approval rating.

A lot of it has to do with climate: economic, cultural, political. California is a disaster, and the politicians are going to get the blame. There may never- and I literally mean never- be another widely popular Governor of California.

I somehow doubt this. The major problem that Schwarzenegger is having is probably, in my view, that he has promised to do everything he isn't.  He promised to be a moderate voice that bridged the partisan gap, but has not really managed to do so, particularly when it comes to the state legislature.  Californians are, to an extent, realizing he isn't a silver bullet.

I'm not sure this is entirely fair to Ah-nold, though, and he is probably being held up to a higher standard than most politicians would be.  Still, though, I suspect that Californians are holding him up to that standard, and he is failing to meet it.  I take these poll values at relative face value because of this, and believe there is a distinct posibility that Californians may vote out Schwarzenegger because he fails to meet these inflated standards.

By the way, while California is certainly economically troubled, I would not call any three of those things a "disaster."  It is, by and large, a very cool state that is rather screwed up.
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2005, 12:13:29 pm »

Think about it. A Governor is recalled and then, a short time later, his replacement is in the basement as well. Then there's North Dakota where everyone has a 115% approval rating.

A lot of it has to do with climate: economic, cultural, political. California is a disaster, and the politicians are going to get the blame. There may never- and I literally mean never- be another widely popular Governor of California.

Maybe thats because we get like .72 back for every dollar that goes to the federal government.  Maybe its because instead of spending money on urban areas, money goes to rural regions.  Perhaps it has to do with the fact that our youth-heavy state needs investment in education, youth health care, and other youth programs and the only the elderly can seem to get any help from the federal government...

Logged
socaldem
skolodji
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2005, 12:20:22 pm »

Arnold isn't going anywhere. These polls remind me of the NYC Mayor's race that Bloomberg will easily win after trailing badly some time ago.

Basically any Governor of California is going to be hugely unpopular, because the state is financially screwed due to left-wing legislatures (has the GOP run the legislature at all since the late 1920s?) So it really doesn't matter who wins, they'll be hated.

Except, unlike Arnold, Bloomberg truly is a moderate-liberal and matches the place that he represents.  Moreover, unlike the Democratic challengers to Arnold, the Dem challengers in NYC are kinda hapless...

As for Democratic policies running the state into the ground--wrong!  Certainly, for the short time Democrats controlled government from 1998-2001, they didn't do a spectacular job.  Overall, though, our state's problems are rooted in O.C.-conservatism/Reaganism that led to the decimation of California's pulbic sector and the property tax revolt that forces our state into a ridiculously regressive tax structure in which billionaire Malibu homeowners who've owned their properties forever could pay less property tax for their properties than a middle class couple that purchases a new home in Corona today. 

Californians, btw, that are very well off have a better quality of life than most anywhere.  Why do you think all the rich people want to move here?  If they want to come here and live in their Beverly Hills Villa or Saratoga Manse, they better pay a premium price...
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2005, 12:25:09 pm »

California should pass a balanced budget amendment, with thorough judicial review, and ban state initiatives that appropriate funds.

A two-thirds majority should be required to appropriate any funds in the legislature.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,962


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2005, 03:59:12 pm »


A two-thirds majority should be required to appropriate any funds in the legislature.

A 2/3rds majority is required to raise taxes. That explains a lot a lot of our budget problems right there. Now are you in favor of 67 Senators required to confirm a nominee?
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2005, 04:39:28 pm »


A two-thirds majority should be required to appropriate any funds in the legislature.

A 2/3rds majority is required to raise taxes. That explains a lot a lot of our budget problems right there. Now are you in favor of 67 Senators required to confirm a nominee?

I said two-thirds majority to spend money. Given your budget situation, I think that would make sense.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,962


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2005, 05:55:43 pm »


A two-thirds majority should be required to appropriate any funds in the legislature.

A 2/3rds majority is required to raise taxes. That explains a lot a lot of our budget problems right there. Now are you in favor of 67 Senators required to confirm a nominee?

I said two-thirds majority to spend money. Given your budget situation, I think that would make sense.

That makes no sense. NY spends close to double per capita.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2005, 01:36:09 am »

Forst of all, as Arnold shwoed in the stem cell debate, he is very much not a typical conservative on social issues.  He did reach out in that issue.  Further, his plan to reform Califonria's election system by having judges redistrict instead of the legislature drawing their own districts, shows that he has in fact stood up to special interests.  The fact that the deficit has been cut from $22 billion to $8 billion shows that he addressed the budget issue in a serious way, and he had to earn Democrat votes to get it done.  The fact that he reformed workman's comp laws shows that he can complete important reforms and fulfill his campaign promises.

I have to say, anyone who thinks Arnold isn't doing what he said he'd do isn't looking at the facts.

The reason Arnold has a low rating is threefold: The first reason is that California Governor's, including Pat Brown in 1961 and Pete Wilson in 1993, have low approval ratings a year before their re-election.  This is typical, and it doesn't last.  Both those men rebounded and defeated formidable opponents to get re-elected.

The second is foot in mouth disease.  Arnold has said some stupid things that reinforce the diea that he isn't serious.  His legislative record says otherwise, but people often don't look at the person's actual record out here until the election actually comes, they work off perception and the culture out here is very cynical.  But once the election comes around, Arnold's accomplishments combined with his charisma and warchest will carry the day easily.

The third, and most important reason, is that Arnold has sat on his money to dominate the airwaves during the Special election.  His opponents have been spending all their money right now on attack ads.  So his opponents are barely ahead having spent all this money attacking the Governor while the Governor is sitting on the largest warchest, almost entirely untapped until now, in the history of the state.  When that money is unleashed, the charisma and persuasiveness that won Arnold the Govenrorship will send home a clear and concise mesage to support Arnold's reforms in the special election and to re-elect the Governor one year from now.  Whose shoes would you really rather be in?  The side that's down a few points now but has all the money and time in the world, or the side that's barely squeeked ahead and has already played its best cards?
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2005, 05:10:15 am »


A two-thirds majority should be required to appropriate any funds in the legislature.

A 2/3rds majority is required to raise taxes. That explains a lot a lot of our budget problems right there. Now are you in favor of 67 Senators required to confirm a nominee?

I said two-thirds majority to spend money. Given your budget situation, I think that would make sense.

Jfern is right--its the requirement of 2/3 to raise taxes that needs changing... you are right, however, in that it makes no sense to have the majorities required for spending and for taxes at different levels...

Raising the requirement for spending bills to 2/3, however, instead of reducing the amoung of money spent may actually increase it by increasing log-rolling as an increased number of legislatures need to have their spending priorities satisfied to pass a bill...

You are right to suggest that the initiative system needs reform.... its really absurd that Arnold has decided that instead of using the normal legislative process, he chooses to do almost everything by initiative...direct democracy sucks!
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2005, 01:07:20 pm »


A two-thirds majority should be required to appropriate any funds in the legislature.

A 2/3rds majority is required to raise taxes. That explains a lot a lot of our budget problems right there. Now are you in favor of 67 Senators required to confirm a nominee?

I said two-thirds majority to spend money. Given your budget situation, I think that would make sense.

Jfern is right--its the requirement of 2/3 to raise taxes that needs changing... you are right, however, in that it makes no sense to have the majorities required for spending and for taxes at different levels...

Raising the requirement for spending bills to 2/3, however, instead of reducing the amoung of money spent may actually increase it by increasing log-rolling as an increased number of legislatures need to have their spending priorities satisfied to pass a bill...

You are right to suggest that the initiative system needs reform.... its really absurd that Arnold has decided that instead of using the normal legislative process, he chooses to do almost everything by initiative...direct democracy sucks!


So does representative Democracy when one of the representatives is Fabian Nunez.
Logged
December's tragic drive
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 88,645
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2005, 01:25:52 pm »

A two-thirds majority should be required to appropriate any funds in the legislature.

yes, that would work perfectly in Minnesota. Oh wait, our divided legislature and the governor still can't agree on a budget to be passed despite being almost 2 months overdue depspite one requiring only majority approval? Oh, and because of that we're going to have a partial government shutdown until a budget can be agreed one, meaning that many government services such as highway rest stops, public parks and the DMV will have to be closed, including over July 4 weekend? Hmmm, I guess making it even more difficult to pass budgets isn't a good idea.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,962


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2005, 02:04:54 am »

Forst of all, as Arnold shwoed in the stem cell debate, he is very much not a typical conservative on social issues.  He did reach out in that issue.  Further, his plan to reform Califonria's election system by having judges redistrict instead of the legislature drawing their own districts, shows that he has in fact stood up to special interests.  The fact that the deficit has been cut from $22 billion to $8 billion shows that he addressed the budget issue in a serious way, and he had to earn Democrat votes to get it done.  The fact that he reformed workman's comp laws shows that he can complete important reforms and fulfill his campaign promises.

I have to say, anyone who thinks Arnold isn't doing what he said he'd do isn't looking at the facts.

The reason Arnold has a low rating is threefold: The first reason is that California Governor's, including Pat Brown in 1961 and Pete Wilson in 1993, have low approval ratings a year before their re-election.  This is typical, and it doesn't last.  Both those men rebounded and defeated formidable opponents to get re-elected.

The second is foot in mouth disease.  Arnold has said some stupid things that reinforce the diea that he isn't serious.  His legislative record says otherwise, but people often don't look at the person's actual record out here until the election actually comes, they work off perception and the culture out here is very cynical.  But once the election comes around, Arnold's accomplishments combined with his charisma and warchest will carry the day easily.

The third, and most important reason, is that Arnold has sat on his money to dominate the airwaves during the Special election.  His opponents have been spending all their money right now on attack ads.  So his opponents are barely ahead having spent all this money attacking the Governor while the Governor is sitting on the largest warchest, almost entirely untapped until now, in the history of the state.  When that money is unleashed, the charisma and persuasiveness that won Arnold the Govenrorship will send home a clear and concise mesage to support Arnold's reforms in the special election and to re-elect the Governor one year from now.  Whose shoes would you really rather be in?  The side that's down a few points now but has all the money and time in the world, or the side that's barely squeeked ahead and has already played its best cards?

Wow, so Arnold agrees with me like 15% of the time versus 0% for Bush because of issues like stem cell research? Sorry, that's not exactly going to save his ass. Arnold's approval ratings have dropped faster than even Davis' ratings.

Calling the state legislature girlie-men isn't getting sh**t done. Time to replace him with a grown-up.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2005, 02:21:47 am »

Forst of all, as Arnold shwoed in the stem cell debate, he is very much not a typical conservative on social issues. He did reach out in that issue. Further, his plan to reform Califonria's election system by having judges redistrict instead of the legislature drawing their own districts, shows that he has in fact stood up to special interests. The fact that the deficit has been cut from $22 billion to $8 billion shows that he addressed the budget issue in a serious way, and he had to earn Democrat votes to get it done. The fact that he reformed workman's comp laws shows that he can complete important reforms and fulfill his campaign promises.

I have to say, anyone who thinks Arnold isn't doing what he said he'd do isn't looking at the facts.

The reason Arnold has a low rating is threefold: The first reason is that California Governor's, including Pat Brown in 1961 and Pete Wilson in 1993, have low approval ratings a year before their re-election. This is typical, and it doesn't last. Both those men rebounded and defeated formidable opponents to get re-elected.

The second is foot in mouth disease. Arnold has said some stupid things that reinforce the diea that he isn't serious. His legislative record says otherwise, but people often don't look at the person's actual record out here until the election actually comes, they work off perception and the culture out here is very cynical. But once the election comes around, Arnold's accomplishments combined with his charisma and warchest will carry the day easily.

The third, and most important reason, is that Arnold has sat on his money to dominate the airwaves during the Special election. His opponents have been spending all their money right now on attack ads. So his opponents are barely ahead having spent all this money attacking the Governor while the Governor is sitting on the largest warchest, almost entirely untapped until now, in the history of the state. When that money is unleashed, the charisma and persuasiveness that won Arnold the Govenrorship will send home a clear and concise mesage to support Arnold's reforms in the special election and to re-elect the Governor one year from now. Whose shoes would you really rather be in? The side that's down a few points now but has all the money and time in the world, or the side that's barely squeeked ahead and has already played its best cards?

Wow, so Arnold agrees with me like 15% of the time versus 0% for Bush because of issues like stem cell research? Sorry, that's not exactly going to save his ass. Arnold's approval ratings have dropped faster than even Davis' ratings.

Calling the state legislature girlie-men isn't getting sh**t done. Time to replace him with a grown-up.

Simply because you don't agree with him all the time doesn't mean he isn't moderate.  He's a moderate REPUBLICAN and you are a liberal Democrat.  If you agreed all the time, that would make him a liberal Democrat, wouldn't it?
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2005, 04:45:46 am »

Forst of all, as Arnold shwoed in the stem cell debate, he is very much not a typical conservative on social issues. He did reach out in that issue. Further, his plan to reform Califonria's election system by having judges redistrict instead of the legislature drawing their own districts, shows that he has in fact stood up to special interests. The fact that the deficit has been cut from $22 billion to $8 billion shows that he addressed the budget issue in a serious way, and he had to earn Democrat votes to get it done. The fact that he reformed workman's comp laws shows that he can complete important reforms and fulfill his campaign promises.

I have to say, anyone who thinks Arnold isn't doing what he said he'd do isn't looking at the facts.

The reason Arnold has a low rating is threefold: The first reason is that California Governor's, including Pat Brown in 1961 and Pete Wilson in 1993, have low approval ratings a year before their re-election. This is typical, and it doesn't last. Both those men rebounded and defeated formidable opponents to get re-elected.

The second is foot in mouth disease. Arnold has said some stupid things that reinforce the diea that he isn't serious. His legislative record says otherwise, but people often don't look at the person's actual record out here until the election actually comes, they work off perception and the culture out here is very cynical. But once the election comes around, Arnold's accomplishments combined with his charisma and warchest will carry the day easily.

The third, and most important reason, is that Arnold has sat on his money to dominate the airwaves during the Special election. His opponents have been spending all their money right now on attack ads. So his opponents are barely ahead having spent all this money attacking the Governor while the Governor is sitting on the largest warchest, almost entirely untapped until now, in the history of the state. When that money is unleashed, the charisma and persuasiveness that won Arnold the Govenrorship will send home a clear and concise mesage to support Arnold's reforms in the special election and to re-elect the Governor one year from now. Whose shoes would you really rather be in? The side that's down a few points now but has all the money and time in the world, or the side that's barely squeeked ahead and has already played its best cards?

I'm probably not as familiar with state issues as I should be, but...

As far as I know Arnold hasn't done much to resolve our budget crisis.... the budget shortfall was resolved by (1) massive borrowing through props 15 &16 and (2) increased tax revenues from a thriving economy/booming housing market.

I think that that it is outrageous that our state has borrowed so much from our future...sure, you can make the argument we shouldn't have spent so much in the past few years, but, I'm sorry the money has been spent and it has to be paid for by people TODAY through real increases in revenue, i.e. taxes, not shouldered off on to young people and future generations.

Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2005, 11:02:09 am »

I'm probably not as familiar with state issues as I should be, but...

As far as I know Arnold hasn't done much to resolve our budget crisis.... the budget shortfall was resolved by (1) massive borrowing through props 15 &16 and (2) increased tax revenues from a thriving economy/booming housing market.

I think that that it is outrageous that our state has borrowed so much from our future...sure, you can make the argument we shouldn't have spent so much in the past few years, but, I'm sorry the money has been spent and it has to be paid for by people TODAY through real increases in revenue, i.e. taxes, not shouldered off on to young people and future generations.

Te economy is booming in large part because of Arnold's policies, like repealing the idiotic car tax increase and reform of workmen's comp laws.  The deficit was not affected by the ballot initiatives, that was simply a restructuring of the state debt, which is different than the deficit.  That restructuring plan itself was a great achievement, because it prevented the state from having to cut services drastically to stay viable.

The state government currently takes in a larger portion of the state's GDP in taxes than at any other point in the history of the state.  I simply cannot accept the charge that taxes are too low given that fact.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,409
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2005, 10:25:09 pm »

Damnit, why didn't they poll Democrats on the Westly v. Angelides primary?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC