*Official Election 2005 Results Thread*

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not the issue here

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wtf?

[qupte]
So we should only weaken who Arnold calls special interest groups?[/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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's a tip; don't post shortly after drinking

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[minionofmidas]

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?

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

Not one I disapprove of, though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?
 
[/quote]
Ot course they represent their members,[/quote]

Really? What have California unions done for Californian trade unionists recently?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're babbling now

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you actually been reading my posts?

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the organisation you're in?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And? That's hardly child molestation.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[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.

"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.

[Citizen James]

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:

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[AuH2O]

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:

ha haha

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

So nothing then?

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?

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You sir, need to stop drinking

[The Duke]

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.

I just gave you the reason for it being five years, idiot.  It's so you can observe and evaluate a teacher after they've reached their peak performance (Year 4).

[Defarge]

Excellent.  Now on to 2006. 

[Citizen James]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Keystone Phil]

In school today, two of the most extreme left wing teachers started bragging about the VA and NJ races. I, of course, argued back but here's the one line I had to laugh at (and then counter): "America has spoken!" said the one teacher. See what I mean? America has spoken? Two states voted for Governor and this is the end of the President and the GOP Congress? Give it up, people.

"Bush won VA by eight points!" Yeah, ok. I understand that. Kaine won by about the same margin as Warner in '01 and Bush was very, very popular back then. People need to snap the hell out of it. VA is not going to suddenly become a tossup state (unless Warner is the nominee and yes, that is still unlikely to happen).

[The Duke]

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.

[ATFFL]

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.

If teachers are underpaid varies by state.  Having looked into the matter, and compared state salaries to cost of living, many states do slightly underpay new teachers.  Some (notably Florida) are good for new teachers, but horrid for experienced teachers.

The screaming you hear from my union member colleagues is, in part, because those wonderful unions take a good chunk in dues and have done jack to improve teacher pay in many years.  This makes teh money crunch in some areas worse.

Keep in mind that while the school year is only 10 months and you get an additional month off in holidays and vacation time, many teachers work more than 8 hours per day for that time.

Of course, teachers can supplement their income over the summer, which can help a lot with the money.  They can also get an advanced degree or get National Board certified, which also brings in more money.

Finally, the time it takes to properly evaluate a teacher is actually three years, not 4, John.  Some say 4, but three is becomign a more widely held position.  Articles supporting such can be found in any decent teaching professional journal.  I an look some up next week, if anyone wants.

[Flying Dog]

Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

Im speechless........................

[WMS]

Well, a mixed bag of results.

Yay for Kaine!
Boo for Corzine!
Yay for Bloomberg!

Gigantic F***ing BOO for Kilpatrick in Detroit! Detroit sucks, no doubt about it. Thank God Albuquerque voted for someone sane and not for our version of Kilpatrick!

BOO for the fall of the California Redistricting Proposal! I do not want to hear a single California Democrat EVER complain about gerrymandering again - how hypocritical can you get? I haven't heard a single good argument on why Cali Dems voted against it, whereas jimrtex DID present good arguments against the Ohio Redistricting Proposal.

Boo on the failure of parental notification, but then again, this is CA, where every damned California Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. To be expected, I guess.

As for the other ballot issues, eh. Good for Maine, and as for Texas...didn't they already ban gay marriage two years ago? Oh, and good for San Diego, from what little I know about it.

[Dave from Michigan]

I cna't believe kilpatrick one pathetic  Hopefully the city will go bankurpt and the people will regret there choice.  All i have to say if  Detroit

[Cashcow]

I cna't believe kilpatrick one pathetic  Hopefully the city will go bankurpt and the people will regret there choice.  All i have to say if  Detroit

Congratulations on inventing your own language.