*Official Election 2005 Results Thread*

[The Duke]

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?

Why did New Jersey spend a whole campaing ranting about corruption, only to ratify corruption by popular vote?

Why did the majority party win both House Special Elections this year (OH-2, CA-48), in spite of horrible ratings for Congressional job performance?

Why did the "outsider" get obliterated in the SD Mayor's race, in spite of overwhelming desire for change?

Why did all of the reform propositions fail in Ohio and California fail (apparently) to change the status quo, while a proposition in Texas that protects the status quo on gay marriage passes easily?

I'm not putting up sour grapes here.  I'm thrilled the GOP won the two House special elections this year, thrilled Bloomberg and Sanders won for Mayor, and sort of agree with the Texas marriage initiative.  What I don't get is why did the status quo sweep the whole night (and the whole year so far) when the status quo should be getting run all over?

[The Duke]

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?

[The Duke]

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

So Fabian Nunez will be picking people like Janice Brown?  You obviously didn't read the proposition, or simply don't wish to accurately represent it.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[The Duke]

Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

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

The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?

[The Duke]

Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

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

The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?

Kilpatrick is a horrible mayor who while the city has a big deficit bought a SUV for his wife with city money and has charged 200,000 on city credit cards and spend 120,000 of petty cash.  There also is the party at the mayor's residence that got way out of control, also a stripper who was at the party turned up dead.

My theme in this thread is that in spite of demands for "change", people voted for the status quo.  Kilpatrick's re-election makes no logical sense, and cna only be understood I think, as can many of these races, if we accept that some factor is preventing people from changing course at a time when they seem to desire a change in course.

Perhaps this is an effect of radical polarization?