NationStates Jolt Archive

In California last night, every one of the referenda that Arnold Schwarzenegger supported went down in flames. (http://sfgate.com/election/) The closest race for Arnold was Prop 75, and it lost by 6 points.

Arnold spent a lot of time and money--some of it his own--campaigning for these initiatives. It's obvious now that he doesn't have the popularity he once did with the voters. What are the chances he'll go back to acting in 2006 rather than take a chance getting beaten in a regular election campaign?

Unlike most states, where the voters have to endure whatever the legislature wants to do or not do (regardless of who is governor), California at least has the chance to go around the legislature with these initiatives.

If the people don't want to go around this time, maybe they are happy with the way things are.

Is voting on an issue more about the issue, or more about the popularity of the people who back or oppose the issue?

I'm somwhat suprised that the perscription drug discounts and the energy regulation didnt pass. Seems that those pseudo-socialist Califorinans would enjoy regulation.

Humph.

Must admit that I don't find 73 that objectionable...

If the people don't want to go around this time, maybe they are happy with the way things are.Or maybe they were swayed by all the attack ads that played night and day on California TV stations? The ballot-measure opponents had a villain to scorn in their ads; the proponents didn't have anything nearly that sexy.

Or maybe they were swayed by all the attack ads that played night and day on California TV stations? The ballot-measure opponents had a villain to scorn in their ads; the proponents didn't have anything nearly that sexy.

The nice thing about a democracy is that you get the government you deserve.

The parental notification bill failed? Good. A shame about the prescription drug discounts, though.

Well, this poll wasn't so good. For me, I'd have to switch the explanations- I think Schwarzenegger will run again, but I'm not sure that he'll be able to muster the same popularity as last time.

I guess a lot of it was backlash against the $50 million price tag on these special elections.

The nice thing about a democracy is that you get the government you deserve.

Sig-worthy. Can I sig that?

I guess a lot of it was backlash against the $50 million price tag on these special elections.Most of the voters wanted the state to waste far more than $50 million, as proven by the fact that they voted against Proposition 76.

I think this hurt arnold but he is still going to run again after all he is the govenator

Piekrom']I think this hurt arnold but he is still going to run again after all he is the govenator
Yeah? Or is he, as I've seen in several places online today, the one-term-inator?

The parental notification bill failed? Good.

So are you against parental rights? Since these are minors we are talking about, they are still the responsibility of the parents. Having this failed is a defeat for parental rights.

A shame about the prescription drug discounts, though.

I'll agree.

Well, this poll wasn't so good. For me, I'd have to switch the explanations- I think Schwarzenegger will run again, but I'm not sure that he'll be able to muster the same popularity as last time.

Again I agree.

Most of the voters wanted the state to waste far more than $50 million, as proven by the fact that they voted against Proposition 76.

Or they voted against it because Proposition 76 represented an expansion of the Governor's executive order powers. While wanting to support measures to reduce state expenses, they may not consider further consolidation and centralization of power into the hands of one man to be a valid solution; indeed, they may fear the next heavy spender who will use the precedent to make the situation much worse...

So are you against parental rights? Since these are minors we are talking about, they are still the responsibility of the parents. Having this failed is a defeat for parental rights.


Proposition 73 should not have been proposed as a constitutional amendment. The purpose of a constitution is to define the structures, functions, and rules by which a government body operates. Proposition 73 would not amend the structures, functions, and rules of operation of the government of the State of California, ergo such a proposal does not belong in the constitution. Conservatives like to complain about how their opponents abuse constitutions; Proposition 73 was such an abuse.

Besides, with the ability of judges to override, it would have made no difference anyway. Not to mention that in the inevitable Supreme Court battle, no one is going to side with states rights...

Proposition 73 should not have been proposed as a constitutional amendment. The purpose of a constitution is to define the structures, functions, and rules by which a government body operates. Proposition 73 would not amend the structures, functions, and rules of operation of the government of the State of California, ergo such a proposal does not belong in the constitution. Conservatives like to complain about how their opponents abuse constitutions; Proposition 73 was such an abuse.

Ok, I'll agree with you there but that still doesn't answer my question.

Besides, with the ability of judges to override, it would have made no difference anyway. Not to mention that in the inevitable Supreme Court battle, no one is going to side with states rights...

Which is unfortunate :(

So are you against parental rights? Since these are minors we are talking about, they are still the responsibility of the parents. Having this failed is a defeat for parental rights.


If supporting parents' rights means harming the teenagers involved, then aye, I'm against parents' rights. If a teenager is trying to get an abortion without telling their parents, it's generally for a reason. Perhaps they're pregnant because a family member is molesting them; perhaps they're worried that their parents will beat them (http://www.janesdueprocess.org/info_preg_teens/abused_preg_teens/stories.htm), perhaps they're worried that the parents will force the teenager to keep the child against her will (which can't be good for the baby); perhaps they're worried that they will be expelled from the home and forced to live on their own. Sure, there's the opportunity for judicial exemption, but I wonder how much that would actually help- whether justices would really give them out, or just assumed that they have an embarrassed little girl on their hands and force her to go back to her parents, as they ready the cane...

So no, I don't support parents' rights in this regard. Fortunately, California's voters agree with me.

If supporting parents' rights means harming the teenagers involved, then aye, I'm against parents' rights.

Even though it is the parents right to know what the hell there child is doing?

*Snip*

see previous quote

So no, I don't support parents' rights in this regard. Fortunately, California's voters agree with me.

You sir, are an idiot.

Even though it is the parents right to know what the hell there child is doing?

see previous quote

You sir, are an idiot.

Asshole debate tactic #12: Don't worry about your opponent's arguments; just keep hammering your own opinion (no support required) and call your opponent an idiot.

I don't think that parents have a right to know that their child is going to get an abortion unless the child tells them, because if the child doesn't tell them, there's a reason for it. Check that link again to see cases of why I think so. Some parents are just plain bloody nuts; teenagers should not be forced to endure beatings from them. If teenagers were forced to inform their parents, I think we would have seen a sharp increase in the number of illegal abortions (friggin' coathanger... *shudder*), as teenagers tried desperately to get out of their pregnancies- often forced upon them- without exposing themselves to risk from their parents.

Teens are not so bad as many think: Myths about Teenagers (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1224)

Unlike most states, where the voters have to endure whatever the legislature wants to do or not do (regardless of who is governor), California at least has the chance to go around the legislature with these initiatives.

If the people don't want to go around this time, maybe they are happy with the way things are.

Is voting on an issue more about the issue, or more about the popularity of the people who back or oppose the issue?

In the case of 5 of the propositions, the Governator made it a popularity contest. He specifically put his popularity on the line with those propositions.

As to the original question, he may run again, but he isn't going to win.

Asshole debate tactic #12: Don't worry about your opponent's arguments; just keep hammering your own opinion (no support required) and call your opponent an idiot.

I don't think that parents have a right to know that their child is going to get an abortion unless the child tells them, because if the child doesn't tell them, there's a reason for it. Check that link again to see cases of why I think so. Some parents are just plain bloody nuts; teenagers should not be forced to endure beatings from them. If teenagers were forced to inform their parents, I think we would have seen a sharp increase in the number of illegal abortions (friggin' coathanger... *shudder*), as teenagers tried desperately to get out of their pregnancies- often forced upon them- without exposing themselves to risk from their parents.

Teens are not so bad as many think: Myths about Teenagers (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1224)


You missed one other very important point. In some casses fmily is the problem. Can someone say insesste(sp?)? So tell ing the parents will only make the situation worse.

Piekrom']You missed one other very important point. In some casses fmily is the problem. Can someone say insesste(sp?)? So tell ing the parents will only make the situation worse.

Thought I mentioned that in an earlier post, but aye this is one of the problems. Again, teenagers generally have reasons to keep things secret.

Or they voted against it because Proposition 76 represented an expansion of the Governor's executive order powers. While wanting to support measures to reduce state expenses, they may not consider further consolidation and centralization of power into the hands of one man to be a valid solution;Here is the text to Proposition 76.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/text76.pdf
According to sections 4 g 1 and 4 g 2, the governor doesn't gain the power to make emergency budget cuts unless the legislature decides to pass a deficit of more than 1.5%, the governor asks the legislature to remedy the situation, and the legislature decides not to reduce the deficit during the next 45 days. That consolidation and centralization of power could only happen if the legislature decided to give the governor that power. Proposition 76 wouldn't have directly handed that power to the governor.

What you suggested was not the reason anyone voted against it.

indeed, they may fear the next heavy spender who will use the precedent to make the situation much worse...Where in Proposition 76 did it say a Gray Davis-like governor could have an easier time increasing spending? I didn't see anything about giving the governor more power to increase spending. Go ahead and point out the section that gives the governor more power to increase spending.

Here is the text to Proposition 76.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/text76.pdf
According to sections 4 g 1 and 4 g 2, the governor doesn't gain the power to make emergency budget cuts unless the legislature decides to pass a deficit of more than 1.5%, the governor asks the legislature to remedy the situation, and the legislature decides not to reduce the deficit during the next 45 days. That consolidation and centralization of power could only happen if the legislature decided to give the governor that power. Proposition 76 wouldn't have directly handed that power to the governor.

What you suggested was not the reason anyone voted against it.

Where in Proposition 76 did it say a Gray Davis-like governor could have an easier time increasing spending? I didn't see anything about giving the governor more power to increase spending. Go ahead and point out the section that gives the governor more power to increase spending.

*sigh*

You lost. Get over it.

That consolidation and centralization of power could only happen if the legislature decided to give the governor that power. Proposition 76 wouldn't have directly handed that power to the governor.


If I count correctly, the Democrats currently have the majority in both the state Senate and Assembly. Thus, the chances of a confrontation between the state Legislature and the Governor leading to an invocation of the Governor's special powers under Proposition 76 is extremely high. Which is exactly why such powers were included in Proposition 76 in the first place; working through the Legislature is not likely to work, thus the Governor requires the ability to bypass it. The circumstances being what they are, the power was, for all practical purposes, being handed directly to the Governor.


Where in Proposition 76 did it say a Gray Davis-like governor could have an easier time increasing spending? I didn't see anything about giving the governor more power to increase spending. Go ahead and point out the section that gives the governor more power to increase spending.

I didn't say Proposition 76 would give a heavy spender an easier time. What I intended to say was that the precedent set by giving the Governor extra powers to control the budget would make it easier for a heavy spender to increase spending. If a Republican Governor can pass a proposition consolidating his power over the budget, then so can a Democrat.

Unlike most states, where the voters have to endure whatever the legislature wants to do or not do (regardless of who is governor), California at least has the chance to go around the legislature with these initiatives.

If the people don't want to go around this time, maybe they are happy with the way things are.

Is voting on an issue more about the issue, or more about the popularity of the people who back or oppose the issue?

I think it's way too easy to get things on the ballot here. Very often, propositions are poorly written, or just poorly thought out, and so end up either doing nothing or having consequences that were completely unintended. Unlike bills, there is no way to change a ballot proposition, it's all or nothing.

For example, I voted no on the redistricting initiative, not because I think the way districts are drawn right now is good, but because I didn't like the solution they came up with.

Another one that I only partially disagreed with was the re-regulation proposition. It had a couple flaws in it, so I voted against it.

For the record, I voted no on every single one. We didn't need a special election, we could have voted on all these things next year, since we're having a primary election in June and then the gubernatorial election next November.

And yes, the goobernator got smacked. He'll run next year, but who knows if he'll win now.

If I count correctly, the Democrats currently have the majority in both the state Senate and Assembly. Thus, the chances of a confrontation between the state Legislature and the Governor leading to an invocation of the Governor's special powers under Proposition 76 is extremely high. Which is exactly why such powers were included in Proposition 76 in the first place; working through the Legislature is not likely to work, thus the Governor requires the ability to bypass it. The circumstances being what they are, the power was, for all practical purposes, being handed directly to the Governor.You really should read Proposition 76 before you spread these false claims. It does not give the governor the power to cut spending over a simple confrontation. It only gives the governor that power if the legislature passes a deficit of more than 1.5% and decides not to reduce the deficit for 45 days after being warned. You don't have to take my word for it. The document is right there to be read. If you really believed what you said about Proposition 76, you have plenty of reason to be pissed off at whoever told you that crap.

I didn't say Proposition 76 would give a heavy spender an easier time. What I intended to say was that the precedent set by giving the Governor extra powers to control the budget would make it easier for a heavy spender to increase spending. If a Republican Governor can pass a proposition consolidating his power over the budget, then so can a Democrat.Propositions are passed by voters, not the governor. A heavy spender would only be able to convince the voters to pass a proposition giving him more power to waste money if a majority of the voters supported more wasteful spending, which is the condition you were originally trying to disprove.

He is the Governator. He absolutely, positively will not stop. I just hope you Californians have dogs so you can detect him when he comes doorknocking.