All Propositions Defeated
I started my search for election results by clicking on this AP article, via Drudge. It says all the propositions went down. But I didn’t entirely trust it because it says Proposition 73, the parental notification provision for abortion, “would have restricted political spending by public employee unions.” I guess I didn’t read the fine print!
The California Secretary of State’s results, accessible here, are more reliable. The propositions were indeed all defeated, with the vote on Proposition 73 being the closest (52.6% opposed and 47.4% in favor with 99.5% of precincts reporting).
I’m pleased that 78-80 were defeated, but that hardly makes up for the bitter disappointment of the defeat of the others.
The defeat of Proposition 73 should be a lesson for fanatics who are worried about the reversal of Roe v. Wade. If we can’t even pass a reasonable restriction like parental notification in California, then clearly the sacred right to kill your unborn baby will remain alive and well even if Roe is overturned.
UPDATE: Dafydd ab Hugh has a post-mortem on election returns throughout the country.
The Prop 73 vote boggles the mind, but for the rest blame Arnold for pulling his punches. When he spoke common sense about illegal immigration, he retreated as soon as the liberal MSM attacked him. He didn’t capitalize on vetoing Dem bills allowing gay marriage & drivers licenses for illegals, presumably afraid of being called a bigot.
If California wants economic & political reform, pols (including the famously inept California Republican Party) are going to have to do a better job of selling their case to taxpayers. In the run -up to the recall, Steyn pointed out that when you removed California from the picture, the economic indicators in the rest the country were all on the green. Today, it looks like Calif will continue to bleed businesses, voters, & tax revenues. (Don’t forget Bustamante pledged to increase taxes on business if he got elected.)
beautifulatrocities (e9ee59) — 11/9/2005 @ 6:45 amMy statement on this election is simple: “owned.”
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 11/9/2005 @ 7:07 amTurnout was abysmal. Save the props for a general election if you can.
ras (f9de13) — 11/9/2005 @ 8:39 amRas – absent the special election, the propositions would have been on the primary election ballot, not the general election ballot.
aphrael (6b0647) — 11/9/2005 @ 9:53 amI’m not sure the ballots would have done so badly on a primary ballot. As with the recall, one angle of this campaign was a mini-campaign on the left against Arnold personally and against the election itself, with Props 73 and 78-80 being collateral damage. That would not have been an issue in any regularly scheduled election, primary or general.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 11/9/2005 @ 11:26 amXRLQ – that is true. That argument wouldn’t have worked in a regularly scheduled election of any sort.
Not that I think it should have worked in this one; voting no to express your displeasure at the existence of the election strikes me as being a temper tantrum.
aphrael (3bacf3) — 11/9/2005 @ 11:39 amBeautiful Atrocities – the proposition 73 result is consistent with normal statewide voting patterns. San Francisco, LA, the central and northern coast, and Sacramento voted against; southern california (outside LA) and the central valley (outside Sacramento-Davis) voted in favor. This is virtually identical to the pattern seen in statewide partisan races.
aphrael (3bacf3) — 11/9/2005 @ 11:40 amProp 2, the “marriage is a union of a single man and a single woman” amendment, passed here in Texas by 76-24%.
Anyone need me to explain why Dems are no longer running this state?
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/9/2005 @ 11:43 amIn the aftermath of this election, when ALL the initiatives were defeated, two things are perfectly clear:
1. This was a wasted election cycle.
2. The voters were VERY CONSERVATIVE, issuing a MANDATE to PROTECT THE STATUS QUO (of our current level of socialism).
(Boy! Wouldn’t that make a fine LATimes above the fold/below the fold front page story?)
Jim D. (de1259) — 11/9/2005 @ 12:40 pmOn the Roosting Habits of Chickens, or Miers Redux:
We shouldn’t read too much into the election results until there has been time for careful analysis.
However, we do know turnout was low, typical of off-year elections. But, was it disproportionally Conservatives who stayed home, or do other factors explain the outcome?
If large numbers of Conservatives did sit it out, the only silver lining here is a fairly clear conclusion: If the Conservative base isn’t energized, the Left wins.
Our friends and allies in the GOP might want to give that thought some sober consideration. I know Conservatives will.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/9/2005 @ 1:08 pm“Anyone need me to explain why Dems are no longer running this state? ”
Because they don’t write initiatives that would lead a textualist to ban hetero marriage.
actus (ebc508) — 11/9/2005 @ 1:14 pmLook for another year of Arnold-bashing and legislative stalemate. This year it was about dragging Arnold down and creating a perception of failure to beat the speical election. NExt year it will be for the governorship.
Democrats wouldn’t even approve solar power becuase Arnold might share the credit, passing only junk bills that he had to veto. Their goal: portray the state as rudderless, knowing that the governor always gets the blame.
If Arnold had been riding high, like he was before the legislative/union/press infitada against him, Prop 74-77 might have stood a chance. Prop 73 always stood by itself, as Arnold never much embraced it.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 11/9/2005 @ 2:20 pmAlso (plug) see my suggestion on the redistricting front over at Interocitor.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 11/9/2005 @ 2:22 pmA very clever yonger brother of mine has remarked:
lincoln (5f1a00) — 11/9/2005 @ 3:06 pm1)Nothing really important happens until it absolutely has to,and
2) It doesn’t always happen then.
You guys(Californians)justlet yourselves in for a lotof trouble.
This was a foregone conclusion when the Unions were able to portray Arnold as a big Hollywood bully beating up on the little guy. Unopposed for months and months I might add. They defined the terms and won on that issue.
However, another politician could argue that the taxpayers are on the hook for public employee unions, and the unions are voting themselves pay raises at the taxpayer’s expense. “Rein in the raid on taxpayers” is a conservative argument Arnold did not make (because Arnold is not conservative).
Going into the General election, business interests have to back Arnold. The likelihood of any Dem victor being restrained on raiding them for “some really quick money” to quote Jimmy Swaggart is next to zero. Their cost of doing business in California will jump significantly higher and eat into profits for many of them unless Arnold is there to veto the truly horrible bills. Arnold can run on “I’ll keep jobs in the State while the Dems push them out.” Powerful if linked to business owners who moved to other places saying why they left or are leaving.
Also the golden lining is that Warren Beatty might run and win the Dem primary. He’s liberal as all hell. VERY anti-War and has hosted George Galloway. Openly sided with the jihadis in Iraq and “understands” 9/11 and Al Qaeda etc. In short he’s the perfect Dem primary candidate for the uber-liberal Dem voters who dominate the primary; and want to vent their anti-Bush feelings. He might even run as independent, and we might even see another circus with Larry Flynt, the porno actress, and some refugee from VH1 reality shows (Gary Busey? Gary Coleman? MC Hammer?) A circus last time definitely helped Arnold by making him look sane and sober.
Bullworthy vs. the Last Action Hero? Bet on Arnold.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 11/9/2005 @ 6:39 pmIf I were Arnold’s strategist, I’d advise him to “accept” the unions’ call for him to apologize to Californians–but with a big twist. Apologize for not being more present in the state explaining your reforms. Apologize for “not listening” to voter concerns and adequately answering their questions. Apologize for thinking your star-power alone would overcome a campaign of lies and distortions. Apologize for trying to push the reforms from your Sacramento office rather than rolling up your sleeves and defending them with the voters eye-to-eye. Pull a Bill Clinton. Tell voters you’ve learned your lesson. Tell Californians you intend to “reintroduce” yourself with them. Then start barnstorming the state with the standard Democrat tactic: a huge “listening tour.” Shore up the base and remind swing voters why they once liked you. Then come out swinging in the next election with a re-tooled reform agenda. All is not lost.
Michael I (779e49) — 11/10/2005 @ 11:02 am“All is not lost.”
Ya. that’s the problem. Tell teh people the stuff they rejected is what they can expect more of, except shoved down their throats even harder. Good Luck!
actus (ebc508) — 11/10/2005 @ 12:54 pmHey, if it’s good enough for illegal alien driver licenses or homosexual marriage and the state legislature…
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 11/10/2005 @ 1:47 pm