More Election 2007 Results
[Guest post by DRJ]
There were other interesting election results yesterday in addition to the Utah school voucher referendum and the Kentucky and Mississippi Governorships discussed in prior posts here and here.
First, the Democrats gained control of the Virginia Senate for the first time in a decade, giving the Democratic Party control of both the Senate and the Governorship, as well as additional seats in the House. The new Senate Majority leader contends the win will be especially important to Northern Virginians:
“Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) said the gains in the Senate will be significant for Northern Virginia residents “because virtually every senator up here becomes a committee chairman. That’s huge.”
Saslaw, who will probably be majority leader, also becomes chairman of commerce and labor, for instance. “There will be a heavy urban focus,” he said in an interview, referring to the Senate under new leadership. But he also sought to strike a centrist note, saying: “The state Senate has always governed from the center. That’s what we do.”
Second, there were surprising (to me) results in referendums in New Jersey and Oregon:
“New Jersey: Voters rejected a referendum to authorize the state to borrow $450 million over 10 years for stem cell research.
Oregon: Voters decided against raising the cigarette tax by 84.5 cents a pack — to $2.02 — to fund health insurance for about 100,000 children now lacking coverage.”
In the meantime, Texans approved “$3 billion in bonds to create a cancer research institute.” If I had been handicapping these elections, I would have guessed Texas would vote against public funding/taxes for medical research and/or health insurance, while New Jersey and Oregon would vote for it. It turned out just the opposite. Interesting.
— DRJ
On a lesser scale, DRJ, the fairly popular two-term incumbent Mayor of Indianapolis was beaten by a woefully under-funded Republican, who did not have the full support of the party, and had no political experience whatsoever. Hell, I did not think he had a prayer.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:16 pmThe result of the cancer research vote in Texas was likely swayed by the active campaigning for the proposition by the very popular Lance Armstrong. Still, it received around 60% of the vote, so it likely wasn’t all due to Armstrong. Texas has a rather goofy setup that forces all sorts of trivial matters to show up on ballots as constitutional amendments, and I suspect most of them simply get passed regardless of content.
Ross (34360c) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:20 pmJD,
I haven’t even seen that reported. Tell me more.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:20 pmIt was the first time an incumbent had been beaten in Indianapolis in over 60 years. Mayor Peterson (D) had been at loggerheads with the Fire and Police departments, and unjustly was saddled with some blame for increased property tax bills from the legislature. However, the Republican ran a campaign on around $300,000, only got nominal support from the Party, and essentially built his own campaign door to door. His campaign was based on bringing integrity back to public office, and serving the constituents in a prudent manner. It was a shock, as the last polls I saw had the Dem up 15-20 points. There was a sense that the incumbent saw it coming, as he went very negative in the last week or so, and actually spent more on one negative ad campaign that the Republican spent on his whole campaign. I think the Republican got more name recognition from the negative ad than he did from the whole campaign, but that is just my observation.
The Republican was a Marine Corps officer for 20+ years, and the negative ad stated in bold letters, that he did not have any experience necessary to lead, or something to that effect.
Regardless, that is just local, but Indianapolis had been trending Dem for a while. The City/County council also went Republican, and it had been trending Dem as well.
Fletcher (KY) could have been beaten by a statue, though he must be given credit for reforming their Workers Compensation system.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:37 pmFor those (like me) who are interested in reading more about Indianapolis’ new mayor, Greg Ballard, here’s a link. Thanks to JD for the tip.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:20 pmThe Texas Medical Center is the single largest employer in Houston, and one of every five voters in Texas comes from Houston. We’re keen here on medical research.
Paul S. (8cbb16) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:22 pmThanks, DRJ. Like I said, it is not likely indicative of any trends, as Indiana as a whole is generally pretty solid R. However, Indianapolis proper, the 12th largest city in the country and growing, had been trending Dem for a while, and this was a huge upset. Nobody saw it coming.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:24 pmPaul S.,
I heard on the radio that the Texas bonds will be distributed as grants for cancer research so I assume, and frankly I hope, that a good portion of that will go to MD Anderson. Will these funds be limited to Texas research grants or can they go out-of-state as long as the research seems valuable? Are there guidelines for the grants or are distributions to be made in the discretion of a board of overseers?
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:28 pmDRJ, but how do you explain the Lower Merion Township (PA) Treasurer race…that’s the one that has me baffled. My friend lost.
But seriously, I was watching the NJ referendum closely as well, and was also surprised at the result. In VA, I think we’re seeing the same thing that’s happening in my town….libs moving out to the burbs once their kids reach school age and they realize they can’t stomach the school systems they’ve supported for inner city kids after all….at least not for their own kids. Then they screw everything up, and at some point there is (hopefully) a backlash. Wait till they try to mess with the gun laws. THEN they will meet the real Virginians, and we may see the VA political seesaw tilt back. Then they screw everything up
driver (faae10) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:33 pmDriver,
I’m sorry about your friend’s election. You’re more adept at political nuts & bolts than I am and I’m sure you know more about Pennsylvania politics, let alone Lower Merion Township politics. What do you think happened? Alternatively, if you plan to blog about this, please leave us a link.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:56 pmOh–I was just kidding bringing up the township treasurer’s race, although he did lose, and he is my friend, and I did use all of my political alchemy to try to get him elected.
But, to be serious again, this highly qualified super accountant and famous philanthropist lost because the Dems are leaving Philadelphia in droves and coming out here so their kids don’t have to attend the urban public schools. They have become the majority party in what was once one of the most rock-ribbed Republican bastions in the country. My friend lost because the big issue for us in this election was control of the school board, and the Dems won again, and every other candidate from dog catcher to municipal judge rode in on their coat-tails. I think that’s what has happened in VA—the blue-statization of what used to be a fairly reliable red state.
driver (faae10) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:08 pmDriver,
I don’t know why but my sarcasm/irony/teasing sensor seems to be in the permanent off setting on the internet.
As for your point, do you think that means suburban areas will become more and more blue? Or does it mean that formerly urban liberals will, over time, trend purple/red as they live longer in suburban areas?
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:15 pmDriver – I fear the day that happens. I am in suburban Indianapolis, in quite possibly one of the most Republican counties, and precincts in the State. Dan Burton is our Rep, and even when Republicans are having awful years, he gets 70% of the vote. Usually there are few, if any, Dem candidates on the ballot below US Senate, Governor, and President.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:17 pmDRJ – I think that the suburban areas will trend more purple over time, but the traditionally quite strong blue cities may start trending more purple with gentrification.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:18 pmIn response to DRJ and JD:
Gentrification is a word I had thought of using…the Dems think they are gentrifying the suburbs! Just like they gentrified downtown.
The pattern is this: Liberal yuppies/dinks (Dual Income No Kids) love the city because it’s close to the professional work that most of them do, near to the nightlife and restaurants, etc. Everybody votes liberal/Democrat, just as they do. It’s heaven. Until the Dink part stops, and they have kids. Then they are faced with a dire choice: public schools that are a joke at best and dangerous at worst, or parochial schools….that’s when the suburbs start looking good.
Baby boomers having kids is what has changed the politics of the suburbs with which I’m most familiar (Philly and DC) over the last 20 years. My town elected its first Democrat school board about 12 years ago, and its first Democrat town council two or three years ago. My town is over 300 years old, and has been the best-managed municipality (and wealthiest) in PA throughout its history, until those changes occurred (well, we’re still the wealthiest). Our town used to be run by grown-ups, of whatever age. They were the movers and shakers, serious mental wattage. Our town is now run by Yuppies. I think that’s what’s happening in VA, and I think it will continue until these folks start to realize that they’re being mugged by reality and grow up and become “conservatives.”
People around here are too rich, fat and happy to see what’s coming down the pike right now. I’m reminded of what P.J. O’Rourke once said: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” That’s what has happened in my town over the last decade!
I may be moving to Montana soon, to quote someone else….
driver (faae10) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:04 pmMontana has a Democratic governor and two senators of that persuasion. The legislature is too, if I’m not mistaken. The reason: the biggest employer in the state is the federal government. You don’t buy the hand that feeds you.
Banjo (b5278d) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:40 pmBite the hand (smacking forehead with hand).
Banjo (b5278d) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:40 pmDamn. Well, that was just a Frank Zappa song that I liked.
driver (faae10) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:57 pmdriver – We are in the exact opposite type of scenario. We are in a relatively new suburb, that has been experiencing explosive growth over the last decade. So far, we have had adults in charge, and the growth has been planned for, and managed appropriately with budgeting from infranstructure, schools, etc … Our taxes are fairly high for the state, but we are getting some of the best infrastructure and schools in the state, a marginally fair trade off. Once we get past the growth stage, and the busybodies start trying to manage things, I hope we can remain true to our fairly conservative roots.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:01 pmDRJ, as to Oregon, I think your answer is in the following:
“The tobacco industry poured more than $12 million into a media blitz that seemingly proved effective in turning voters against the measure. The Healthy Kids Program was defeated despite the support of Gov. Ted Kulongoski and a coalition of major healthcare organizations. … [a] Measure 50 supporter blamed the loss on voter confusion and a negative ad campaign where tobacco companies outspent backers of the tax plan by a 4-to-1 margin.” [from http://www.jointoghether.org]
This is similar to what happened in California last year to a similar referendum. It was also defeated after tobacco companies outspent backers of the tax plan by a 4-to-1 margin. In California, the tobacco companies spent more than $65 Million to defeat the initiative.
I didn’t see the ads, but it seems illogical and unfair to target one small group of citizens with a tax that should be borne by all since the benefit will go to all, not just children of smokers.
JayHub (0a6237) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:21 pmWhich do you think is the better explanation, JayHub: That Oregon voters were duped by big tobacco ads or that they felt this was a bad tax?
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:27 pmOregon comes up with a lot of liberal, government programs, but the voters are very leery of the taxes that are required to support them. Those Dems up there trend libertarian.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:32 pmInside Washington State a slew of (somewhat) unexpected victories for various tax increases.
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/009592.html
Al (b624ac) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:55 pmSharkansky is such a good blogger. Thanks for linking that Al.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:57 pmI mean, for _opponents_ of various tax increases. Sheesh.
Al (b624ac) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:12 pmDRJ,
About that cancer tax in Texas, Lance Armstrong unleashed a lot of publicity about that thing. Apparently a heck of a lot of dollars donated to his foundation and other cancer foundations went to fund a proposition designed to extract more dollars from the pockets of taxpayers–many of whom had made those donations. Voter participation was miniscule. I understand that his foundation stands to benefit from grants.
I saw very little organized opposition to it. Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum released their opposition announcement only 3 days before the election, based on the fact that there is no prohibition on using the money for embryonic stem cell research.
In my county, the only organized opposition was the Libertarian party and about 5 to 10 of us Republicans. I walked some of my precinct and made calls (finally turning to an auto-dialer) and I am proud to say that Prop. 15 was defeated in my precinct. Also, the margin of success in Travis County was very narrow–despite its adulation of Lance Armstrong.
It is a boondoggle of monumental proportions which will bring the unscrupulous into Texas in order to form companies to lap up the money. I’ve seen it before in my profession. After lapping a while and eating up money, I predict that many of these companies will go the same route as some of the old nursing home chains that lapped up Medicare/Medicaid monies in the past. They will be taken into Chapter 11 by their CEO’s and others at the top–who will then depart with golden parachutes.
Moreover, I think that the promised royalties from patents that are promised will either never materialize or will sink in a morass of litigation over accounting, to be eaten up by attorney’s fees and expenses.
Jerri Lynn Ward (bf2d8c) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:33 pmWho decides where the grants go?
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:46 pmOregon isn’t all Portland. There are plenty of rural and small town areas with people who probably enjoy their cigs and don’t want to get hit with another tax. Lots of Oregon counties are hurting, with the decline in the lumber industry, people don’t need their expenses increased right now.
jack (830204) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:09 pm#21 – Haven’t a clue, DRJ. I voted against in last year in CA for the reason I gave above. Here’s some interesting stuff on the vote from the Portland paper’s site:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1194420305233310.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
JayHub (0a6237) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:14 pmDRJ,
A committee of appointed Bureaucrats decides on who gets the grants. You can imagine the cronyism that will result. Just look what happened this past year when Perry tried to force that vaccine on 12 year old girls. One of his aides was deeply involved with the company making them.
Jerri Lynn Ward (bf2d8c) — 11/8/2007 @ 5:58 amJay,
The cronies (Rep. Goodlatte) are having a hearing on Capitol Hill today regarding internet gambling. It’s a joke. Tune into C-SPAN if you have time.
Press Release 365 (f008ab) — 11/14/2007 @ 11:19 am