Patterico's Pontifications

6/4/2008

Election Results

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 6:37 am



Proposition 98, which I voted for, was voted down. Proposition 99, which I voted against, was approved.

We’re looking at a runoff in the L.A. County Supervisor election to replace Supervisor Burke, between the cheeto-chomping Mark Ridley-Thomas and the scandal-hiding Bernard Parks. The newspaper reports that other local contests were less surprising:

In other contests, Cooley was securing a third term, despite his promise to quit after eight years in office. County Supervisors Don Knabe and Mike Antonovich — Republicans who have held their offices for 12 and 28 years, respectively — were also handily defeating their opponents.

Judicial election results are here. My recommendations did not all come out on top, but many did. I think the rules provide for a runoff if the winner did not capture a majority, which appears to apply to a lot of the races.

Congratulations to those who obtained clear majorities and are headed for the bench: Kathleen Blanchard and Jared Moses.

Some of my recommendations did not obtain a plurality, but came out on top headed into any runoff election. These include Mike O’Gara, Michael Jesic, and Pat Connolly. I couldn’t decide between Hilleri Merritt and Marc Chomel, but Hilleri pulled off a strong plurality, and Marc came in third. If there is a runoff, Hilleri will get my endorsement — and it doesn’t look like she’ll need it.

Oh, yeah: in other news, it looks like Barack Obama has the presidential nomination pretty well wrapped up.

25 Responses to “Election Results”

  1. Good luck to the run-offs, and congrats to the two outright winners…

    MOG, go kick some butt. If you lose, I shudder to think about our host’s disposition here…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  2. The loss of Prop 98 is another example of how a slick media campaign, and dishonest commercials by such groups as The League of Women Voters, can defeat the voters’ common sense. This does not bode well for the presidential election. Prop 99 was a Potemkin Village ruse to fool the voters and it worked. It is an empty shell, another of which is running for president.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  3. One of the schocking things about this election was to receive a notice from the Republican party endorsing a yes on 99 and a no on 98. When the Republican leaders are complicit in the con job perpetrated by our legislature, we are all screwed.

    Bar Sinister (6ef162)

  4. I voted for 98 too, as did everyone in line in my polling place. The League of Women Voters endorsement of 99 made up my mind!

    The voters of California are sure getting it wrong lately, aren’t they? I guess since the middle class is leaving, mostly what’s left is the upper class of liberals and the lower class of welfare recipients.

    Patricia (f56a97)

  5. On 98, I believe the eventual consensus will be that the Rent-Control provision was the proverbial “bridge too far”. That was a damning campaign issue handed to the 99 side.

    Interesting to note that DA Cooley, is the first DA to be elected to three, consecutive terms.
    Whether that is good or bad, I leave to others.

    Would now be a good time for the DA to come out for the deportation of CRIMINAL ALIENS (upon their release from jail/prison, of course)?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  6. I voted for Prop 98 but I am seriously ticked at the drafters for including the rent control provision in there. I understand the logic and oppose rent control in principle but it had no business in the initiative and gave the opponents a hook to fight the measure.

    The good news is that Tom McClintock won the primary for the 4th (not my district — not that it was Tom’s either :) ). Carpetbagger he may be, but he is one of the few people who can be trusted in Washington without succumbing to the culture there. Congratulations.

    Sean P (e57269)

  7. Mike K: I agree that Proposition 99 was a Potemkin proposition, and that’s why I voted against it.

    That said, I severely disliked the tying of rent control into Proposition 98, and that’s why I voted against it.

    It would help tremendously if advocates for certain causes stopped trying to tie those causes to other issues. This is twice now that eminent domain reform proponents have done that and ended up getting a pie in their faces.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  8. For all this complaining about Prop 98 and rent control, is anyone seriously going to argue that rent control is a good thing? If not, why should anyone care that the proponents of Prop 98 tried to stop government both from stealing your land outright and from acting as though they owned it even if they don’t? And didn’t they get rid of rent control in the 1990s already?

    Xrlq (b71926)

  9. You folks haven’t seen the worst of initiative abuse yet, even though the movement started there. Last election in Rhode Island, they passed a measure stating that in no way, shape, or form should voting ever take place inside the state prison. Much tough-talk bluster included. The fine print at the end however restored voting rights to felons the minute they stepped outside. They bet correctly that a majority wouldn’t read that far.

    rhodeymark (e86321)

  10. “For all this complaining about Prop 98 and rent control, is anyone seriously going to argue that rent control is a good thing?”

    Well, not from me. As a practical matter it has discouraged construction and led to increased rent in the city’s core and increased sprawl.

    But that really isn’t the point. Look as aphareal’s comment. You can disagree with her position on rent control (I do), but elections are about building coalitions, and it made no sense for the anti-Kelo forces to alienate a faction of their natural coalition simply to push an idea that had little chance of passing on its own. Plus, this was the SECOND time the anti-Kelo people did this. The next time they try to simply ban Kelo, builders and developers will tout the initiative as “the group that tried to overturn rent control is up to their latest tricks.” Bad, bad move politically.

    Sean P (e57269)

  11. I agree about rent control. That is another subject but they may have figured this was a shoo-in and they would ride its coat tails. The pols were clever enough to draft the fake initiative that was just enough like it to confuse the voters.

    By the way, don’t pay any attention to those “Republican” mailers. They are a form of private enterprise. That is an old story; put a bunch of apple pie and motherhood candidates on your list and then sell the mailer to the guys who want gambling hells in every playground.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  12. I too voted yes on 98 and no on 99.

    The ads made it sound like a bunch of senior citizens were going to get turned out of their mobile homes and onto the streets if 98 passed.

    Rent control is poor public policy, based on sloppy thinking. but now that we have it in places, it is going to be very difficult to retract. It breaks too many rice bowls.

    Guess we have to agree though that linking a thorough anti-Kelo proposal with a bleeding heart issue like rent control for mobile homes was a big tactical mistake.

    Joseph Somsel (e5cbf5)

  13. Sean P: I’m a he, not a she. :) I find it interesting that you say you disagree with my position on rent control. I don’t believe I’ve stated my position on rent control. :)

    XRLQ: I think there is a limited number of circumstances in which rent control is a reasonable policy. I would vote against it if my city were considering adopting it.

    But I also think it’s something a community ought to be able to decide for itself, and object to a statewide rule prohibiting it. I object even more strongly to the bundling of rent control and eminent domain reform; they’re *not* the same issue, and logrolling initiatives is obnoxious on its face.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  14. Also, xlrq: the 1995 legislation you are speaking of only eliminated rent control on vacant units. Any ordinance allowed for “vacancy decontrol” (the landloard can charge whatever he wants to re-rent the unit once the tenant left, but is pretty much locked into that rent as long as the tenant stayed) it still is allowed, and in effect in LA, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills, as well as Santa Monica (which passed a less restrictive rent control ordinance).

    Sean P (e57269)

  15. “The voters of California are sure getting it wrong lately, aren’t they? I guess since the middle class is leaving, mostly what’s left is the upper class of liberals and the lower class of welfare recipients.”

    – Patricia

    That, or the middle class isn’t as stolidly Republican as a bunch of brain-dead conservative talk show hosts would have you believe.

    Leviticus (22eefa)

  16. There’s always that unsettling possibility.

    Leviticus (22eefa)

  17. I voted no on 98 because it combined two issues — eminent domain and rent control. The voters should be allowed to approve or reject each issue separately.

    I voted no on 99 because it was a trojan horse initiative designed to defeat 98, and it will do little to prevent eminent domain abuse.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  18. I was absolutely struck by the breathtaking hubris of the Pro-98 spokesman on L.A. tv last night. She engaged in the very worst tactic that has been patented by Clinton, and the Dems as a party, the past two decades: decry the very tactics you use as being employed by your opponent. It was shockingly disingenuous.

    She blamed the 98 opponents of engaging in trickery and half-truths! Lady, that abomination of a rent control initiative disguised as a genuine property rights measure was the height of duplicity, deception, and mendaciousness!!

    Rent measures are somewhat germane to the issue of property rights, but they are tangential to the fundamental fight regarding eminent domain abuse. How DARE you put forth that proposition knowing full well the rent control provision would likely act as a poison pill.

    Let’s have a rent control measure. Let’s have that debate. Let’s be honest.

    Ed (532eeb)

  19. Speaking of election results: guess who won the Dem primary in California’s 37th?

    Paul (90f626)

  20. Ed, Aunursa: I fail to see what’s so “dishonest” about respecting property rights consistently, rather than only respecting them on the issue of eminent domain, while not respecting them on the question of allowing property owners to rent out their properties at market prices. If you support one but oppose the other, that’s a good reason to vote against the initiative. But if you support both, voting against the initiative on “principle” strikes me as exceedingly dumb.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  21. The dishonesty was in crafting the initiative in such a manner as to hide the main goal of the majority of the money backers: rent control abolition. Then, blaming the opponents for calling them on it.

    Pragmatically, it would be like putting WW II to a vote in 12/41, but insisting on language that included suspension of habeus corpus.

    The war was worthy (the eminent domain language in 98 was excellent). The detail in my hypothetical was not worth risking the bigger picture.

    Ed (532eeb)

  22. that abomination of a rent control initiative disguised as a genuine property rights measure was the height of duplicity, deception, and mendaciousness!!

    I would argue that proposition 99, which pretended to be a genuine property rights measure and will do very little in practice, rose to a heigher level of duplicity, deception, and mendaciousness than proposition 98 did.

    I voted against both.

    aphrael (42e8cc)

  23. Xrla,

    I vote first based on principle.

    Another example would be my vote against the 2003 gubernatorial recall. Gray Davis was a terrible governor. But the voters had reelected him in 2002, and he had done nothing in the succeeding months to merit a recall … since recall should only be used for extreme conduct. It was a matter of principle. (I voted no on the recall and Arnold for governor.)

    I do value my principles, and I consider them more important than a single candidate or issue. On a number of occasions I have not voted for any candidate because they were all equally miserable. I also refrain from voting for an office or issue when I don’t have enough information to make an informed decision.

    If you don’t like the fact that a voter like me takes my voting responsibility seriously … oh well. C’est la vie. I won’t apologize for standing on my principles.

    [But I will take this opportunity to step off my soapbox]

    aunursa (09c81f)

  24. Duplicitous or not, I think xlrq’s larger point is valid — if you don’t like rent control and you don’t like Kelo then an initiative that gets rid of both warrants a yes vote, regardless of the merits of how it was being sold to the public.

    I understand punishing the idea of punishing CANDIDATES for unethical campaign tactics (I’ve done it myself), but voting for an initiative is different. With a candidate you are voting in part on the candidate’s character, whereas on an issue you are ONLY voting on whether to enact a certain law or not.

    Sean P (e57269)

  25. Ed:

    The dishonesty was in crafting the initiative in such a manner as to hide the main goal of the majority of the money backers: rent control abolition. Then, blaming the opponents for calling them on it.

    Pragmatically, it would be like putting WW II to a vote in 12/41, but insisting on language that included suspension of habeus corpus.

    Apart from the fact that reforming eminent domain and ending rent control both serve a single purpose (strengthening the rights of property owners), while fighting World War II has zero/zip/nada to do with suspending habeas corpus, your analogy is spot on. A better analogy would be to some highly “principled” Congressman who refuses to declare war on Japan because he doing so would inevitably lead to declaring war on Germany, which he also supported, but dammit, he should have been given those two choices separately! Or, if you prefer, a ballot initiative that would end the capital gains tax, while some argue it would be better merely to cut the rate in half. In that case, I would certainly understand members of the latter group voting no on the theory that this is a needed reform but goes too far. I would be far less understanding of the principle-weenies who agree in theory that the capital gains tax should be abolished, but vote no anyway because dagnabit, we should have gotten to vote on halvesies first.

    Aunursa:

    I vote first based on principle.

    So do I. My principle is simple: vote for good stuff, and vote against bad stuff. If a single initiative combines two good ideas, vote “hell yes.” I’m frankly at a loss as to what on earth kind of “principle” would lead anyone to conclude that two rights make a wrong.

    BTW, your example on the Davis recall is equally silly. Recall is not impeachment. California law merely requires that there be a reason, not that it be used only in cases of “extreme conduct” or, for that matter, any kind of misconduct at all. That you voted on a made-up “principle” having no basis in law does not make your vote any more “principled” than mine would be if I said that my votes in both 2002 and 2003 were guided by the lofty “principle” that Joe Davis sucks and should be removed from office whenever and however possible.

    I won’t apologize for standing on my principles.

    No surprises there. People with dumb principles rarely do, and people who hold out “standing on principle” as though it were an end in itself almost never do.

    Xrlq (b71926)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2435 secs.