Start Getting Used to It

The Libertarian Lass, Gayle Falkenthal The Libertarian Lass, Gayle Falkenthal 10 Comments

Share

Wa-a-a-y back when Election Day 2010 was a distant mirage, I predicted in the October 9, 2009 post titled “Moonbeam Shining Bright In Governor’s Race” that as crazy as his chances seemed, former Governor Jerry Brown would succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Governor Jerry Brown

The Next Governor of California, Jerry Brown

Today, poll results released by the Public Policy Institute of California, show Jerry Brown leading challenger Meg Whitman by eight percentage points. What’s more, support for Brown is rising among key voting blocs, including independents and Latinos. The poll was conducted among likely voters, an important distinct in election polling, and its margin of error is plus or minus 3.5%.

Poll numbers aside, I’m even more convinced I’ll be proved right on November 2. But like juries who get the right verdict for the wrong reasons, the reason I’m right has less to do with Jerry Brown and everything to do with Meg Whitman.

It’s not about Meg’s failure to vote, employing an illegal housekeeper, or flip flops on the issues.

It’s all about the money, honey.

Californians have an intense dislike for self-funded candidates. Meg is the all-time queen. She’s set a record by spending $140 million of her own money on the governor’s race. Californians are inherently suspicious and distrust a candidate who will spend that much money to get a job full of nothing but grief that pays a mere $212,179 (well, mere to Meg).

Meg joins a long list of well-to-do California candidates who’ve spent a boatload of their own money on campaigns for governor or senator since the early 1960s. The San Diego Union-Tribune compiled this list in May.

Now admit it – how many of those 18 names would you have been able to come up with before reading the list? Michael Huffington, sure. Darrell Issa, maybe.  I felt mighty proud of myself to come up with Ron Unz and Jane Harman. I’d like to say I remembered Art Laffer or Al Checchi but I’d be a complete and utter liar.  With the exception of Issa, the other 17 all went down in flames.

On November 3, that list is going to grow to 19. You might as well start getting used to it. It will make it a little easier. A LITTLE.
Share

Comments 10

  1. I am shocked that the Republican Party did not do a better job of vetting Whitman and for that matter Fiorina. The Dems are wiping them out with very effective ads depicting both of them as money grubbing corporate hogs. Did the RP have their friggin eyes closed? At some point the RP has to rid itself of the “party of the rich and for the rich image”. That means candidates like Whitman and Fiorina should never be allowed to run, not even for “dog catcher”. You don’t run candidates who have shipped jobs out of the country when we are at an all time high rate of unemployment! DUH! Here we are in a time that the RP is headed for a sweep on election day nationally, yet in CA we get Brown and Boxer AGAIN because the RP in this state is flat out stupid. Shame on them and shame on the leadership.

  2. Gayle:

    The authoritative ‘Real Clear Politics’ poll average
    has Brown leading Whitman by 4.6% [46.2% to 41.6%].

    PPIC has done some fine work on wide spectrum
    issue research, but their accuracy in candidate
    races is doubted by many professionals.

    Still, the consensus has Brown is 4.6% ahead.

    Fiorina is another story entirely… Carly has the
    momentum now, and the Real Clear Politics
    average has them just 2% apart [Boxer 45.2
    to Fiorina 43.2]. That is a winnable contest.

  3. I’m willing to blame CA GOP leadership for a lot of things, but it’s not the party’s job to decide who gets to run. When you have a billion dollars like Meg — or even a few tens (hundreds?) of millions like Fiorina — you pretty much do what you want.

    Now, having said that, I do believe the party establishment has a history of backing the wrong candidates (Schwarzenegger, Romney, and now eMeg). Not going to lump Fiorina in that group because I think she’s much stronger, but she has been hurt by her record at HP (which I’m sure is much more impressive than she gets credit for).

  4. We would assume that most readers here know that “the Party” doesn’t select the nominee, at least not in the sense some are using it. Republican voters select the nominee; in that case they are the Party. If it’s a lack of vetting you want to complain about, blame yourselves.

    As far as the opinion that some candidates “should never be allowed to run,” uhhhh, yeah, show us in the Constitution where the Party has the authority to keep someone from doing so.

  5. Thor:

    That’s true, and Red Truth is clearly off the mark, but the party establishment does have a history of jumping on various bandwagons. The power they wield is substantial and does influence party regulars.

  6. Folks, you all know the party can decide who or what to endorse and financially back. The RP has the responsibility to fully investigate the backgrounds and character of candidates they get behind. This happens all of the time. Just because the two corporate hogs have more money than God does not qualify them for RP support. The ads the Dems are running are devastating. This is a time when we need the blue dog Dems and what do we do? We run the two spoiled rich brats that have run jobs out of the country. Meanwhile we see the two corporate hogs feathering their own nests. How the hell did this get missed? And the San Jose Mercury blast on Witman being woefully unqulaified is probably true. The woman has been persona nongrata politically and all of the sudden she thinks she can govern one of the largest economies in the world. Book it: we are getting stuck with Brown and Boxer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *