AAPL stock: $423.00 ( -8.77 ) *Cached every 60 seconds. For live updating, Click Here |
| Tips and Deals ---- 'Friendly' Political Ranting |
| Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: freeradical
Date: June 06, 2012 05:15PM
|
Quote
Two members of the same party will square off in nearly two dozen legislative or congressional elections this November.
The oddity was created by California's new top-two primary system, in which voters could cast ballots for candidates of any party and the two highest vote-getters advance to the general election.
Seven California congressional, 14 Assembly and two state Senate races are sure to feature candidates from the same party. In a handful of other races, vote counts were too tight this morning to declare which two candidates will advance to the November ballot.
Most of the same-party head-butting this fall will involve Democrats. Only four races, all of them Assembly contests, are sure to feature a Republican squaring off against another member of the GOP.
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: cbelt3
Date: June 06, 2012 05:33PM
|
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: freeradical
Date: June 06, 2012 06:03PM
|
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: SDGuy
Date: June 06, 2012 06:14PM
|
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: June 06, 2012 06:31PM
|
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: vision63
Date: June 06, 2012 07:50PM
|
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: Spock
Date: June 06, 2012 08:50PM
|
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: freeradical
Date: June 06, 2012 08:59PM
|
Quote
Spock
What about the ballot initiative that Big Tobacco didn't like?
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: vision63
Date: June 07, 2012 12:01AM
|
Quote
freeradical
Quote
Spock
What about the ballot initiative that Big Tobacco didn't like?
So far, it looks like nyet on that dumb initiative, but it's close so there'll be at least a half dozen recounts and armies of attorneys involved.
[vote.sos.ca.gov]
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: Spock
Date: June 07, 2012 07:32AM
|
Quote
vision63
Quote
freeradical
Quote
Spock
What about the ballot initiative that Big Tobacco didn't like?
So far, it looks like nyet on that dumb initiative, but it's close so there'll be at least a half dozen recounts and armies of attorneys involved.
[vote.sos.ca.gov]
I voted for it but I wasn't crazy about it because it's regressive. It would make the panhandlers beg harder overall.

| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: June 09, 2012 03:30AM
|
Quote
vision63
The new ballots benefit Democrats. So did redistricting. As of this moment, there is no place for a moderate Republican. Not in this climate.
It's argued that Pete Stark's district is vulnerable because of the new ballot. He'll run against a more moderate Democrat. Bay Area moderate, not moderate moderate.
I fear the November ballot. That sucker is going to be thick. At some point, the people will command-z this ballot.
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: vision63
Date: June 10, 2012 03:28PM
|
Quote
Ca Bob
Quote
vision63
The new ballots benefit Democrats. So did redistricting. As of this moment, there is no place for a moderate Republican. Not in this climate.
It's argued that Pete Stark's district is vulnerable because of the new ballot. He'll run against a more moderate Democrat. Bay Area moderate, not moderate moderate.
I fear the November ballot. That sucker is going to be thick. At some point, the people will command-z this ballot.
We've had moderate Republicans such as Senator Tom Kuchel and, more recently, congressman Steve Horn. We've also had quite a few Republican governors in recent years, including Pete Wilson, Arnold, George Deukmejian, and that guy named Reagan who ran for some higher office. But I admit that it's been a while since anybody like them either ran or got elected from a moderate district. That's not the fault of the voters. It's just that Republican Party primary voters coalesced around the really hard right a few years ago. Some of our California Republican congressmen and state legislators are far to the right of a lot of midwestern Republicans.
What makes a Republican not a moderate in California? Being demonstrably anti-abortion and anti-Latino are signs. Attacking liberals as some kind of alien life form (like they do on talk radio) is another. Promising never to negotiate with Democrats is a third, and signing the Grover Norquist pledge never to raise taxes nails the lid down tight. On each of these issues, a majority of Californians are opposed.
I followed the citizens' redistricting process fairly closely, and I think it turned out a fair and balanced product. The fact that it may be advantageous to Democratic congressional candidates is just the corollary to the fact that (a) in recent years, the Republicans have managed to outrage a lot of voters including, but not limited to, Latinos and (b) this time the redistricting was not designed merely to protect incumbents of both parties. Note that this was what the previous redistricting did. Notice also that one effect of the redistricting will be to take out at least two Democratic incumbents in the House of Representatives -- either Berman or Sherman in CD30 and either Hahn or Richardson in CD44. On the other hand, redistricting already took out a Republican, Dreier.
In the so-called "jungle" primary, the Republicans didn't even bother to try to annoint an opponent to Diane Feinstein. DiFi got about 49.5 percent of the votes, and her nearest competitor got about 12.5 percent. There were lots of other entrants including the birther Orly Taitz (3.2 percent) and the "surfing rabbi" Nachum Shifren (0.4 percent -- that's not a typo).
I believe that the majority of Californians are reasonably OK with this system, at least for now. We will have to see what and whom it actually produces, but considering that a good fourth or so of the voters are definably independent voters, turning the decision making powers back to the extremists in the major parties would be a difficult sell.
By the way, it is said by observant pundits (Calbuzz, for example) that Pete Stark is a jerk. This is a chance for the system to actually work -- The moderate Democrats and all the rest of the non-Democratic voters can elect his opponent. The moderate Democrats will be satisfied that they are not electing somebody who will vote with John Boehner, and the Republicans can get some modest satisfaction out of removing Stark.
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 10, 2012 10:28PM
|
Quote
Ca Bob
We've had moderate Republicans such as Senator Tom Kuchel and, more recently, congressman Steve Horn. We've also had quite a few Republican governors in recent years, including Pete Wilson, Arnold, George Deukmejian, and that guy named Reagan who ran for some higher office. But I admit that it's been a while since anybody like them either ran or got elected from a moderate district.
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: vision63
Date: June 11, 2012 10:33PM
|
Quote
RgrF
Quote
Ca Bob
We've had moderate Republicans such as Senator Tom Kuchel and, more recently, congressman Steve Horn. We've also had quite a few Republican governors in recent years, including Pete Wilson, Arnold, George Deukmejian, and that guy named Reagan who ran for some higher office. But I admit that it's been a while since anybody like them either ran or got elected from a moderate district.
We Californians still have moderate Republicans in office; today they are called Democrats and include DiFI and a significant number of congressional Dems such as the recently retired Jane Harmon and soon to be retired Howard Berman.
| Re: Has California killed third parties dead? Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 12, 2012 01:25AM
|
