Brown opens up an 8 point lead over Whitman (resort, working)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by UNLV09

What? 2010-50=1940, since 1940 there have been 9 governors and 6 of them have been Republicans. Once you go do some research and learn what you're talking about then you'll see that change for California governors would actually be electing more Democrats.

But the reality is, governors don't even come close to controlling the state unless they're of the same party as the party in power in the Legislature. I'll leave it at that except to say, balance, please.

[Surftown831]

Personally I think many of the Whitman supporters on city-data are intelligent enough to know that Whitman makes a poor candidate for governor of the largest, wealthiest and most influential state in the U.S. There is just no denying that. I think people who support her are voting based on either party lines, a strong feeling of discontent for Jerry Brown because of how badly he performed when he was governor, or either because of this new conservative sentiment that has developed since Obama came into office, i.e., this notion that Democrats are responsible for the recession (even though it occurred during Republican rule in both CA and the Oval office) and that Republicans are the saviors of the country if we can only get more of them into office.

I haven't voted yet, if someone can actually provide a good argument based on evidence of why Whitman will be better for California than Brown, I'm willing to hear them out.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

LOL. I guess you also figured out I must be a secret Republican!

You are what you are. And it is none of my business anyway. Those who defend the Republican party are assumed to be Republican whether that is true or not. My point all along is that the very label, "Republican" is a huge obstacle in California.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by californio sur

You are what you are. And it is none of my business anyway. Those who defend the Republican party are assumed to be Republican whether that is true or not. My point all along is that the very label, "Republican" is a huge obstacle in California.

If you really want to know... I'm not registered with any political party. My political outlook and the way I vote depends on the situation at hand.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by UNLV09

this notion that Democrats are responsible for the recession (even though it occurred during Republican rule in both CA and the Oval office)

They're not wholly responsible, but the direction of the Obama administration has exacerbated the recession, there's no denying that. As for Whitman, yes she sucks, but her veto pen is the one thing that can help bring some balance to Sacramento.

[Surftown831]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

But the reality is, governors don't even come close to controlling the state unless they're of the same party as the party in power in the Legislature. I'll leave it at that except to say, balance, please.

Exactly, that's why I don't get this whole Republican argument of "We need to get more Republicans in office".

As for balance, I like many Republican policies, I really do. I just don't like Republicans. From my experiences many of them are xenophobic, jingoistic, fear mongering, gullible (i.e. Iraq has WMDs so they must be invaded), support overly aggressive foreign policies because the safety they are used to in America has made them completely unaware of the tragedies and horror of war, and mostly because they are hypocrites. They tout "less government" in people's lives but then demand pot stay illegal, don't want to permit gays to marry and don't want to let Muslims build a mosque in New York. They claim they want to cut spending but support two wars that cost $3 billion per day and an equally unsuccessful "war on drugs" that cost the U.S. $70 billion per year yet hasn't decreased drug usage or sales at all. I might be a Republican if I ever really met one.

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by UNLV09

What? 2010-50=1940, since 1940 there have been 9 governors and 6 of them have been Republicans. Once you go do some research and learn what you're talking about then you'll see that change for California governors would actually be electing more Democrats.

Hmm, although I received some of my education in California, I don't ever recall being taught that "2010-50=1940".

Anyhow, here's a list of the governors of California from 1940 to 2010 and their political affiliations...

1. Culbert Olson (1939-1943) -- Democrat
2. Earl Warren (1943-1953) -- Republican
3. Goodwin Jess Knight (1953-1959) -- Republican
4. Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Sr. (1959-1967) -- Democrat
5. Ronald Reagan (1967-1975) -- Republican, 8 years
6. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr. (1975-1983) -- Democrat
7. George Deukmejian (1983-1991) -- Republican
8. Pete Wilson (1991-1999) -- Republican
9. Gray Davis (1999-2003) -- Democrat
10. Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003-present) -- Republican

Unless my math is wrong, that makes a total of 10 governors of California, since 1940. Four of them have been Democrats and six of them have been Republicans.

List of Governors of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Surftown831]

Oops, that was supposed to be 70, not 50. And I didn't county the first guy because he took office in 1939. I was counting governors that have been elected in the last 70 years, so the makes 6 (R) and 3 (D)

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by UNLV09

Oops, that was supposed to be 70, not 50. And I didn't county the first guy because he took office in 1939. I was counting governors that have been elected in the last 70 years, so the makes 6 (R) and 3 (D)

Prior to that "first guy" (Culbert Olson), Republicans held the governorship of California continuously from 1899 to 1939.

Earl Warren, who was Olson's successor, was nominally a "Republican." In the 1946 gubernatorial election, Warren was nominated by the Democrat, Republican, and Progressive parties for the governorship. Thus, Earl Warren can be counted as both a "Democrat" and a "Republican" for his second term (1946-1950).

Earl Warren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jay100]

I'd vote for Meg because apparently, Jerry can't control his boyfriend.
Sex Charges Against Jerry Brown Aide Could Cost Mayor

December 08, 2000|By Phillip Matier: Andrew Ross



"It's not going to end his career as mayor, but it could definitely impact his future on the national landscape -- and believe me, that's where he's been looking these days."
That's how one East Bay politico in the know summed up the dilemma facing Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown -- now that sexual harassment allegations have been leveled at his longtime friend, housemate, alter ego, gun-packing bodyguard and de facto chief of staff Jacques Barzaghi.
As reported by The Chronicle's Chip Johnson yesterday, the flamboyant and often mysterious Barzaghi stands accused of putting the moves on an Oakland trade representative while they were with the mayor in Mexico last week for the inaugural festivities of Mexican President Vicente Fox.MOD CUT
Sex Charges Against Jerry Brown Aide Could Cost Mayor - SFGate