Why did Whitman lose? One Republican Thinks it was the Latino Vote (Arnold: lessons, place)

[Curmudgeon]

Here's the rest of the story.

Under California law, Brown for Governor 2010 could accept contributions only up to $25,900 from individuals, businesses, corporations, unions, PACs or other legal entities. However, there was no limit to how much those same entities could spend on behalf of his election campaign.

A total of $10,656,676 was donated to support Brown in the general election, combined with $10,606 in the primary season. Add to that $2,688,091 to oppose Whitman in the general, plus $682,573 in the primary season. The totals: $13,344,767 spent to support Brown or oppose Whitman in the general.

When you include funds from the primary season, unions and other special interests spent $14,037,946 to support Brown or oppose Whitman, much of it on television ads blasting Whitman.

CCPOA alone backed Jerry Brown's election with $1.8 million. "Our organization went all in for Jerry," Mike Jimenez, CCPOA president said, "We have a little bit of faith that he knows how to treat employees."

You can read into that last whatever you like.

[.highnlite]

Would you mind awfully much breaking down those numbers? Especially that part about special interests, isn't everyone a special interest?

Facts not misty far off in the distance clouds, and what unions did what, should be breeze for a former legislative analyst.

[Curmudgeon]

Individuals without a vested interest in any specific legislation often donate based upon party loyalty so those would not be classified as special interests as the term is usually applied.

As for the rest, there are a number of organizations, not the least of which is the Secretary of State's Office, major newspapers, and other interested parties that compile figures pertaining to direct and indirect donations. Do your own research; something obviously lacking in your pronouncement about how much help Brown received from the unions.

[.highnlite]

Interesting, so a simple request for the expert in these matters, well, let me make a statement, I said it before, but let us try it again, ok, ready,

No more than 20% of Browns Campaign kitty came from California state unions, in other words, no more than 1/5 of the money.

That of course, is a far far distance from making him beholden.

As we know, Jerry Brown hates America and supports the commie socialist Unions, while Meg Whitman loves the common man and if elected would have worked hard to improve conditions for all of us. As an example of her dedication to the average Joe, please allow me to list a few of her public spirited contributors.
Big Tobacco racketeer Philip Morris donated $25,900;
Hewlett Packard,
Yahoo, Anthem Blue Cross,
Dow Chemical,
Comcast,
AT&T,
Goldman Sachs Managing Director,
Congressman Darrell Issa, Yes, Issa.
many Indian Tribes,
Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys;
Chevron Corp,
Conocophilips of Houston,
Marathon Oil Company

[Curmudgeon]

Nice deflection -- first cousin to an ad hominum. If you can't refute another's argument or statement, try to deflect or minimize it using irrelevant facts concerning an opponent of the individual being discussed. Sure signs of a deficit in critical thinking abilities. The fact that Meg WAS in thrall to big business does nothing to mitigate that Brown IS in thrall to his beloved labor unions. There is no inter-connectivity! Each unfortunate truth stands alone on its own merits, or lack thereof.

It should be no secret to anyone with a little education, some information gathering ability and a pinch of analytical knowledge that politicians across the board are all primarily coin-operated by true special interests, regardless of their party affiliation. What about that is there to argue? For the voter, the choice comes down to which interest you would most support; green technology, other business interests, labor, agriculture, water issues, housing, education, social services, etc. You then pick your candidates accordingly. For all too many, the choices are even easier and take far less thought; democrats or republicans, red or blue.

[.highnlite]

Deflection? You would like to think so, but, you would, as usual, be wrong. The thread is about Whitman and why she lost, the thread is not about Brown, or Unions. You, thinking that putting it back on track is deflection, wellll.....

[totsuka]

She might have one if she went totally conservative. She is pretty much a RINO so no big change from Brown. She would have been like Snow from Maine..smile a lot...spending other people's money...organize a task force on the jobs, economy, etc....no loss

[californio sur]

This subject has been well-discussed in other threads. Republicans have a very steep hill to climb in California just because they are Republicans. Even in an election where incumbents were booted out of office across the nation it did not ultimately help Republicans in California; in-fact the GOP actually lost a few seats as well as every state-wide election.

The fact that Latinos now join other groups [women, gays, blacks, educated] rejecting Republicans make it nearly impossible for the GOP to compete in California. Arnold was interviewed by the LA Times and commented that Republicans lost merely for the fact that they don't represent the typical Californian on the environment & social issues.

[Vascodagama]

Originally Posted by californio sur

This subject has been well-discussed in other threads. Republicans have a very steep hill to climb in California just because they are Republicans. Even in an election where incumbents were booted out of office across the nation it did not ultimately help Republicans in California; in-fact the GOP actually lost a few seats as well as every state-wide election.

The fact that Latinos now join other groups [women, gays, blacks, educated] rejecting Republicans make it nearly impossible for the GOP to compete in California. Arnold was interviewed by the LA Times and commented that Republicans lost merely for the fact that they don't represent the typical Californian on the environment & social issues.

Well, the only good thing about California remaining in liberal control is that it will be used as a case study to show the damage liberal politics and control will do to a once powerful and prosperous state. Nobody can blame conservatives for what happened to California, it’s only the liberals to blame. This should be a valuable lessons learned to the country and the world.

[.highnlite]

It is really kind of hard to blame or praise consevatives in this state for the past 20 years, as they have nothing.

Texas wants you.

In the large picture, Conservatives have done nothing for California, the US, ever, that I can think of, they certainly haven't conserved anything, being the lessor Hamiltonian Party.