2010 Gubernatorial Elections

In less than 3 months, the 2010 gubernatorial elections, which will determine the governors for many states including California, will take place.

This thread is used to discuss the politics of candidates running for Governor in any state this upcoming November.

---

In CA, the candidates are Republican Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay, and Democrat Jerry Brown, current Attorney General and former CA Governor. Whitman is both a social and fiscal conservative. Brown is a social and fiscal liberal. My support goes to Brown, because he is a champion of social reform and has been in politics for half a century. Whitman will bring Bush-esque fiscal politics into CA, which is a truly frightening aspect to me. Not to mention she is a conservative in every definition of the word.

Discuss away!

Mods: If I did anything wrong please let me know.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
This is probably the worst california election I have been alive for which really says something.

Jerry brown is pretty terrible in my opinion, he is a career politician which is never really desirable. i know a ton of republicans who have told me they are going to vote for him which is sort of reassuring. Proposition 13 passed during his tenure as governor a while ago, which both ruined california and will probably be getting him tons of moderate republican votes. Jerry Brown doesn't excite me at all as a voter. I'm not even sure the masses are aware of him. I almost think he gets mentioned most often in papers and talk shows when they discuss the fact that he isnt advertising or getting his name out. Reminds me of Kerry 2004 prez campaign sort of.

Meg Whitman is amazingly even worse. She is pretty much throwing around money and hoping to spread her name around and gain support through advertising. I hope she doesn't get elected because it would set a precedent of buying elections in California which is despicable. She is way conservative which is against her in classically "leftist" california, her campaign is also plagued by allegations of investments in vulture funds. Arnold was more moderate than she was, and had the benefit of lol star power, also lol "recount." Arnold wasn't even a shitty governor he was just afraid of raising taxes like all repubs.

I will be voting for jerry brown, because any vote that isn't for a democrat is a vote for a republican. Republicans get out the vote hard in california, so if youre a democrat in cali make sure you find your way up to the vote booth on election day or you'll hella regret it. This is not the election to try to vote green party, if people do that democrats won't have a chance.
 
When Whitman first announced candidacy, I was shocked that someone who did not vote for over 20 years have the audacity to run for Governor. I think that alone will take away a lot of votes from her. She may have a few inherent advantages, however, because 1) she's a woman and 2) she runs eBay.
 

Desolate

Banned deucer.
I was a bit flustered when I read about Whitman running as a canidate, though I feel that her position as CEO might blind some who are lost in the political headlights, per se. If I could vote, or were to, I'd vote the alternate at first glance, only looking at their impressive prerequisites.
 

skarm

I HAVE HOTEL ROOMS
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
When Whitman first announced candidacy, I was shocked that someone who did not vote for over 20 years have the audacity to run for Governor. I think that alone will take away a lot of votes from her. She may have a few inherent advantages, however, because 1) she's a woman and 2) she runs eBay.
While I agree with your sentiments I have to note that the fact she has been entirely abstinent from politics in general would be a boon to some disillusioned voters who are unhappy with career politicians -- ie Jerry Brown. She is going to have some backing regardless of how silly the entire thing is.
 
If Whitman gets in she'll set up a website where people who want welfare payments have to bid for how much they want, and the lowest bidder gets the money.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
MA is interesting because we have 4 candidates (3 viable) for Governor and it's probably going to be a huge clusterfuck. Supposedly Obama is watching this governor's race with his eyes glued, though I find that entirely suspect.

Our 3 viable candidates are:

Incumbent Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, who is basically proto-Obama. He ran on "Together We Can," Obama ran on "Yes we Can." He's the stereotypical charismatic black candidate, ditto for Obama. He's fond of consigning Massachusetts' state power and authority to the federal government, Obama would like to consign the United States' power to the UN. In fairness to Deval, he's not a complete space-case at crisis management, and he's not nearly as evasive as Obama is when it comes to answering questions. He's still a terrible governor, and his most recent move was to turn Massachusetts public education standards (#1 in the country) over to Obama-brand nationalized standards. One of the few things MA manages to excel in, yet and he gives away the store for his butt bro Obama. I'll get to how this impacts my vote later.

Democrat turned Independent and incumbent treasurer Timothy Cahill. Cahill has been running on a strong fiscal conservative platform and has courted the Tea Party movement. There are rumors he is basically a sleeper cell for Deval who exists to take votes away from the Republican candidate. While this is not entirely implausible, and is probably going to be the net effect of his candidacy, he has not been afraid to exchange heavy fire with Patrick and has made his rounds in all the places the left-wing portion of the Democratic Party avoid (Fox News, the local talk radio stations, etc.)

Republican candidate Charlie Baker is the former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim. He also worked on the Big Dig (MA public works laughingstock nationwide, so deplorable and costly that every candidate is trying to pin it on everyone else) with the Weld (R) administration. His platform and Cahill's are both fiscally conservative, and basically no gubernatorial candidate has the balls to articulate social conservatism in Massachusetts.

Given a race between these three, Cahill is my natural choice because despite his obvious negaitive impact primarily on Baker, he strikes me as the most honest of the three candidates. Without party backing, nobody is going to go through that much trouble just to be a stalking horse for another candidate. That being said, the Devaluator must lose because Massachusetts cannot afford another four years of an Obama crumbum lackey. Thus I'm probably going to vote for Baker because despite his unwillingness to attend Tea Party type events, his platform is still alligned with my fiscal values. Between him and Cahill, Baker is the more likely to unseat Deval and thus he becomes my default choice.

The fourth candidate is a Green-Rainbow wacko challenging Deval Patrick from the left. She is unlikely to have much an effect on the race.
 
I see you manage to turn a discussion of Gubernatorial Elections into an attack on Obama. No surprises there.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I see you manage to turn a discussion of Gubernatorial Elections into an attack on Obama. No surprises there.
Deval Patrick (elected 2006) and Barack Obama (elected 2008) had the same campaign manager, David Axelrod. Both are originally chigaco politicians. Both used the same kind of imagery and rhetoric. Patrick and Obama are also personal friends. I am not embellishing anything here when I say Deval Patrick's campaign (and by extension the candidate himself) is proto-Obama. Everything from the identity politics element to "Hope and Change" was the same.

That being said this is a census year and so Governors will have an important voice in congressional redistricting for 2011-2021. Therefore this election is a referrendum on Barack Obama particularly and the Democratic Party in general, and will have impact for the next 10 years. That Deval Patrick so closely mirrors Barack Obama is not coincidental and is not just a talking point. His policies as governor have been to consign areas that used to be at the discretion of Massachusetts residents over to federal authorities. No other Democrat in Massachusetts (and there are many) could be accurately labeled proto-Obama. Deval Patrick can.
 
So basically what you are saying is that Deval Patrick will win and all the conservative talk show radio hosts can do about it is call him a muslim.
 

skarm

I HAVE HOTEL ROOMS
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
He's the stereotypical charismatic black candidate.
I really stopped reading after this. Since when is this a stereotype? Just because you dislike Obama does not mean that every black person running is "stereotypically charismatic" and has the same platform.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I will weep for MA if a Republican becomes Governor.
News flash you already had one. Forget about Mitt Romney already?

Anyway RI's election is in 2010 also. Our state has a large and growing deficit, shrinking job pool, and oh yeah no industry really besides like GTech and Hasbro toys.

So, we have our major candidates:

Frank Caprio, Treasurer (D)

Lincoln Chafee, Former US Senator (I, formerly R)

Then, there are the minor candidates:

Ken Block (Moderate)
Ronald Algieri (I)
Todd Giroux (I)
Joseph Lusi (I)

The official Republican Party as of right now still doesn't have a candidate.

Polls show that it is essentially a dead heat between Caprio and Chafee. Chafee is, for all intents and purposes, still Republican, because everyone in this state knows damn well a Republican will never get elected for a long time.

Unfortunately, I can't vote (18th birthday is in February), however, I would vote for Chafee solely for personal gain. Caprio wants to switch the state workers' pension over to a 401K, which would greatly reduce my parent's retirement, meaning I would need to pay a lot more for my college than they're making me! I know it's a selfish reason but that's the point of voting, you vote for what's best for you, as much as you'd like to think voting is for the best of everyone.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I really stopped reading after this. Since when is this a stereotype? Just because you dislike Obama does not mean that every black person running is "stereotypically charismatic" and has the same platform.
Since the Democratic Party runs on racial (and various and sundry other grouping) identity politics. This is as contrasted to the "stereotypical enraged black candidate" in the mold of Al Sharpton. That blueprint fails on the national level but is extremely effective in liberal enclaves.

These are merely trends in campaigns. There's a huge amount of black political campaign theory out there, as a political science minor I just happen to be interested.

So no, it has nothing to do with disliking Obama and everything to do with it being a standard issue campaign blueprint. The blueprint varies slightly with each candidate but is fundamentally the same.

Though I have to say, for people whose political gatherings invariably involve breaking out into sessions like "Black caucus" and "LBGT caucus," liberals are surprised far too easily that there might be stereotypical campaign styles based on exploiting these traits. Obama's candidacy was textbook in its "if there is opposition to Obama's policies it is because he is black" spin on every issue. By the end of the primaries they were calling Clinton voters racist. It worked so well they forgot it breaks down once they are the incumbent.

If you need a specific breakdown of the blueprint, I can provide below.

"Charismatic Black Candidate Blueprint":

1. Our candidate is historic because they are going to be the first/second/whatever black <desired office>.
1b. If the current office holder is black, claim that you are trying to keep the hope alive and continue to give voice to minorities (this works even if the current officeholder is of the opposing party).
2. Our candidate thus represents something new on the political scene inherent in their blackness.
3. Therefore our rhetoric will be entirely based on bringing new hope and change to the old (presumably angry WASP) establisment.
4. Never get into specifics if possible, because then defense via 5. becomes more difficult. Frame yourself always as a "change" candidate. You will get votes based on how many people you inspire with your charisma.
5. To deflect criticism, claim racism. Drum up the "return to the old ways of the <state capital or Washington depending on office> establishment" line.

EDIT: I should also note that this blueprint is generally only effective for either a) a challenger to the current incumbent or b) a replacement for an incumbent of the same party making their first foray into a major elected office.

These are blueprints because they work. There is no doubt Obama and Deval Patrick executed this blueprint perfectly. This is how politics operate. There are also blueprints that Conservatives and Republicans use all the time, it's just as a matter of course they don't usually involve exploiting race or sexual orientation (religion is more common, though.) Huckabee's "Chrisitan Leader" platform in the 2008 Presidential race is a great example.

If you want to have some fun, try and see if you can guess the blueprints of your gubernatorial candidates!
 
I consider myself pretty far right, but as a Californian I do not like the candidates up for election. My suspicion stems from the fact that Meg Whitman spent about $80 million of her own cash to win a primary election. While I do understand that it is her money and she can do with it as she pleases (and she does have quite the fortune), I find it fishy. Can we really trust her with our immense debt?

Although, she does have good credentials in regards to running a successful business, which would help in running a huge state like California.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
How is california like ebay, and what do you really think she can do other than cut more shit. How does cutting education (always gets cut when things get cut) help our state. Comparing california to a dot com company is silly. They aren't similar, the fact that anyone believes one is comparable to the other is a testament to the effectiveness of Meg Whitman's advertising.
 
Whitman supports prop 8 and voted in favor of prop 4, that's 2 strikes right there. She also opposes the legalization of marijuana. I'd really rather not have another Republican governor, especially one who's conservative like her. That said Jerry Brown isn't so hot either, but I'll vote for him anyway.
 
Jerry Brown's education plan looks decent, and he's a social liberal. He's also pro-environment, unlike Whitman, and that's a biggie for me. If I could vote, I'd vote him.

I think hell will break loose if Whitman wins.
 
Whitman supports prop 8 and voted in favor of prop 4, that's 2 strikes right there.

k so i can understand the prop 8 bit, but opposing her because she supported prop 4 seems ridiculous. at least for me, i believe that if a teenager cant get a tattoo or piercing without parental consent without parental consent but can go behind her parents backs about abortions seems like a huge cop out.

with that being said, i cant say i support either candidate for CAs gubernatorial election, but seeing as id prefer not to have a democrat in office, i will be voting for whitman (fuckk).
 
k so i can understand the prop 8 bit, but opposing her because she supported prop 4 seems ridiculous. at least for me, i believe that if a teenager cant get a tattoo or piercing without parental consent without parental consent but can go behind her parents backs about abortions seems like a huge cop out.
It's the girls body after all; even if she's a minor it should still be 100% her choice. I'm not a teenage girl but if I was and was raped(rather extreme but whatever)/didn't use proper birth control and ended up being pregnant, I sure as fuck wouldn't tell my parents (unless there was a chance they wouldn't go psycho over it). My friend actually had a scare a bit ago and thought she was pregnant after doing it with some douche bag, but fortunately wasn't. She did breathe a nice sigh of relief when she found out she never had to tell her parents if she actually did have to get an abortion, though.
 
im just concerned that its the one medical operation that a girl can get as a minor without her parents consent she wants lasik, oop, gotta make sure her parents are okay with it, tattoo or piercing, same story. oh an abortion, sure just step into my office. and just because it should be her choice doesnt mean it is, hell i want to smoke pot/crack/heroin/any drug and its my body, whats the harm? just as it is her choice to want an abortion, it was also her choice to fuck a guy knowing full well the potential consequences of said fucking.
and rape is a rather extreme situation and i dont see why one would be fine telling their parents they were raped but not that they were pregnant? and especially seeing as minors arent supposed to be having sex in the first place, having unprotected sex (pretty much all contraceptives are at least 98% effective thats so essentially a moot point unless you cant figure them out in which case thats another problem)

and if youre friend is willing to do it with some douchebag, i dont see why she shouldnt have to face up to the consequences of having sex, especially if she opted not to take any measures to protect herself (which she should if hes a douchebag, i wouldnt trust them to be all too clean)

and another note, underage sex is still illegal last i checked. they shouldnt be fucking in the first place.
 
Actually, I'll be voting yes on Prop 19 and it's your choice if you want to do drugs or not. Why should I restrict you from doing it if it does me no harm?

And by rape I meant that the girl became pregnant because of the rape, and wants to get an abortion without telling her parents that either happened, not that she was raped one day and got pregnant on another and would rather tell her parents the rape story instead of her pregnancy.

This is all completely subjective. You think it's wrong for an underage girl to get an abortion without her parents knowing while I think it's perfectly fine. The age of consent is pretty bs anyway. When I had "illegal" sex with my partner I was just a few months away from 18, but should that have stopped me? What would have changed so much over 2 months and 1 week that I couldn't show my partner how much I loved him right then and there?
 
How is california like ebay, and what do you really think she can do other than cut more shit. How does cutting education (always gets cut when things get cut) help our state. Comparing california to a dot com company is silly. They aren't similar, the fact that anyone believes one is comparable to the other is a testament to the effectiveness of Meg Whitman's advertising.
Of course they are entirely different. What I meant to imply is that she has had quite a successful career outside of politics, which can't hurt. The fact that she has experience running a big & flourishing business such as Ebay would be a positive in some regard, I would think.

Also, don't get me wrong, I do not support her as a candidate. I am simply saying that she does indeed have good credentials.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Of course they are entirely different. What I meant to imply is that she has had quite a successful career outside of politics, which can't hurt. The fact that she has experience running a big & flourishing business such as Ebay would be a positive in some regard, I would think.

Also, don't get me wrong, I do not support her as a candidate. I am simply saying that she does indeed have good credentials.

I think its been established that meg whitman has no credentials what so ever. She doesn't even vote, did you read the OP? If I am a biochemist doing research at UCI, does that mean I'm also a pro investment banker, I will add that to my list of job skills thank you for telling me.

Without this turning into a debate about the rights of a minor to get an abortion, I will just say that I don't understand why the parents need to know about a daughter getting an abortion, its her body, and her choice. Ultimately who's business is it other than the woman who will have to bear the child, whatever age she may be , whether or not to get an abortion (apologize for crappy syntax here). If a child wants to get lipo or cosmetic surgery then she is going to have to pay for it and will need help from her parents to get money most likely, if she has the money to do it then I don't care if she does it without telling her parents. It will be pretty obvious if she magically drops 40 pounds anyway.
 
I thought being a billionaire would be considered to be somewhat of a good thing on credentials.

I am aware she doesn't vote...I don't like her at all. But surely being a billionaire isn't done by stupidity. There are good qualities that you must possess to be able to obtain such wealth. Again, I don't support her, but I must give her credit where credit is due.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top