Pubdate: Sun, 31 Oct 2010
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: M - 9
Copyright: 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Debra J. Saunders
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

POLLS MAY MISLEAD IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S RACE

Former Gov. Pete Wilson is the only politician to have beaten Jerry 
Brown in an election. In 1982, Wilson, then-San Diego mayor, trounced 
Brown, then California's bigfoot governor, in the race for U.S. 
Senate 51 to 45 percent. Now Wilson serves as Meg Whitman's campaign 
chairman. On Thursday, he told me not to believe polls that show 
Whitman losing by as much as double digits. Whitman, he says, has a 
real shot at beating Brown.

Polls that show Whitman losing, Wilson said, "are greatly 
underestimating the enthusiasm on the part of the Republicans and 
pretty much a lack of it on the other side."

And: "I think the undecided are going to decide in her favor."

If the polls are right and Brown does win, the big question is: Will 
Brown conclude that he won because he ran a savvy campaign or that he 
won largely because Whitman spent $161 million on a dysfunctional campaign?

Maybe both.

Darry Sragow, a former Democratic strategist, is interim director of 
the Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California poll that 
shows Brown ahead of Whitman with 52 percent to 39 percent of the 
vote. (Wilson has real issues with that poll.) While Sragow refused 
to call the race, and noted that "the unexpected sometimes happens," 
he believes that Whitman frittered away her credibility during the campaign.

But also, "Jerry Brown won in one very, very important way," Sragow 
noted. Brown and campaign manager Steve Glazer withstood months of 
pressure from Democratic operatives who "were beating Jerry on the 
head and shoulders for not engaging and not spending money."

In the punditry biz, we have a tendency to overplay the importance of 
campaigns. In California, 44 percent of registered voters are 
Democrats and 31 percent are Republicans. In a wave year that sends 
Republicans to the polls while Democrats stay home, the tide could 
propel some Republicans into statewide office. Any other year, the 
Democratic primary winner has to really mess up to lose in November.

Now on the propositions ...

Yes on Proposition 19. The establishment spin goes something like 
this: Even if marijuana legalization makes sense, Prop. 19 is so 
poorly written that voters must reject it.

Bunk. The measure is tightly written to give state and local 
governments unimpeded authority in deciding whether to allow the sale 
of marijuana, and if so, how to tax and regulate it.

There won't be a better bill. Marijuana prohibition enables and 
enriches criminal cartels and gangs. Californians have a chance to 
end the madness, and voters should grab it.

Yes on Proposition 20, No on Proposition 27. Right now, Sacramento 
has authority to draw lines for California's 53 seats in the House of 
Representatives. In sum, the status quo has allowed politicians to 
pick their voters. In 2008, voters approved a good-government 
measure, Proposition 11, to put Assembly and state Senate 
redistricting in the hands of a new Citizens Redistricting 
Commission. Prop. 20 would put congressional seats under the new 
panel's jurisdiction.

Prop. 27 would kill the new Citizens Redistricting Commission before 
it even gets started. If you think politicians don't have enough 
arrogance and power, then vote yes.

No on Proposition 21. The measure is bound to appeal to voters, as it 
would add $18 to vehicle license fees and guarantee that the proceeds 
go to state parks. I get the appeal, but this measure constitutes 
ballot-box budgeting - it's the sort of money grab for a popular 
service that has warped the budgeting process in Sacramento.

No on Proposition 22. See above, but with less popular beneficiaries, 
like redevelopment agencies.

Yes on Proposition 23. Don't be fooled by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 
this measure isn't about overturning clean air regulations - which 
other state laws protect. A state with an unemployment rate of 12.4 
percent cannot afford the fees and regulations that will follow when 
California's new global warming law (AB32) takes effect.

No on Proposition 24. See above, but in this case, the so-called "Tax 
Fairness Act" would restore taxes that give employers reasons not to 
do business in California.

No on Proposition 25. Proponents argue that the measure would allow a 
majority of state lawmakers to pass a state budget - while preserving 
the mandate for a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Then why would 
public employee unions push for this measure?

No on Proposition 26. The ballot measure would require a two-thirds 
approval not of taxes, but fees - which traditionally have required a 
majority vote because there is a relationship between the service and 
the charge. At The Chronicle Editorial Board endorsement interview, 
proponents utterly failed to demonstrate the need for changing the 
system. Consider this a special-interest grab in search of a nonexistent cause.

Don't forget to vote.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake