CA-Gov: Bill Clinton to Run in California?

[The Duke]

He did all that and his approve rating is in the low 40s? How did that happen?

Its typical for Governors here to have low ratings a year out from re-election.

In 1994, everybody though Pete Wilson was done, that Kathleen Brown was a shoo-in for Governor. Didn't turn out that way. Pete latched onto immigration reform and won re-election.

In 2002, everybody though Davis was done. Then he sabotaged Riordan's campaign and beat Bill Simon. Pat Brown in 1962 had low ratings, that's why Nixon thought it was a good idea to run for Governor.

Davis, Wilson, and Brown all had ratings in the low 30s at this point. That Arnold is at 40% or so during the cyclical low point in a Governor's poll numbers while special interest groups are spending millions on TV and radio ads lying about Arnold's special election initiaves (mostly public employee unions against having the state government employee pension system privatized) is a testament to his strength.

So what do you think his chances are at re-election?

He will probably win, but nothing is certain in politics.

Arnold took a $22 billion deficit, the largest in the history of state government in any state, and has balanced the budget completely in just two years.  He's cut the unemployment rate here from 7% to 5% in the same time frame.  He's cut taxes.  He's boosted education spending to an all time high.

That's why I say he's the most succesful Governor in America.

Didnt he 'fix' the defecit simply by borrowing the money, which will cost the state more in the long run?

I know he cut the car tax, but what else?

Arent college tuition and book prices at an all time high?

By the way, what are your thoughts on Proposition 13?

Two things were done to fix the deficit.  First, a ballor initiative was passed to spread repayment of the state debt over a period of ten years.  This is what many CA Democrats have spun as being more borrowing.  Its the same level of borrowing as was in existence before, it was simply a restructuring of existing debt, which corporations and households do all the time.  Had this not been done, we'd have had to pay off the majority of this massive debt up front, and that menas higher taxes and draconian spending cuts.  Restructuring the dbet was smart economics and good social policy.

The second thing was to balance the annual budget and stop mkaing new debt.  This is done in the '05-'06 budget, the first balanced budget sine Governor Wilson if I recall correctly.

College tuition is at an all time high everywhere in America, so I can't blame the California government for that.

I have to go to class, but I'll answer about Prop 13 later tonight.

[Smash255]

Arnold will face a tough race, if Clinton runs he has no chance.  When Clinton left office his nationwide approval was in the 60's, a dtate as Dem friendly like CA it was probably in the 70's there, where Arnold's approval is 1/2 that.  Clinton is very well liked in CA, Arnold isn't

[A18]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California (though it would been much closer than the national blowout). That said, running for a third term is a historical no-no in presidential politics, whereas running for governor is not.

However, Clinton carpetbagging his way to California just to become governor is a pretty hilarious thought, and I'm convinced California would be crazy enough to elect that big of a joke. Any polling data?

[Smash255]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California (though it would been much closer than the national blowout). That said, running for a third term is a historical no-no in presidential politics, whereas running for governor is not.

However, Clinton carpetbagging his way to California just to become governor is a pretty hilarious thought, and I'm convinced California would be crazy enough to elect that big of a joke. Any polling data?

That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard, Clinton would have won in a blowout if he ran against Bush in 2000

[Moooooo]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California

That is probably the funniest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

[A18]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California (though it would been much closer than the national blowout). That said, running for a third term is a historical no-no in presidential politics, whereas running for governor is not.

However, Clinton carpetbagging his way to California just to become governor is a pretty hilarious thought, and I'm convinced California would be crazy enough to elect that big of a joke. Any polling data?

That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard, Clinton would have won in a blowout if he ran against Bush in 2000

You have got to be the dumbest thing I've ever met. Polls showed him losing to Bush by ten points.

[The Duke]

Prop 13:

First, Property taxes should not be used to fund schools, first of all.  Look at the City of Inglewood, which has poor schools in part thanks to low property values, and the City of  Beverly Hills, which has high property values and a s a result, great schools, probably among the best districts in the state.  So property taxes as a basis for school funding is an inherently unequal system.

Second, California passed Prop 98 a few years ago to ensure that 40% of state spending would be on eductation.  This was to counteract the drop in education spending caused by Prop 13, though spending is still uneven depending on the wealth of the school district.  Most people who denounce Prop 13 do so because they think it cut funds for schools, but now with Prop 98 that isn't true anymore.

So I support Prop 13, especially when coupled with prop 98.  They have moved towards decoupling school funding from property taxes, which I favor.

Finally, because of the way property values move in California, its hard to imagine the state being affordable to live in without Prop 13.  While there was for a time a negative impact on schools, the negative impact of the old property tax system was worse.  They talk about Social Security being the third rail in national politics, that's because the program has done so much for so many.  Wel,, Prop 13 is the third rail in California, because its impact has been so positive for the average person's daily life.  No one can get elected out here statewide if they don't back Prop 13, because of the disasterous effects of the old property tax system.

[Smash255]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California (though it would been much closer than the national blowout). That said, running for a third term is a historical no-no in presidential politics, whereas running for governor is not.

However, Clinton carpetbagging his way to California just to become governor is a pretty hilarious thought, and I'm convinced California would be crazy enough to elect that big of a joke. Any polling data?

That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard, Clinton would have won in a blowout if he ran against Bush in 2000

You have got to be the dumbest thing I've ever met. Polls showed him losing to Bush by ten points.

Umm do u have a link??  Newsmax.com poll??

[The Duke]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California (though it would been much closer than the national blowout). That said, running for a third term is a historical no-no in presidential politics, whereas running for governor is not.

However, Clinton carpetbagging his way to California just to become governor is a pretty hilarious thought, and I'm convinced California would be crazy enough to elect that big of a joke. Any polling data?

That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard, Clinton would have won in a blowout if he ran against Bush in 2000

You have got to be the dumbest thing I've ever met. Polls showed him losing to Bush by ten points.

Umm do u have a link??  Newsmax.com poll??

He may not have a link, but I do remember that.

[Smash255]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California (though it would been much closer than the national blowout). That said, running for a third term is a historical no-no in presidential politics, whereas running for governor is not.

However, Clinton carpetbagging his way to California just to become governor is a pretty hilarious thought, and I'm convinced California would be crazy enough to elect that big of a joke. Any polling data?

That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard, Clinton would have won in a blowout if he ran against Bush in 2000

You have got to be the dumbest thing I've ever met. Polls showed him losing to Bush by ten points.

Umm do u have a link??  Newsmax.com poll??

He may not have a link, but I do remember that.

When exactly was this??  Their was a time period where Bush had a very large lead over Gore (well into the double digits) months before the election.  Clinton went into election day with approvals well into the 60's, no way he would have lost

[A18]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll000127.html
As he enters the last year of his presidency, most Americans say Bill Clinton’s done a fine job in office — and they’ll be glad to see him go.

A year from now:
Sorry to see him go: 39%
Glad to see him go: 54%

Whatever his legacy, enough looks to be enough. If Clinton could run for a third term in November, and he were matched against George W. Bush, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination, 42 percent of Americans say they’d vote for Clinton — 51 percent for Bush.

Bush would probably get 54% of the vote or more. Bush led Gore because of Nader, which this poll does not include.

Approval ratings don't win elections.

[Smash255]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll000127.html
As he enters the last year of his presidency, most Americans say Bill Clinton’s done a fine job in office — and they’ll be glad to see him go.

A year from now:
Sorry to see him go: 39%
Glad to see him go: 54%

Whatever his legacy, enough looks to be enough. If Clinton could run for a third term in November, and he were matched against George W. Bush, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination, 42 percent of Americans say they’d vote for Clinton — 51 percent for Bush.

Bush would probably get 54% of the vote or more. Bush led Gore because of Nader, which this poll does not include.

Approval ratings don't win elections.

aahh a poll from over 9 months before the election.....

[A18]

Uh, yeah. And his approval rating, the only thing you can cite to 'indicate' he'd be re-elected, was still in the 60s.

[Smash255]

Uh, yeah. And his approval rating, the only thing you can cite to 'indicate' he'd be re-elected, was still in the 60s.

58 in that poll around 65 at the end.  Anyway Bush was doing very well eaearly on,, he had a huge lead over Gore in the polls at times

[A18]

Bush led Gore because of Nader, who as I said earlier, is not included in this poll.

Anyway, you are a joke if you think Clinton could win re-election when 54% of adults were looking forward to seeing him out of office.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't quite understand your anti-Arnold attitude.  A simple examination of the record shows him to be the most successful Governor in America, which is why the Wall Street Journal in its survey of Governors economic policies ranked Arnold #1 in America.

That survery if I recall correctly was based soley on which Governors cut taxes and which didnt.  Virginia was rated the best managed state in the nation by The Governor Magizine, but Governor Warner received only a C rating from the WSJ.  Id also like to hear your arguement as to how Arnold is the most successful Governor in the country.

Arnold took a $22 billion deficit, the largest in the history of state government in any state, and has balanced the budget completely in just two years.  He's cut the unemployment rate here from 7% to 5% in the same time frame.  He's cut taxes.  He's boosted education spending to an all time high.

That's why I say he's the most succesful Governor in America.

Or at least the most successful one who has a 61% disapproval rating.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Clinton sought a third term, he obviously would have lost California (though it would been much closer than the national blowout). That said, running for a third term is a historical no-no in presidential politics, whereas running for governor is not.

However, Clinton carpetbagging his way to California just to become governor is a pretty hilarious thought, and I'm convinced California would be crazy enough to elect that big of a joke. Any polling data?

That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard, Clinton would have won in a blowout if he ran against Bush in 2000

You have got to be the dumbest thing I've ever met. Polls showed him losing to Bush by ten points.

Maybe a long time in advance, not longer after the Monica situation, but polls closer to the election showed Clinton winning.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, yeah. And his approval rating, the only thing you can cite to 'indicate' he'd be re-elected, was still in the 60s.

Clearly he'd lose to Arnold with his mid-30s approval rating.

[A18]

No, this is a poll from early 2000. Where's your link?

Clinton would take hits during the campaign as well.

[A18]

Uh, yeah. And his approval rating, the only thing you can cite to 'indicate' he'd be re-elected, was still in the 60s.

Clearly he'd lose to Arnold with his mid-30s approval rating.

Talking about a presidential election, jFraud.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, this is a poll from early 2000. Where's your link?

Clinton would take hits during the campaign as well.

I remember such a poll, only problem is when I search for Clinton vs. Bush I get a zillion links telling me that Clinton created about 10 million more jobs per term than Bush.

[The Duke]

Or at least the most successful one who has a 61% disapproval rating.

Or a 61% approval rating, right?

Maybe a long time in advance, not longer after the Monica situation, but polls closer to the election showed Clinton winning.

Clinton's highest approval ratings were during Monicagate.

In any case, one side of this debate has a link, one doesn't.  And in support of A18s argument, there's a good reason Al Gore did not want Clinton campaigning with him.  In '88, Bush didn't have to hide Reagan in a closet, Reagan was an asset.  Not so with Clinton.

No, this is a poll from early 2000. Where's your link?

Clinton would take hits during the campaign as well.

I remember such a poll, only problem is when I search for Clinton vs. Bush I get a zillion links telling me that Clinton created about 10 million more jobs per term than Bush.

Funny, I got a link about how Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to US authorities.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Or at least the most successful one who has a 61% disapproval rating.

Or a 61% approval rating, right?

You knew what I meant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton's highest approval ratings were during Monicagate.

In any case, one side of this debate has a link, one doesn't.  And in support of A18s argument, there's a good reason Al Gore did not want Clinton campaigning with him.  In '88, Bush didn't have to hide Reagan in a closet, Reagan was an asset.  Not so with Clinton.

[/quote]
Al Gore won the popular vote by half a point, so unless you think that Clinton would run significantly worse than Gore, Clinton would have won the popular vote. I can't remember where I saw the poll, but it had Clinton up in the neighborhood of 3-5 points over Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I remember such a poll, only problem is when I search for Clinton vs. Bush I get a zillion links telling me that Clinton created about 10 million more jobs per term than Bush.
[/quote]

Funny, I got a link about how Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to US authorities.
[/quote]

That's been debunked.

[A18]

Clinton would have done significantly worse than Gore, as the poll shows.

[The Duke]

I remember such a poll, only problem is when I search for Clinton vs. Bush I get a zillion links telling me that Clinton created about 10 million more jobs per term than Bush.

Funny, I got a link about how Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to US authorities.

That's been debunked.

No it hasn't, here's the audio of Clinton admitting that he let Osama get away.