PDA

View Full Version : Gavin Newsom out of California governor's race



SmthBluCitrus
10-31-2009, 11:44 AM
Newsom Quits Governor's Race

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) "abruptly abandoned his run for California governor Friday, folding in the face of weak poll numbers and a skimpy bank account and leaving state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown as the only major candidate bidding for the Democratic nomination," the Los Angeles Times reports.

"Newsom's announcement in a statement issued just after 3 p.m. was surprising mainly for its timing, a full seven months before the primary. For weeks, rumors circulated among political insiders that Newsom would exit the race absent a dramatic turnabout in his fortunes. The arrival of his first child, a daughter born seven weeks ago, increased that speculation."

Taegan Goddard | Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/10/31/newsom_quits_governors_race.html)

DodgersFan28
10-31-2009, 11:52 AM
Thank God.

redsox12
10-31-2009, 12:04 PM
Does this clear the way for Meg Whitman?

behindmydesk
10-31-2009, 12:13 PM
Did he do it in a cryptic message that spells out something. It's the cali way to do things.

SmthBluCitrus
10-31-2009, 12:16 PM
Whitman is a Republican. Gavin Newsom is a Democrat. There's really little effect on Whitman -- but I don't think she's going to get very far. So far it seems like Jerry Brown (former California governor, current Attorney General, and Democrat) is blowing everybody away in the polls ... and he hasn't really even started campaigning yet (he's polling 50-29 over Whitman right now -- Newsom was polling 41-30 over Whitman).

redsox12
10-31-2009, 12:19 PM
Whitman is a Republican. Gavin Newsom is a Democrat. There's really little effect on Whitman -- but I don't think she's going to get very far. So far it seems like Jerry Brown (former California governor, current Attorney General, and Democrat) is blowing everybody away in the polls ... and he hasn't really even started campaigning yet (he's polling 50-29 over Whitman right now -- Newsom was polling 41-30 over Whitman).

OK I don't know much about the race, I just like Meg Whitman. So Jerry Brown will probably win?

SmthBluCitrus
10-31-2009, 12:49 PM
That's the way it looks right now. Then again, we're still a year out from the election. Meg Whitman appears to be the front runner for the GOP nomination; but not by much. Whitman is +2 over Tom Campbell but they're each around 20% -- so it's really anybody's race.

I do think Whitman gets crushed in a match up against Jerry Brown though. Probably a 10+ point victory for Brown, barring a complete collapse of his campaign. Meg Whitman has very little political experience ... and, in fact, she rarely even votes in elections. It makes her appear aloof in comparison to the career politician, Jerry Brown.

Randy West
11-01-2009, 01:34 AM
If this state gets any more fouled up people could be looking for someone that has not been involved in the states messes. Jerry Brown is exactly what is wrong with politics in this state and country for that matter. He has very little experience doing anything but campaigning successfully for political office. If people were to get tired of the politics as usual BS Meg might have a chance.

I don't understand why people don't look at the overall body of work when voting? Meg has been a successful person outside the government. Jerry has figured out a way to continually suck a paycheck out of an under performing state government.

Does California want a fresh look at things from a successful business persons perspective? Or the same old tired BS from a career politician?

DodgersFan28
11-01-2009, 10:01 AM
Does California want a fresh look at things from a successful business persons perspective? Or the same old tired BS from a career politician?

The people here are so ignorant of politics that the same old tired BS packaged properly can be 100% bought as great, new ideas to solve the state's problems. The people are so gullible that they'll actually believe just about anything they're told in just about any political issue.

SmthBluCitrus
11-01-2009, 10:50 AM
If this state gets any more fouled up people could be looking for someone that has not been involved in the states messes. Jerry Brown is exactly what is wrong with politics in this state and country for that matter. He has very little experience doing anything but campaigning successfully for political office. If people were to get tired of the politics as usual BS Meg might have a chance.

I don't understand why people don't look at the overall body of work when voting? Meg has been a successful person outside the government. Jerry has figured out a way to continually suck a paycheck out of an under performing state government.

Does California want a fresh look at things from a successful business persons perspective? Or the same old tired BS from a career politician?

I think there's a different way to look at that. One that shows Jerry Brown as a public servant and one that shows Meg Whitman as indifferent to public service.

But, with Brown already polling at 50% (+21), I don't honestly believe that Meg Whitman has a shot. Brown is already starting out from a good place.

Randy West
11-01-2009, 06:15 PM
I think there's a different way to look at that. One that shows Jerry Brown as a public servant and one that shows Meg Whitman as indifferent to public service.

But, with Brown already polling at 50% (+21), I don't honestly believe that Meg Whitman has a shot. Brown is already starting out from a good place.

I think you are right as far as how they are polling now.

As far as the public servant comment I think you are exactly wrong.

Sacramento is full of public servant's (politicians) that have gotten the state in the situation it is in the first place. Electing Brown would be business as usual for the state. Whitman on the other hand had held ceo positions at some pretty good companies over the last decade. I think she might have a better idea on how to create jobs, keep business in the state and spend responsibly.

With business leaving the state, unemployment at an all time high and a state government that has no idea how to control spending, Jerry Brown would be a step in the same direction the rest of the public servants have been taking.

So who would actually benefit the public more as a public servant? I would almost be willing to bet that Meg has actually done more to create jobs and put food on the table for families than Jerry has the last ten years in this state. So who has done a better job of actual public service?

SmthBluCitrus
11-01-2009, 06:26 PM
I think you are right as far as how they are polling now.

As far as the public servant comment I think you are exactly wrong.

Sacramento is full of public servant's (politicians) that have gotten the state in the situation it is in the first place. Electing Brown would be business as usual for the state. Whitman on the other hand had held ceo positions at some pretty good companies over the last decade. I think she might have a better idea on how to create jobs, keep business in the state and spend responsibly.

With business leaving the state, unemployment at an all time high and a state government that has no idea how to control spending, Jerry Brown would be a step in the same direction the rest of the public servants have been taking.

So who would actually benefit the public more as a public servant? I would almost be willing to bet that Meg has actually done more to create jobs and put food on the table for families than Jerry has the last ten years in this state. So who has done a better job of actual public service?

Eh, I disagree. There's a reason that Jerry Brown is as popular as he is (and continues to get elected -- whether it's as mayor of Oakland, attorney general, or governor of California.

I mean, for a liberal anti-war Dem, he ran Oakland as a centrist. He did a lot with the military (I believe he even attained federal funding to open a military charter school, iirc).

Meg Whitman may be an intelligent and savvy businesswoman, but that doesn't necessarily translate into governing. For instance (and not to get all point-at-Bush, but ...) Bush was the CEO President. Economically, how well did that work out? Then you have the CEO, and former governor, Mitt Romney -- and he ran a piss poor campaign, complete with financial mismanagement.

Again, Whitman may be very business-astute, but that doesn't necessarily translate into political nerve. And, as somebody that has virtually ignored public life and politics in favor of business, she hasn't formed those alliances to make the deals necessary to move things forward in Sacramento.

There's more to a career politician than just lining the wallet. And, for my money, Brown has done right by his respective positions.

redsox12
11-01-2009, 09:43 PM
Meg Whitman may be an intelligent and savvy businesswoman, but that doesn't necessarily translate into governing. For instance (and not to get all point-at-Bush, but ...) Bush was the CEO President. Economically, how well did that work out? Then you have the CEO, and former governor, Mitt Romney -- and he ran a piss poor campaign, complete with financial mismanagement.


I don't think Romney ran a bad campaign. The war was the number 1 issue and McCain won the primary then the eco. was #1 and thats where Romney would have been good, if he was still in.

SmthBluCitrus
11-01-2009, 10:02 PM
I don't think Romney ran a bad campaign. The war was the number 1 issue and McCain won the primary then the eco. was #1 and thats where Romney would have been good, if he was still in.

No, Romney ran a piss poor campaign. He burned through money like it was going out of style and his inner campaign structure was a cluster****. There was very little outward organization. I have friends that worked in that campaign -- starting in Iowa very early and also in the national structure.

The "war" wasn't the reason Romney didn't get the nomination, either. But, that's an entirely different discussion.

Randy West
11-01-2009, 10:59 PM
Eh, I disagree. There's a reason that Jerry Brown is as popular as he is (and continues to get elected -- whether it's as mayor of Oakland, attorney general, or governor of California.

I mean, for a liberal anti-war Dem, he ran Oakland as a centrist. He did a lot with the military (I believe he even attained federal funding to open a military charter school, iirc).

Meg Whitman may be an intelligent and savvy businesswoman, but that doesn't necessarily translate into governing. For instance (and not to get all point-at-Bush, but ...) Bush was the CEO President. Economically, how well did that work out? Then you have the CEO, and former governor, Mitt Romney -- and he ran a piss poor campaign, complete with financial mismanagement.

Again, Whitman may be very business-astute, but that doesn't necessarily translate into political nerve. And, as somebody that has virtually ignored public life and politics in favor of business, she hasn't formed those alliances to make the deals necessary to move things forward in Sacramento.

There's more to a career politician than just lining the wallet. And, for my money, Brown has done right by his respective positions.


Your right

He is a liberal running in a liberal state that makes it pretty simple to continue getting re elected imo. As far as Oakland goes it is a working class city much different from San Francisco so appearing centrist is all you could do to hope to be elected.

I am not sure what lining a wallet has to do with it?? The difference as I see it is one was held accountable for what she did as a CEO. Politicians are rarely held accountable for what they do.....if they were California wouldn't be the mess it is. I am not sure what Bush has actually been the CEO of so I don't get the comparison. Same goes with Romney's campaign......I don't understand what that has to do with Whitman running for Gov. Two different people I would expect two different results.


Pretty sad day when you have to have the "proper alliances" to get things on the right track. You would think the folks that are elected there now have the "proper alliances" and they have not been able to do squat.

But I am sure liberals in this state will elect a liberal anyway........because it does not matter how the state is actually run. It just matters if your guy gets a chance to run it for better or for worse.

Lord forbid we get a successful political outsider to come in and try to do something different to jump start things.........you know bring in a fresh new set of ideas.

BigdaddyQH
11-02-2009, 01:56 PM
Jerry Brown can do more to unite the Republican Party in California than any Republican candidate can do. This is how much he is hated by the GOP. Special Circumstances dictate who get elected in California, not the candidated themselves. Arnold was elected because the last Democratic Governor raised taxes through the roof, and was recalled for it. Arnold won on name recognition only. The fact that he had no clue how to run a state was completely and totally irrelevent.

Brown givew a potential Republican candidate a lot of ammunition. If Meg Whitman played her cards right, she could win this election. She needs to hire some savvy strategist and people who know how the game is played in California.

ari1013
11-02-2009, 03:30 PM
Jerry Brown can do more to unite the Republican Party in California than any Republican candidate can do. This is how much he is hated by the GOP. Special Circumstances dictate who get elected in California, not the candidated themselves. Arnold was elected because the last Democratic Governor raised taxes through the roof, and was recalled for it. Arnold won on name recognition only. The fact that he had no clue how to run a state was completely and totally irrelevent.

Brown givew a potential Republican candidate a lot of ammunition. If Meg Whitman played her cards right, she could win this election. She needs to hire some savvy strategist and people who know how the game is played in California.
I really hope the GOP wastes resources on that race instead of on one that's winnable.

DodgersFan28
11-03-2009, 07:10 AM
Whitman can win against Brown. Going by polls at this point is a pointless exercise since the only people responding to polls now are the hardcore political fanboys who put politics & elections at the forefront of their personal interests.

Once the general ADD CA voting populace begins to learn who both Brown and Whitman are, I believe this will be a rather close race.