Arnold Schwarzenegger deserves respect and admiration. He dealt himself a bad hand with his special election, but he played it out. He personally campaigned hard for his four ballot propositions. He and his campaign had a strong close. His campaign and the Republican party had an excellent absentee-ballot effort that helped his four ballot propositions considerably in the early tallies. Under the circumstances, they tweaked voter turnout as much as they could. They may complain and alibi, but last night is about as good as it was going to get for them. They lost all four ballot propositions, as I have long predicted, but they did remarkably well in limiting their loss margins on two of the ballot propositions. They could not have done much better, given the generic opposition to the Schwarzenegger slate of four propositions.
There will be continued second-guessing on the wisdom of putting those four measures onto a slate. Proposition 75, paycheck protection, was way ahead at the beginning of this campaign. It did very well among absentee voters, but at the end of the night, it was defeated. Would an independent effort, rather than the governor’s slate, have passed it? The fact that it lost relatively narrowly indicates that some voters were willing to distinguish between ballot propositions. With the right kind of campaign, anti-Schwarzenegger voters might have taken out an insurance policy in voting for Prop 75 as a balance against union power.
Proposition 74 on teacher tenure earlier this year looked like it could win. But it was held hostage to Proposition 76/fiscal reform, which was the real reason, if there was one, to have this special election. Unfortunately, voters never understood the importance of 76, because they were caught up in the reform rhetoric. Last year, Prop 76 would have had a chance. That’s when people felt there was a budget crisis that required immediate resolution. Schwarzenegger had allowed that mood of urgency to dissipate. So, it was hard to sell Prop 76, or a special election. That, of course, raises the compound question everyone avoids: Why did the governor call this special election, and wouldn’t we have been better off without it? This is a rhetorical compound question that I have answered all year. This special election was partly honest miscalculation and bad strategy, and it was partly vendor-driven by people involved in Arnold’s permanent campaign.
Perhaps the biggest surprise to many people (but not NRO readers) is that Proposition 73, parental notification for teenage abortion, was narrowly defeated. This is an issue that has always polled well, even in California. There was not much of a campaign for it. And, near the end, Planned Parenthood ran a television spot against it. But the main reason for its defeat is that it was caught up in the “no” syndrome. Indeed, without the excellent absentee-ballot campaign by Republicans, Proposition 73 would have done worse. Actually, Prop 73 had some problems in its drafting and might have been challenged legally, even successfully. It is unclear whether its defeat prejudices a future attempt at a more carefully drafted measure. One thing is for sure: It is irresponsible to raise just enough money to place such an issue on the ballot but not enough to campaign for it.
The “no” syndrome in this special election had several components. There was the “no” on Schwarzenegger (targeted against his four measures). There also was the “no” on the special election itself, which mainly hurt his ballot propositions–perhaps all eight ballot propositions. Republicans hoped those angry people would simply stay at home, but plenty turned out, not just to vote “no” on his four reform propositions, but on all eight. I agree, though, with Republican strategists that many of those angry at the special did stay home; otherwise, the results Tuesday night would have been worse. Still another “no” syndrome would be television-ad fatigue. The media buys were overkill. Even casual TV viewers like myself saw every single spot many dozens of times. Who knows what befell a more regular viewer? One way to rebel was to stay away. Another way was to vote “no” on everything.
There also was the kind of “no” vote that reflects voter confusion. When voters are confused about an initiative, they tend to vote “no.” What complicated this special election is that the pharmaceutical campaigns spent nearly $90 million on a campaign of overkill. People were hardly influenced by the spots put out by the drug companies. That is, after perhaps the first $20 million. Again, the repetition was so overwhelming. Viewers tuned out and figured they would vote “no.” But the drug companies achieved what they wanted–confusing the electorate on their ballot proposition (78) and the one they wanted to defeat (79). But their powerful effort to confuse voters helped solidify a “no” vote on other measures, and that hurt the governor’s cause. It could well have accounted for the margin by which parental notification was defeated, and who knows how much of an effect the vote-”no”-on-all-eight propositions had on Proposition 74 (teacher tenure) and Proposition 75 (paycheck protection). Ironically, the Republican party worked closely with the drug companies and did cooperative with mail efforts. More than anything, this effort by the pharmaceuticals probably helped defeat all eight propositions on the ballot. But they can take satisfaction in defeating the proposition they targeted. Even if they spent an extra $50 million to do it.
Schwarzenegger’s election-night statement was eloquent, and he seemed sincere. In many ways, it seemed like the old Arnold. He is an energetic, positive thinker. He announced that he wanted to work with the state legislature. My guess is you’ll see them get some press with showcase proposals. They’ll probably propose redistricting and new campaign disclosures on the Internet. At the same time, he announced he is going on a trade mission to China. (It’s a little late for any more absentee votes.)
But real questions remain. While he’s gone, will there be shakeups in his government staff or not? And will his permanent campaign team continue or will some of those players leave? Schwarzenegger is known to favor change for change’s sake. It would also be his way of escaping responsibility for the campaign that didn’t have to be.
– Arnold Steinberg is a political strategist and analyst. He has written textbooks on politics and media.