The "attack-ads" of relating the Governor to GWB may be good icebreakers; even though Angelides' himself is not mentioned. An a small, yet growing percentage of 'malleable' CA. voters can be swayed to Angelides; as these voters may be turned-off by the very "knee-jerk reactions" that Governor Schwarzenegger encourages.

Yet, Angelides has to campaign on tax-breaks for the middle-class e.g., the quote 'financial-relief' is one example of 'framing messages' that stick in voter memories e.g., "Financial-relief" addresses both tax-breaks and support for SB-840 health-care agendas.

The Rockridge Institute www.rockridgeinstitute.org applies framing methods for advancing progresive, Deomcratic-party agendas.

On immigration:

* 'Unlawful-hiring' OR 'illegal hiring' conveys proposals for employer penalties for hiring people who have not properly applied for citizenship or amnesty.

* 'Amnesty when verified' conveys proposals on guidelines for paths to citizenship.

Ironically, Phil Angelides may gain "much needed" support by being portrayed as the underdog; who can convey a "quiet confidence" crucial for leadership.

Signs, bumper-stickers, etc. can help:

* Tired of the Arnold-hype? Vote for the underdog!

OR

* Ah heck, I'm voting for the Underdog!

* California doesn't have room for the GOP Elephant!

Angelides does not have the money that the big movie star has. It's all about money, as in who has the most.

Wait until the election draws nearer. If the Democrats are serious about defeating the acting governor they will need to have something good up their sleeve.

Let's don't overstate Angelides' position right now. If you pry up the underdog with a jack, and scrape the dirt away beneath him, you will find Phil.

His main problem is the the big dollar Dems aren't backing him. His only support is the rank and file.

I like him more and more, myself.

I voted for Steve Wesley in the Primary, but I'll be backing Phil. I can't stand the 'Gropernator'. He's a sexist chauvinist pig, with an ego bigger than his bicepts.

I voted against Black Eggs last time; I'm voting against Angelides this time. I really hoped Wesley would win, too, of course.

Angelides is pandering to the illegals and their corporate employers even more than Black Eggs is.

That's a big deal in Calif. I just had some drywall and plastering work done - by US citizens. You flatlanders can't imagine how tough they are to find in construction here in SoCalif.
rdr

Well then my vote is cancelling your vote, so it's up to the rest of the state to work it out.

Ironically, the DEMS. can demonstrate that they can get more "bang for the buck" because of their expereince with limited money. In other words, "the turning lemons into lemonade" can actually be "spun into" campaign selling-points. After all, most voters in CALIF. relate best to limited finances e.g., the financial-relief talking-point discussed in the orignal post.

And on leadership, do an ample majority of voters want an underdog (The State Treasurer) that leads with a quiet confidence, instead of celebrity that appeals to knee-jerk reactions?

After all, if nobody wants to be suckered, why vote for a (big-money) party of deceit, hypocrisy, etc.?

It is widely felt that Arnold is not that conservative. Can it equally be felt that he not a moderate either? There are only a very small handful truly moderate Republicans, they are; Lincoln Chaffe of Rhode Island, and Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins of Maine. In other words, don't be fooled! e.g., remember the "lipstick on the pig?" You put lipstick on a GOP Elephant, it is still a GOP Elephant!


* Ghandi said, "become the change you want to see in the world!" Can it also be said, "become the Democrat you wish to see in............?

Signs and bumper stickers can help. Also, supporters of Angelides can help his message stick in the minds of voters by better utilizing talk radio. Democrats have been asleep regarding the format for the past couple decades or so. Even before there was Air America and Jones Radio, there were all sorts of opportunities for liberals, environmentalists, feminists and others to take part in the discussions. Some right-wing shows screen out calls of dissent, many don't.
When there was the progressive "ie america radio" network, that was underutilized. Now there are a couple local hosts in California whose shows aren't used as they could be by Democrats. The wonderful host Enid Goldstein in Sacramento has to plead for calls. She's on from 3-7 Pacific time on http://www.kctc.com
She also welcomes calls from other parts of California, and other states, and they provide a toll free number.
There's the excellent Air America affiliate in San Diego, http://www.1360klsd.com They have the local host Stacey Taylor on Monday through Friday mornings. I'm rarely able to catch his show, so I'm not sure how many Dems are utilizing his forum. I do listen to the weekend hosts sometimes (I'm listening to Jon Eliot right now). Maybe Angelides supporters can find opportunities to call in, maybe even get Angelides on the air.
I just found the streaming site of AAR's LA affiliate, http://2005.progressivetalk1150.com I've only heard the weekend show of Mario Solis-Marich, which is great. Unfortunately, their call-in number doesn't work for out-of-state calls, but I imagine it works for all of California.

I'm an admirer of Peter Miguel Camejo.
http://www.votecamejo.com

The choice this year is Sleaze, or Slime.

Westly dug up plenty of dirt about Angelides in the primary, and we all know what a pig Arnold is.
rdr

Angelides and Westley both did the party a disservice by the campaigns they ran. It was disgraceful. I voted for Westley because of his promise to fund education (being in the middle of the CSU system, and seeing our tuition nearly double over the past 4 years has not been fun). But I'll support Angelides aganist Ah-nold, because I simply can't stand the man or his policies.

When is Phil Angelides going to be interviewed by ED SCHULTZ??

UGGH!: It is yet again (and again) the difference between tweddle-dee, and tweddle-dumb. Let's at least vote for the lesser of the two-evils; they are all we have at this time!

Did you miss Fridays show?

It was a very interesting interview, IMO.

BTW, I'm moving this topic to "2006" as it is more appropriate there. It's nice to see a civil discussion with differing viewpoints, too.

Angelides sounded pretty good on Ed's show Friday. He talked about the $1.5 billion or so he directed towards renewable energy when he was director of some California retirement money fund.
By the way, Peter Camejo has been a pioneer in the field of Socially Responsible Investing.

I heard mention of Angelides; not as an interview.

You can download it from ed's website.
http://www.wegoted.com/

It's true what you say, but the dirt Westley dug up was mostly guilt by association. Not guilt by action.

This is likely to come out more clearly as we near the election.

Kudos to Ed for placing the Angelides interview on the website. Some of us had to step-away from the radio before the live interview, yet we never miss what’s important!

Just by such interviews, Angelides can reclaim the DEMS. who have become discouraged by Angelides; provided interviews are also dovetailed into campaign ads.

Angelides is campaigning on tax-breaks for the middle-class e.g., the quote 'financial-relief' is one example of 'framing messages' that stick in voter memories e.g., "Financial-relief" addresses both tax-breaks and support for health-care agendas. Why is Angelides evading the SB-840 Health Care proposals?

Yes, talking points sway voters if repeated again and again (and again) for the first time!:

On immigration:

* The frames 'unlawful hiring' OR ‘illegal hiring’ can replace 'illegal employers.' e.g., employer penalties.’

* The frame ‘Amnesty WHEN verified’ describes how amnesty can be granted or rejected based on an individual’s records i.e., sufficient income to support themselves and their families, employment records, criminal records, educational levels, English proficiency.

*************

Did ED brief Mr. Angelides on the importance of the “boots on the ground strategies?

In order to “micro-target” malleable voters more closely, detailed demographic data i.e., data by zip-codes are necessary.

For example, gains for Democrats may come by campaigning in regions whose demographics are:

a.) Older largely middle-class suburban regions e.g., the communities built at least 30 years ago.

b.) Increasingly favoring ethnic-food restaurants. “Hmmm, all of those ‘boots on the ground’ would bring these eateries hungry customers!” Would Mr. Angelides himself consider joining his supporters for meals; which can serve as content for campaign ads -- all conveying support for small business people?

c.) Less and less favorability for additional fast-food chains.

d.) Less and less favorability for mega-churches.

e.) Regions showing growing interest in the arts.

f.) Regions showing growing-interest in “the new economy” jobs. e.g., this would also include environmental/green business initiatives.

In short, the key here is to “micro-target” malleable voters whose demographics demonstrate a growing diversity of interests; which can favor an emerging Democratic majority.

The hard-sells can backfire on some voters who are “most likely” swayed to the Democrats; as these voters may be “least likely” swayed by the very “knee-jerk reactions” that shape potential GOP voter behaviors.

For politics and technology; in coordinating micro-targeting:”

www.politicsandtechnology.com

In short, do an ample majority of California voters want leadership that demonstrates a "quiet confidence" crucial for leadership, or the very celebrity appeal and "knee-jerk reactions" that Schwarzenegger encourages?

An ample majority of California voters WANT AND NEED leadership that demonstrates a "quiet confidence" crucial for leadership, AND NOT the very celebrity appeal and "knee-jerk reactions" that Schwarzenegger encourages!

An "October Surprise" for Calfornia; where Angelides surpasses Schwarzenegger. This can be a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts; on account of the dynamics of the blogsphere, talk-radio, word-of-mouth, etc. i.e., the multiplier-effect.

Trying to second quess an upcoming election is about the same as trying to predict the outcome of a jury vote. Intelligent people don't do it.

Looks like that requirement frees me to have a little fun with this one.

The State of California is NOT BLUE ENOUGH to elect Mister Angelides as Governor!

You heard it foist.....

Best Regards,

A self-fulfilling prophecy can become a "self-defeatist prophecy," Posting to blogs is an excellent icebreaker to engage people. Yet through all of the posting to the blogsphere, many important messages “get lost in the shuffle” and too many of us are “spinning our wheels” in attempting to collectively influence a difficult social-political zietgeist!

After all, Ed is correct on one thing, “The DEMS. need boots on the ground!”

When ED has Mr. Angelide's on for an additional interview; it may be best for ED to convey his wisdom through a "tough love" of sort s for lack of a better word! Let's start-out narrowing the CA Governor's race at least!

All of you from outside the state and those inside might as well callit a day on this one. Good ole Phil is for the 4 ballot measures that will raise taxes by 13 or more billion dollars a year. He wont even come out against the overturning of Prop 13. Yes that right the prop that save retirees houses from being sold out from under them and good ole Phil says cities should be able to charge what they want for property taxes. He just shot his bid for governer in the heart!! Add the fact that he loves criminal aliens and he will lose by 20%. That why big money dems are staying away.

Mister Angelides is NOT a complete idiot. He has wisely backed down from earlier statements about wanting to modify Proposition 13, the so called '13th Rail' of California politics.

NO Politician would EVER be elected to statewide office by taking such a stance (that of altering Prop 13). Methinks that my fellow Righties are attempting to tar Mister Angelides with past statements that he has made on the matter.

Best Regards,

Yes, yes , yes, this is a case where we are once again, and again, and again, splitting-hairs on 'the lesser of two evils', or OKAY 'the evil of two lessers.'

And somehow learning the importance of promoting candidates that actuallly gives us a clear choice in the first place are lessons that are always lost!!

Hindsight is twenty-twenty; and even here we are only pondering what concerns would be discussed if Steve Westely would be challenging Ahhnorld. Not so long ago, Rob-Reiner was considered in running for Governor; "a royal-flush" in the social political landscape!

What's left, a wanna-be political wonk who would sense the need to promote a third-party candidate; who would happen to win one of the bigger California lotteries? -- and to gain clout with the other veteran political wonks who have succesfully run third-party candidates! How would name recognition help here? Even Angeldies is ahead with this trait; this close to the November Election!

Would the absolute best social, political, big-money grassroots progressive, wanna-be political wonk environments help the Green Party Candidate actually win as Governor??? EHHH.. probably not!

Angelides is now down double digits, not good.

Though I'm puzzled by the statement that Ca. is "not blue enough" to elect Angelides, he doesn't strike me as a particularly liberal democrat, certainly not on the order of say, oh I dunno, Barbara Boxer, who is consistantly re-elected.

Either way I still believe that Westley and Angelides did the entire Democratic party a disservice by running such a negative campaign. To paraphrase Bart Simpson "Why are you focusing on the small, stupid differences, when you should be focusing on the big stupid similarities?"

It can seem at times like the country isn't "blue enough." The right wing, which is serving elite interests (and, by definition, a minority of the population) has done a great job of motivating themelves and the people they can buy or deceive into supporting them. While I disagree with the positions of the "dittoheads" or those who have been "hannitized," you have to admire their committed efforts to take the country in the direction of the corporatist party. They call into their talk shows, they write letters to the editors, they buy the books and subscribe to the magazines, they harangue progressives of all sorts, they make their presence known on Amazon via reviews, they post flyers and bumper stickers, they contribute money to their causes, they're not shy about sharing their views with their family, friends and co-workers, etc.
The left does all of these things as well, but not nearly with the same vigor; and not nearly optimizing their potential. Progressives do, after all, make up the majority of the nation. We have the half (or more) of the electorate that voted for Kerry. Then we have the majority of those who don't vote, less wealthy people who tend not to vote at all but have not only liberal values, but more likely social democratic values. In fact, many who vote for Republicans have liberal values, but have been sold on various images that the right has engineered, including an image of popularity.

Right now, I'm listening to the AAR host, Enid Goldstein, on Sacramento's http://www.kctc.com Sacramento is where Limbaugh got his start. He received a lot of support. Meanwhile, Enid has to plead for calls. This gives many people an impression that California just isn't blue. But the blue people just aren't paying much attention to liberal talk radio, they are off in NPR land. Being spectators. Or, maybe other lefties in Sacramento are doing what many lefties here in Colorado are doing, occupying themselves with their personal relations. Nader makes a great point about this, how we're so obsessed with our social lives, but we often aren't very concerned with our civic lives.
Some may suggest Enid isn't a very good host. I think she's great. But either way, with all the complaining we do about the media, we could make a better effort of utilizing the forums we have. We could make more of an effort to project "blue" values, instead of talking about how one Dem politician or another needs to be doing this that or the other thing.
As Thom Hartmann always says, democracy begins with us.

How media-spin affects the public can be a subject in itself for discussion! e.g., "let's talk about talking-points again and again for the first time" OR "From talking-points to action-points to tipping-points."

The California Governor's race is a good example of the "modus-operendi of media-tainment" shifting into high gear by the first week of November.

Examples:

* Who wants a "media-tainment elephant" ladden with "politi-speak masturbation?"

* If nobody wants to be suckered, why vote with the "big interests" that deceive us so well?

* The media’s-spin; ‘going round and round’, distracting us ‘again and again’ for the first time!

* From the playbook; on how they confuse us; “mix apples and oranges, end-up with lemons, sour-grapes, and leave us with (and in) the pits!”

* Who has time to be confused?

* Who has time for hypocrisy?

OR

* How do we realize subtle hypocrisy?

OKAY, Phil Angelides' can gain by publishing a book! Yes, there is still time to publish and distribute a book within California before Election Day. Notice the operative word here is publish; and not just writing-- as books needing publication on such short notice can progress with exisiting content already available. Or existing content needing editing.

The key here is a campaign framed in a 'non-partisan' package. Such a book would help with name-recognition at least encourage the Democrats and Independents who have given-up on Angelides to reconsider their decisions. In order to sway the mallealbe voters, discussions on the "modus-operendi of media-tainment" and the other "talking points" discussed in the original posts must dovetail with such book promotions!

Advice for Chapter One: In short, the work with the strengths to get to the weaknesses advice applies i.e., what strengths does Angelides have with California? Again campaign agendas framed in a 'non-partisan' package would probably be one strength!

Hope everybody caught the big debate tonight. Not very well moderated, I must say...... Angelides came off very competent and well spoken, Arnold came off as Arnold. Didn't seem to be any real mind-changer, my guess. Thoughts?

Arnold has already won this, no way around it.

I missed it cause I worked. I don't know if you were able to listen to Christine Craft on the first AAR affiliate, 1240 TalkLeft yesterday (does it reach?). She said they would be seated because Arnold is shorter than Angelides. I briefly met Angelides once, he's not all that tall. . .she also said the moderator is a lobbyist, with possibly a Republican background, the questions would be softball questions, etc. I received an email from the Angelides campaign to show up at Sac State, where it was held, to support Angelides. The last time I went to Sac State was for the "big" debate with Arnold during the first election, there were satellite dishes everywhere, huge media presence, even foreign countries, it was a zoo. There were more members of the media than protesters. At the end of that debate, Arnold's SUV took a wrong turn to a dead end street. I wished that were an omen but alas!

This race was lost before it began. The brutal Democratic primary campaign handed the election to the Gropernator. Steve Westley and Phil Angelides ran the most negative primary campaign I have ever seen. It was clear that whomever won the primary would be so brutalized and demonized that there would be little hope. With little hope comes little money. The smart people put their money where there is a chance of winning. Angelides never had a chance. To further insure Angelides wouldn't have a chance of resurecting himself the Gropenator stole his issues, he worked closely with the Democratic Assembly and Senate and signed a minimum wage bill, a massive public works bill, opened up money for education, etc. Angelides was left with a tattered image, no money and no issues.

The debate was aired at the worst time; Saturday evening. What happened to the prime-time slots weekdays?

Angelides might get back some of the Democratic voters he lost; he was also the candidate who appeared like the very statesman crucial for leadership.

The time is ripe for a third of California voters to favor a “none of the above” sentiment; that is voting for any of the four third-party candidates. Even a choice for a write-in candidate is offered e.g, I had hoped Rob Reiner would run; as he would convey both celebrity and leadership appeal.

Already, one survey indicated that 1 in 8 voters would consider any of the third-party candidates; because the election choices are not that impressive; even after the debate.

Of course “none of the above” sentiments would be significant only if Angelides is seen as the underdog; as votes for third party-candidates would only draw-off votes from Schwarzenegger.

The California Governor’s election will be a textbook-example of “media-tainment.” Yet, contrary to popular opinion, an ample majority of California voters are more likely swayed through news WITHOUT the “media-tainment”, Internet campaigns, grassroots efforts, and even old-fashioned word-of-mouth (like a multiplier effect) combined, than are swayed by celebrity appeal alone; especially an appeal orientated around knee-jerk reactions. Talk about choices!

“Grassroots-efforts” are also crucial in countering the ‘self fulfilling prophecy effect’ that’s more like a ‘self-defeatist prophecy’ which feels that third-party votes cannot influence elections!

QUOTES (talking-points) e.g., for bumper stickers:

* Tired of the “media-tainment” elephant in all of its Arnold hype? Vote for one of the “none-of the above!

* Tired of the choosing for the lesser of two evils? Vote for one of the “none-of the above!”

* The first and second parties were uninviting; especially when the third, four, fifth, and sixth parties offered twice as many invitations!

* With all of the mudslinging, nobody seems to come clean; except for third party candidates.

I listened to Christine Craft's show recently. I liked it, but she wasn't taking any calls.
I don't understand that, talk radio without callers.
It's anti-democratic.

I missed the debate.

It's time to vote for a 'none of the above' sentiment: There are four third-party i.e., Green-party, and Libertarian Party candidates including a write-in choice e.g., My write-in chocie is Rob Reiner.

LINK:
http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=20500

Quotes:

* After awhile, the 'Arnold-hype elephant' is uninviting; especiallly after the four other parties offer printed (ballot) invitations; and one of the choices is a written invitation.

* Word-of-mouth is what's worth repeating again and again for the first time!

Let's remember the Lt. Governor for California Democratic candidate John Garamendi. Garamendi has a good chance to win; based on name recognition that is further enhanced through current campaign ads, and newspaper endorsements. The race between Garamendi, and the Conservative Republican challenger is said to be a close-race; but will likely widen in favor of Garamendi.

Quote based on the elephant as a metaphor of a large, disorganized beast; or 'talking-points' in opposing GOP candidates:

* Nobody wants the GOP Elephant!

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/42729.html

Interesting article about two Bush/Cheney political operatives who are driving Schwarzenegger's campaign.