Primaries 2010

The first small section of the political IQ test has been taken. It is the primaries, which means it groups voters by party. California not withstanding, this is as it should be in what is essentially a two party system. My assessments here are rather limited and superficial due to time constraints and my sources of information. Because of this I am concentrating mainly on California, which is my home state.

Arkansas: At first blush it appears that members of the Democratic Party in Arkansas demonstrated a low political IQ by nominating Blanch Lincoln who betrayed her party and her constituents by threatening to join the Republicans in a filibuster to thwart health care reform. She is often described as a Corporate Democrat, which means that she represents greedy business interests rather than the working men and women of her state and this nation. In all fairness to the Democrats in Arkansas, however, I should point out that there were some extenuating circumstances. A piece of unethical pig shit went to great lengths to stack the deck in Ms. Lincoln’s favor by eliminating polling places in the districts where her opponent, Mr. Halter, had the greatest support. The wait to vote at the polling places that remained open was as long as four hours. Hopefully, voters will remember this unconscionable tactic when they vote in the general election. A Republican will not be any better than Ms. Lincoln but could not be any worse. Voting Ms. Lincoln out of office will at least send a powerful message. The voters in Arkansas should also try to find a political shovel they can use to remove the pig shit!

California: Democrats in California showed a low political IQ by not turning out to vote. Granted that none of the prominent Democrats were in danger of losing the primary, but there were also important propositions on the ballet. By staying at home the Democrats let the Republicans decide measures put on the ballet by greedy insurance companies, Pacific Gas & Electric, and other special interests. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Proposition 13 eliminates the tax penalty for retrofitting buildings. It passed and raises the voters’ political IQ score.

Poposition 14: In this blue state the Republicans favored Proposition 14, which all but eliminates Party primaries by allowing voters to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The candidates in the primary do not even have to declare a party. Thus Republicans and others can mask their party affiliation. Furthermore, since only the top two vote getters run off in the general election third parties will be excluded from the general election. In 1959 California did away with cross filing, which allowed a candidate to run in both the Democratic primary and the Republican primary at the same time. There were very good reasons why cross filing was abolished. It gave incumbents and candidates with name recognition too much of an advantage, and it increased the role money plays in our elections, which meant that special interests exerted a greater influence on our politicians. Proposition 14 should have been rejected for the same reasons. It gives politicians a greater ability to mask their agendas and increases the ability of special interests to influence the outcome of the primary elections as well as the general elections. Passing this measure lowers the IQ score of California voters.

Proposition 15: This proposition would have permitted public funding for candidates running for Secretary of State. The Secretary of State enforces many of the regulations governing the activities of lobbyists. It was a measure that should have been passed and its defeat lowers the voters’ political IQ score.

Proposition 16 would have required voter approval by a two-thirds majority before local governments could start or expand electric services. The voters correctly defeated it, and raised their political IQ score.

Proposition 17 would have allowed insurance companies to base their prices in part on a drivers’ history of insurance coverage. The voters correctly defeated it, and raised their political IQ score.

The California Republicans demonstrated a slightly higher political IQ than I expected by narrowly defeating Orly Taitz’ bid to become Secretary of State. This woman is insane even by tea party standards, and most pundits were saying she would have taken down the entire Republican ticket.

As for the nomination of Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina, all I can say is that it is too difficult to predict trends from those nominations. The one thing I can say is that those two corporate Republicans were able to get nominated. Both are female but so are Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Whether the corporate backgrounds of Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina will be an advantage or disadvantage in the general election remains to be seen. Both have political views that could be problematical in a blue state and both are packing some serious baggage.

California voters scored in the low part of the average range, which is a much like getting a C- on a social studies test. Hopefully, they will do better in the general election. I think they will if Democrats get off their lazy butts and vote.

Nevada: The Republicans demonstrated a low political IQ by nominating tea party favorite Sharron Angles for U.S. Senate. Her extreme right wing views give Senator Harry Reid a fighting chance in the general election. She is, in fact, the candidate Senator Reid wanted to run against.

Kentucky: The Republicans’ nomination of Rand Paul demonstrates a very low political IQ. Much of what can be said of Orly Taitz can be said of Rand Paul. If the overall political IQ in Kentucky is higher than ninety, he will be defeated easily in the general election.

How high of a political IQ will America demonstrate in the general election? Stay tuned in to find out. Voters who want to cure our economic malaise and wrest the control of our government from the special interests who are largely responsible for this recession must become active and involved. It takes a virtual ground swell of reformers to counter the influence of money in our political system. I am not naïve enough to think we will ever negate the influence of money, but I do think we can set some limits on it. We can and must support progressives who will give the people of this nation a more level playing field by passing effective reforms and regulations. While I do not begrudge a reasonable return on investments or a reasonable profit for innovation and hard work, I do begrudge the excessive greed that results in exploitation and poses a threat to our economy. Unions have been emasculated by globalization, and the government is our only option for controlling the excessive greed of those who put profits ahead of the welfare of our citizens and our country.