Prop 19 Post-Mortem: Crunching the Numbers and Pointing the Finger

[grasspass]

A lot of people that are mad at the democrats came out to vote. These people, in general, [for different reasons] are against what they call "marijuana". I think its as simple as that...... How to change there minds? Maybe get the media more on the side of cannabis?

 

[Cannaseur Kid]

I said it before. Prop 19 was written for money grubbin Oakland based dispensary owners and shit head kids that want to smoke pot without legal consequence. Fuck that. I am a medical user and I voted NO.

 

[Herborizer]

IMHO, Prop 19 needs a major re-write. It should bar out-of-state corporations/mega-corporations from entering the CA marketplace, with perhaps a nod toward stimulating a native industry like CA wineries.

Hahaha. Sorry, but I couldn't help but chuckle on that one.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Holy shit!!!! Can Cooley take this election? Last time I checked he was down over a whole percentage point. Now hes only down .2% and they havent called it yet....

 

[justalilrowdy]

He could..

 

[justalilrowdy]

I said it before. Prop 19 was written for money grubbin Oakland based dispensary owners and shit head kids that want to smoke pot without legal consequence. Fuck that. I am a medical user and I voted NO.

It had felonies and mandatory sentencing and that's so fucked up. It wasn't ideal and we may never get ideal but we have a chance to get something much better.



"When one door is closed, don't you know, another is open."
Robert Nesta Marley

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

He could..

Prop.19 fails AND Steve Cooley might be our next AG. That is a scary fucking thought...

 

[justalilrowdy]

very..

 

[motaco]

People are completely irrational if you bring their kids into the mix.

 

[Bacchus]

Hopefully in 2012, you will have a much larger turnout of younger voters for the presidential election.

 

[jaysplifferton]

the one positive thing that's come from prop 19 is the increased media presence of the issue. Even if most were just pieces of "liberal" demagoguery, they're bound to reach many liberals who sway that way for reasons other than social issues, or for different ones.

I'm thinking of the Nicolas Kristof piece and many others, kindly posted by vta in the past months.

Excellent read fatigue!

Perhaps if we can convince the aging boomers that it's better that their kids *not* be arrested for a victimless crime, and that many of the propaganda pieces are phony baloney... but they should really know that if they've ever tried marijuana.

 

[hydromaddicted]

We need So Cal and they voted a resounding NO over 2 million of the No votes come from 5 So Cal counties L.A.,Orange,San Bernardino,Riverside and San Diego.

 

[rick shaw]

Good luck getting a bigger turnout. The Republicans know how to win and the Tea Party Movement figured it out, vote in mass numbers. It worked. Republicans control the House and four pesky marijuana props were run over in the process. They have their eyes on the prize. In 2012 they will be out in even bigger numbers.Do you think that they will give up an advantage read ,Aesop's "Tortoise and the Hare". So if your depending on kids or stoners to do an important job let me know how that works out for you.

 

[fatigues]

Hopefully in 2012, you will have a much larger turnout of younger voters for the presidential election.

I am not persuaded that the numbers on Prop 19 justify holding another ballot measure in 2012. I think to do that so soon again will be a tragic mistake. A vastly more rational target would be to aim for 2016.

If this is attempted again in 2012 - and loses again - it will do great, perhaps incalculable harm to the movement.

The narrative of those who are wishful thinkers right now seems to be that the Republicans/Tea Party was far more motivated to vote than the left. That happens to be true -- but only to a point. The difference of 8% in the numbers, however, is too large to explain away those results just from mere voter turnout of a motivated conservative base. This is especially so when the state-wide ballots for Senator and Governor STILL went to the Democratic candidates.

That didn't happen because the Tea Party voted in Boxer and Brown. It does not assist the cause for people to stick their heads in the sand and pretend.

That's not a matter of opinion - that's a matter of arithmetic. The numbers don't lie.

I remind everyone that before TC2010 was first drafted, the numbers in California in favor of legalization was only 51.8%. That number is based upon the entire population of the state across voters of all age groups, not among likely voters. Young people aren't going to turn out for this vote en masse in larger numbers than they usually do. That's not a matter of opinion: that is now a matter of fact.

Accordingly, I don't see how the numbers go up to secure a victory in just two years' time. Not when the people in their 40s and early 50s just voted it down. Won't happen.

Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is insane. That razor cuts both ways.

There needs to be some time allowed to pass to have some of the seniors who are virulently anti-pot to die off. That may result in an improvement in the over 65 vote to, say, 38% - maybe as high as 40%. That number will not get there in two years. No way, no how. Won't happen. Not in only two years. In six years? You might get to 38%. But not in two years.

Given that that is so, the votes necessaray to win must come from somewhere. I don't see where that somewhere is. Not in two years' time. Again, the numbers don't lie. They are real and the truth they tell must be confronted -- most especually when it is inconvenient to do so.

Don't get me wrong. I desperately don't want to give up and I am not suggesting for one moment that anyone should. But to jump off the cliff into the sea when the tide is still out -- so that you must inevitably land on the exposed jagged rocks below? That is not "brave", neither is it "committed" or "principled"; the word for that sort of political planning is stupidity.

This vote needs to be held again under winning conditions. Those winning conditions are simply not going to happen in two years' time. The demographics of this past Tuesday prove that. To ignore those results and attribute it all to a "Republican Wave" is to ignore the underlying polling numbers. The cause is not assisted by people sticking fingers into their ears and singing "La-La-La" loudly urging people to close their eyes and step off the cliff again.

In 2016? Maybe. 2012? No and HELL no.

 

[Forest20]

If you don't succeed try try...try...try again...

 

[Cannaseur Kid]

Yo fatgue you are a very informed and intelligent voter. I am pleased to be in the company of such a well versed stoner. I think you are definetely correct about waiting on 2012 and getting a more solid and fundamentally grounded measure to vote on in 2016. We could use every year to let the (hate to say it) old farts kick off and let some of the younger voters actually grow up some more and be able to drag their asses out of bed to make it to the polls. Either way I'm not voting on shenanigans just to have a party in the street with my weed.

 

[Bacchus]

Fatigues - from the data I can find it looks like the "younger voter" did not show up in this election compared to 2008. At a loss of 2:1.

The drop-off was even more substantial in some key states. In California, one of every five voters in 2008 was between the ages of 18 and 29, compared with about one in 10 on Tuesday.

So if you can get the younger voter out to vote, you can overcome the 45+ crowd of NO voters. IMO.

A presidential election with a charasmatic canidate(Obama) might do that. Especially if the Republicans lock-up the congress for the next 2 years with no improvment.

 

[fatigues]

Fatigues - from the data I can find it looks like the "younger voter" did not show up in this election compared to 2008. At a loss of 2:1.

Close, but not quite accurate. And in this case, the devil is most certainly in the details.

In 2008, an electoral year which because of Obama's presence was literally unprecedented in American history, voters in California aged 18-29 category were 20% of the overall electorate. It was far and away the largest youth vote turnout in decades.

On Tuesday, without the issues of 1) Economic Peril 2) Iraq War 3) An Extremely Unpopular President 4) Extremely Motivated Democratic Voter Base and 5) First Black Candidate for President from a major party? The turnout was 13%.

In other words, the turnout was entirely typical for a mid-term election.

But no, not quite a 2:1 difference.

If we redistributed votes based on age demographics and projected for a 20% 2008 highwater mark youth vote turnout, how would that have effected results? Would Prop 19 have passed? Let's do the math, shall we?

2010 Actual Turnout: 18-29 (13%) 59% Yes 41% No

2010 Total Votes Cast (actual): 7,518,115

18-29 (actual) 977,355 (576,639 Yes)

Project and Gross Up for 2008 20% Youth Turnout

18-29 (Projected): 1,503,623 (887,138 Yes)

Net Result: An increase in 310,499 Yes votes.

So, if the Youth turnout was an unprecedented 20%, the Yes side could have expected an additional 310,499 votes in favor of yes. How would that have affected Tuesday results?

Actual Results

4,046,807 (54%) No

3,471,308 (46%) Yes

Add 310,499 to the "yes", column -- and Prop 19 still fails by ~265,000 votes.

The suggestion that a 20% youth vote can be achieved again - as it was in 2008? It's a highly unrealistic suggestion that bears little semblance to reality. A whole host of factors had to come together to get the historical turnout in 2008 that, in fact, occurred.

But even if you could do that again (a fool's bet), you still don't win a Prop 19 vote based on Tuesday's results.

These ideas sound persuasive on a discussion forum (or over a beer/bong), sure, but when you crunch the actual numbers? You quickly find that you can't quite get there from here.

I'm not saying that your idealism needs to be thrown away and we must all drink the Realpolitik Kool-Aid. I admire your confidence and passion - I truly do.

I am saying, however, that further action on another ballot measure requires a stone-cold-sober-and-good-hard-look before we do something reckless and potentially stupid like doing it again in 2012 without a clear plan for victory.

Even assuming the mythological youth vote could be made to appear again? Well, it just ain't enough to win. The seniors aren't going to die fast enough, either. And the ones in the middle?

Well, they just betrayed us.

So in my estimation, we don't need a plan to make people who don't show up to somehow magically show up next time. That's not a PLAN; that's a HOPE.

No. We need a credible plan to make the people who showed up on Tuesday and voted "No", to show up and vote "YES" next time.

Without that bit of wizardry? I don't see how we make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.

We need to identify WHY the Ganja Gap happened and figure out how to close it.

 

[kannubis]

lets try a new slogan

DOPE & not spare CHANGE

 

[Bacchus]

.....Good stuff...

You are impressing me!!!

So was it a waste to even attempt a vote on Prop-19 in 2010?

Do you think it might change the older voter's position if some of the violence Mexico is expierencing were to migrate into San Diego or LA?

Fear is a very powerfull emotion. Could you keep the argument for de-criminilization based upon cutting the financial legs out of the Mexican cartes?

More and more fiscally conservative voters and politcians are waking up to the TREMENDOUS waste of $$$ spent on prohabition.

Waiting for the natural retirement of the aging population seems like a poor plan.