Gov. Gavin Newsom should have learned this four years ago: You don’t try to sell voters more government spending in primaries.

Especially the spending in Sacramento.

Newsom’s proposal 1

a proposal to pump more money into the treatment of homeless people who are mentally ill, drug addicted or alcoholic

may ultimately be adopted after the counting of votes is completed. But at the time of writing, it’s still too close

officially

phone call,

where the yes and no votes were almost equal. It continued to hold on to a slim lead of less than 1% of the total votes.

Newsom must be shocked.

In January, the confident governor told Times reporter Taryn Luna in an interview: I think it will win overwhelmingly. period of time. Point.

Typical Newsom hubris.

Many politicians were surprised last year when he insisted his proposal be placed on the March 5 presidential primary ballot. Primaries are often graveyards for liberal causes.

This is because they usually suffer from low voter turnout in elections. And that helps conservative agendas. When turnout is low, the electorate is made up of a larger share than normal of right-wing voters, including older white people and Republicans.

In this election, the final turnout will likely be a pitiful 33% of registered voters, says Paul Mitchell, head of Political Data Inc.

So far, compared to the vote count, 38% of Republicans have returned their mail-in ballots

to with

just 31% of Democrats, Mitchell says. In addition, 51% of voters over the age of 65 have returned their ballot paper

to with

only 13% of young people under 35 years old.

White people represent 67% of those who cast ballots, even though they make up only 55% of registered voters. Conversely, Latino voters

include makeup

only 17% of the votes cast, although this represents 28% of the registered votes.

When youth turnout falls, Latino turnout also falls. Latinos are younger, Mitchell says.

Four years ago, during a presidential primary on March 3, turnout was slightly higher: 47%. But it wasn’t pro-Democratic enough to save $15

–

A billion-dollar school construction bond proposal that was drafted in the Legislature with heavy input and support from Newsom. Voters rejected it by six percentage points.

The proposal number

13

may have confused voters. Proponents of the measures theorized that people feared it would weaken the hallowed 1978 property tax reduction initiative, Proposition 13. Maybe some did too. But the real reason it failed was that turnout was low and voters objected to the spending.

That measure should have been placed on the November general election, when turnout was 76%.

In 2008, during an even earlier presidential primary

February 5

Voters rejected a measure to spend more money on community colleges.

You’d think Newsom would have understood the lesson.

Whenever you’re going to ask voters for money, always go to the general election, says Democratic consultant David Townsend, who has pushed many local bond and tax measures.

There are more liberal voters and they are younger. They have a longer view of life. They want things to get better for themselves. Primaries have a bunch of old guys like you and me.

According to the California Taxpayers Assn, as of March 5, across California, about as many local school bond measures failed (14) as were passed (15). Some measures are still too close to call.

Newsom’s Proposition 1 included a $6.4 billion bond. But the cost would double if the interest on the loan is added. Not all voters are stupid. Many do the math

and frowning on the many billions California has already spent on reducing homelessness.

Proposition 1 money would finance the construction of 4,350 homes. New treatment facilities will be built for 6,800 homeless people. Newsom has hyped the housing count higher.

If the governor had focused more on selling his confusing ballot measure and less on promoting his national political profile, Proposition 1 might have fared better. But mainly, the proposal fared worse than expected because it was placed on the wrong ballot

despite Newsom raising more than $20 million for the campaign and opponents spending virtually nothing

.

regardless of whether it eventually goes away

.

Good day for moderate Democrats

It was a bad day for several politicians in Sacramento, especially liberals. It appears at least 10 lawmakers seeking another office have failed.

Several moderate parliamentary candidates performed well. But the next legislature, elected in November, will still be dominated by liberals.

Overall, it was a pretty good night for the moderate side, said Marty Wilson, chief political strategist for the state Chamber of Commerce. It was a solid performance by the business-backed Democrats.

The more moderate candidate in the US Senate race

Democratic Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank

easily defeated two more liberal Democrats, Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland.

But I suspect Schiff’s victory was largely due to the solid name recognition he earned as the House’s leading anti-Trump crusader.

Similarly, Republican Steve Garvey finished in the top two

qualify for the November ballot

due to the fame he achieved as a former star ballplayer for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres.

Schiff’s cynical TV ads galvanized Garvey among Republican voters to ensure that Porter didn’t become his November rival, probably not at all. He could have emerged with a cleaner image.

Porter ran a poor campaign, with bottom-line emphasis on issues that were not catching on

–

rise of the electorate, railing against corporate corruption of politics. Unmoved voters

problem probably

asked: Yes, what else is new?

Lee was the most impressive candidate for me. She handled herself well and stuck to her principles, even though they were far too liberal

,

even for California. No one is going to get an elected senator advocating for a $50 national minimum wage.

That said, there has to be a way to count votes faster

even while painstakingly ensuring they are legitimate.