(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



RIP Prop 33! Why did Prop 33 lose in California? [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2024-11-25  

Here are three sets of reasons, although there could be more:

1) Out-of-state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent at least $131,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, “rent control will cause rents to go up,” and “affordable housing will disappear.” They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.

2) As I explain in my essay in the LA Progressive, and a vid on my YouTube page, the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters with regulated affordable rents would have more money to spend; hence, a boon to local economies and local governments. Such a misleading and negative report likely resulted 100s of 1000s of "no" votes.

3) The organization behind the pro-Prop 33 took a Republican orientation to making their case. They took the rich person’s view of pitying the poor homeless. But to really stimulate renters and Progressive Californians, they should have rallied tenants to Fight for their Rights to Affordable Rents. The spokespersons they sent out to the media were nice people, well informed, but not a Fighter among them. In TV “debates,” which can be seen on YouTube, the Landlord rep, Nathon Click, could misrepresent Prop 33, and BS the audience with Red Herrings, and never be confronted by the pro-Prop 33 person.

Another fault in the Republican approach to campaigning for Prop 33 is that the condescension it presupposes – the rich taking pity on the misfortunate – does nothing to clarify the fact that homelessness has societal causes, which may account for far more individual cases than does the traditional Republican philosophy that every person is individually responsible for his or her situation. As if the individual is just too lazy to work, or a drunk, or a drug abuser.

By not making that distinction, the element of Social Injustice is under played. When large numbers of likely voters think that each individual homeless person is responsible for her or his condition, then a political response to the problem will seem less necessary and appropriate.

If the individual is responsible, why should the government continuously help people who don’t responsibly help themselves?

It’s like the business owner who keeps investing in a failing business. Why throw good money after bad?

Thus, the Republican campaign approach can be more self-defeating than leading to success.

All praises to Mike Weinstein for heroically funding this effort three times. May he do it again! However, putting the blame on Newsom for the defeat of Prop 33 seems misplaced. Weinstein claims that “Governor Newsom is the main reason that rent control was killed in California.” He adds, “All the polling showed Yes on 33 ahead prior to his becoming the face of the no campaign. Big Real Estate gave him millions over the years, and they called in their chits.”

Actually, Newsom's positive ratings were in the 30s, and his negatives not far behind, in the 20s.

So his influence probably wasn't all that significant.

When a campaign loses three times in a row by doing the same thing and expecting different results – what would Einstein say?

He’d probably say it’s time for a new team and a different approach.

William J. Kelleher, PhD

@InterpretivePo1

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://dailykos.com/stories/2024/11/25/2288710/-RIP-Prop-33-Why-did-Prop-33-lose-in-California?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/