November 21, 2024 • 50 mins
The verdict on California’s November election? America’s largest “blue” state emerged black-and-blue as voters sent bruising, non-progressive messages regarding public safety, wage increases, and future approval of local bonds. Hoover senior fellow Lee Ohanian and distinguished policy fellow Bill Whalen, both contributors to Hoover’s California on Your Mind web channel, join Hoover senior product manager Jonathan Movroydis to discuss the latest in the Golden State, including the political futures of vice president Kamala Harris and governor Gavin Newson (does she want his job?). They also discuss a special legislative session to “Trump-proof” the Golden State, plus the remote likelihood of Sacramento and Washington cooperating on changes to federal immigration policy.
Recorded on November 20, 2024.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
[MUSIC]
>> Jonathan Movroydis (00:03):
It's Wednesday, November 20, 2024, and
you are listening to Matters of Policy andPolitics.
At Hoover Institution podcastdevoted to governance and
the balance of power here inAmerica around the free world.
I'm Jonathan Movroydis, senior productmanager at the Hoover Institution, and
I'm sitting in the chair of Bill Whalen,
the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter DistinguishedPolicy Fellow in Journalism.
So that he can answer questions and
provide commentary about California policyand politics in which he's well versed.
(00:26):
Bill Whalen, in addition to beinga Washington Post columnist,
writes weekly for Hoover's Californiaon your Mind Web channel.
Whalen is joined today by Lee Ohanian,Hoover Institution Senior Fellow and
professor of economics anddirector of the Edinger Family Program.
And macroeconomic research atthe University of California, Los Angeles.
Ohanian also writes weekly about thepolicy environment for the Golden State,
for California on your Mind.
(00:46):
A good day gentlemen, let's talk aboutthe latest developments in policy and
politics in the Golden State.
At the top of the ticket inthe presidential election,
Kamala Harris won all of California's54 electoral votes as expected.
Congressman Adam Schiff alsowon the US Senate seat,
which Dianne Feinstein helduntil our passing last year.
Both received a littleunder 60% of the vote, but
the top of the ticket didn'thelp progressives down ticket.
(01:09):
Proposition 36 passed resoundinglyby 70% of voters, allowing for
felony charges forcertain drugs and thefts under $950.
Proposition five failed, allowing for55% of the local electorate rather than
two thirds, to approve bond andlocal property taxes for
affordable housing, supportive housing,public infrastructure.
And it was recently reported thatproposition 32 was rejected by a narrow
(01:33):
margin, 32 would have boostedthe minimum wage to $18 per hour.
Of the five house races up for grabs inOrange county in the Central Valley, it
appears that two, by a razor thin margin,will go to the democrats at this point.
Lee in your most recentCalifornia on your Mind column,
California residents did vote indeeddifferently in this election.
(01:54):
You write that the results demonstrated,quote,
voter frustrations about quality oflife issues within the state and
increasing voter skepticism aboutthe state's political leadership.
Lee the question is,
will leaders in Sacramento beresponsive to their electorate?
>> Lee Ohanian (02:06):
Jonathan, there was a substantial shift within California in
our election, it was not surprising,of course, that Harris defeated Trump.
But what I found surprising is thatI believe in almost every county,
the amount of vote that went to Trumpthis time increased relative to 2020.
(02:31):
And in particular, what was striking wasthe voting patterns of Hispanic voters.
So do you put some perspective onhow much that demographic changed in
terms of how they voted?
In 2020, the vote for Biden versus Trump
was about 80, 20 Biden over Trump,
(02:52):
this time it looks it was closer to 55,45.
Harris over Trump with nine counties,
including the large counties of Fresno,San Bernardino and Merced counties,
which are all Hispanic majority counties,all flipped to Trump.
So there were some substantial changes andit really does highlight,
(03:16):
California is becoming just increasinglyfrustrated with the problems
that have been plaguing us fora number of years.
Homelessness, crime, drug abuse,budgets that are incredibly generous,
but that just are notdelivering the services and
goods from the public sectorthat people are expecting.
(03:38):
And despite these changes that virtuallyeveryone in the political sphere is
talking about, including those on theleft, political leaders within the state,
I think are not listening.
So for example, governorGavin Newsom immediately called for
a special legislative session for
next month to discuss howto Trump proof California.
(04:02):
And interestingly,he didn't have to call for
a special session in December, he couldhave just addressed that in January.
But by calling for a special session,
he got an awful lot of media coverage,including a New York Times article
which paints him asthe leader of the resistance.
So politically I think he isgonna try to ride that, but
(04:24):
this is not respondingto constituent concerns.
[LAUGH] It's elevatingNewsom's national prominence,
which had taken a nosedivefollowing Harris replacing
Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket.
So Californians are speaking, butI don't see the state's political
(04:45):
leadership really listening it,at least so far.
>> Bill Whalen (04:50):
Yeah, I would have answered that in one word, no, [LAUGH] it
hasn't really changed Sacramentobecause it's a very insular place, and
Lee's absolutely right.
The governor's decision to notonly call a special session, but
then also hop on a plane andgo to Washington.
And meet with Bidenadministration officials,
meet with California's congressionaldelegation and so forth.
(05:10):
There is a thing called zoom, he didn'thave to travel across the country, but
that is about raising his profile.
As Lee mentioned,because as it's not just Gavin Newsom,
it's JB Pritzker in Illinois,it's other governors around the country,
all of whom wanna be seen as the headof this so called resistance.
Also, Kamala Harris has to decide shewants to play in the world of resistance,
but I wanna look at the electiona different way and
(05:31):
I wanna look at simply from mathematics.
And we're still counting votes here,incredibly, sadly in California we have
until the first week ofDecember to certify the vote.
So it's still limping along, there'sstill some races to be called, the last I
checked, the estimate of turnout inthis election is about 16 million votes.
That's about 1.6 million fewer votesthan in 2020 for Joe Biden, and
(05:54):
this is hugely important in this regard.
Lee mentioned proposition 32, whichwould have raised the minimum wage in
California from $16an hour to $18 an hour.
It was rejected, the first time in statehistory that a minimum wage increase has
been rejected in a statewide vote.
I checked the numbersbefore we came on the air,
it's trailing right nowby about 250,000 votes.
(06:15):
Now if you consider thatif this were 2020 and
there are 1.6 million votes out there andCalifornia is about a two to one
Democratic to Republican statein terms of party registration.
Let's assume that that 1.6 million votesbreaks about 1 million for Democrats and
about half a million forRepublican slash conservatives.
That's a 500,000 vote boost forDemocrats, prop 32 is gonna pass.
(06:37):
And so I think when you look at some ofthese ballot measures that were defeated
and part of it was becausethe turnout was not what it was.
And this to me is one of the greatmysteries of this election that we need to
figure out moving forward.
You had a historic election in California,
Kamala Harris seeking to be the thirdCalifornia to be elected president,
seeking to be the first woman, the firstwoman of color to be elected president.
(06:58):
California should have turned out, butthey didn't in the same numbers as 2020,
and Lee Jonathan mightbe as simple as this.
The lead measure on the ballot,the one that kind of was the drove
the tailwind was Prop 36,the anti crime measure.
It was pushing close to 70%, it's about68, 69%, that is rarefied air and initiat.
(07:20):
And this caused huge problems forDemocrats in terms of being divided, but
I think it just kinda cast a pallover the electorate, Lee Jonathan.
In terms of just California's mood,we've seen in polls for
years that people think thatCalifornia is on the wrong track.
But Prop 36, Lee was really kind ofthe embodiment of wrong track California.
>> Lee Ohanian (07:37):
Yeah, Prop 36 is really interesting, Democrats,
including Governor Newsom, includingthose in the Legislative assembly and
the state Senate tried veryvery hard to block this.
And my theory as to whythey want to block it,
including the fact that Ithink just politically,
(08:00):
many do not want toincrease the penalties for
crime under $950 is that,it's go increase the prison rolls.
And it's incredibly expensive toincarcerate someone in California,
annually costs about $133,000 per inmate.
(08:23):
And that's going to put enormouspressure on the state budget,
if a lot more people are convicted,and what people were so
upset about with the original Prop 47,it goes back, I think about 10 years now.
Bill was that 2014?
>> Bill Whalen (08:40):
It's 2014.
>> Lee Ohanian (08:41):
Yeah, I believe Harris was attorney general at that time,
and Prop 47 didn'tdecriminalize retail theft,
but it made it a misdemeanor,for theft under $950.
And we go to a city San Francisco,
(09:02):
retail theft is substantial.
Now you have drugstores, pharmacies,closing up shop, particularly in high
crime low income areas, which putsenormous burdens on individuals living.
They're particularly elderly people whohave a hard time getting around if they
can't get their prescription at CVSa block away, then becomes difficult for
(09:24):
them to find that.
So that was, I believe that Prop47 was called the Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Act.
>> Bill Whalen (09:32):
Right [LAUGH]. >> Lee Ohanian
by Harris, soit was an ingenious marketing,
I think it passed with almost60% approval 10 years ago.
And she did not endorse it,
she took a pass on it justlike she took a pass on 36.
>> Lee Ohanian (09:45):
Yes, this time around in 2024, she did not take a stand on
Prop 36 despite the fact thatshe named the ballot proposition
9 year before, that this onewas going to largely reverse.
And Bill, as you know that passed, I thinkit's about 68 or 69% ahead right now.
(10:06):
It is shocking that the mosttechnologically advanced state in
the most technologically advancedcountry we count votes like
we did 100 years ago, butit's gonna, pass overwhelmingly.
And the Democrats triedtwice to introduce their own
(10:27):
legislation to addressesballot initiative and
bill, I'll read just fora moment an editorial
from the typically very progressive.
From the typically very progressiveSan Francisco Chronicle,
about the Democrat strategy andtrying to block the Proposition 36,
(10:52):
which raises to felony charges forthose who commit that theft.
But on the other hand, [COUGH] it dropsthe charges if those people complete
a drug treatment program, soit's very reasonable from that standpoint.
And I think that's one of the reasons whyit's passing with such a large margin, so
(11:13):
this from the San Francisco Chronicleearlier this year.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Democraticlegislative leaders really don't want
California voters to approve a Novemberballot measure which is Prop 36.
In fact, they're so desperate toprevent the measure from succeeding,
they're willing subvert andtwist the very process
they claim to revere more than anythingelse democracy to achieve their aims.
(11:37):
That's from the San Francisco Chronicle,so that just shows the enormous divide
between the state's political leadershipand what voters are thinking about.
And Bill, when you noted voter turnout,
I was also struck by voterturnout in California.
And some who argue against voter ID talk
(11:59):
about how voter ID suppress voting.
Well, I went ahead andI looked at voter turnout comparing
California to some states thathave the require photo voter ID.
Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, andturnout was remarkably higher in those
(12:20):
states compared to California,which has no voter ID whatsoever.
[COUGH] And Bill, it's interestingthe it wasn't just those propositions,
but voters were very frustratedabout crime in terms of voting out
La Da George Gascon and alsoAlameda County Prosecutor Pamela Price.
(12:40):
And I believe that vote was maybe20 to 30 percentage points in both.
>> Bill Whalen (12:47):
She was taken out about a two to one march and
she finally conceded the other day.
But Lee it's also the mayor ofOakland who was recalled and
then back in San Francisco, London Breed,
who supported Proposition 36 which put herat odds with Newsom in the legislature.
She was also run out of office andshe was defeated in exchange,
the new mayor has no political experience.
(13:08):
He's not a product of the Boardof Supervisors in San Francisco,
he's not part of the machine thatproduced London Breed and Gavin Newsom.
So voters are really taking a departureand I think that's maybe just
a reminder legislature you would liketo think, especially look at Oakland.
Which is just a sad story just nomatter how you cut it about government
management, that really lawmakers haveto do a better job in California.
(13:29):
And that to me is the bigquestion moving forward in 2025.
Has Newsom, have lawmakersreally learned any lesson here?
>> Lee Ohanian (13:37):
Yeah, and again, when you think about the division,
I mean just the large gapbetween where voters are and
where Governor Newsom and the supermajority in the state legislature are.
This is a state with roughly24% registered Republicans.
Newsom's approval inan October poll was only 44%,
(13:59):
which is to me that's not that shocking inperhaps the bluest state in the country.
And when you compare that to approvalratings of governors in all other states,
there's a lot that haveapproval ratings over 60%.
There's very few that have approvalratings anywhere close to Newsom.
(14:21):
And the state legislature hasan approval rating of 42%.
So yeah, Bill, your one word answer of no,
[LAUGH] political leaders are notlistening to constituents and we'll see
what happens as we go forward in termsof how much that's going to hurt them.
Because Californians are gettingvery frustrated about
(14:43):
a lot of items that are essentiallypublic policy failures.
The political leadership seems to bedoubling down on what they've done in
the past and, it doesn't seem to beworking, at least as far as I can see.
>> Bill Whalen (14:55):
We should note, by the way,
Californians also voted inclassic kinda gas break fashion.
They voted for
a couple of bond measures that slapon about another $20 billion in debt,
actually, it's something like $32 billionin debt when you factor the interest.
At the same time, they voted down ameasure of Proposition 5 which would have
reduced the thresholddata to pass local bonds.
But Lee, I want to close out before wemove the next segment, I want to close out
(15:18):
the question going back to Proposition 32,this minimum wage law that got defeated.
Do you think that maybe one ofthe factors here in its defeat was all
the conversation we've had in California,
all that you've written aboutthe fast food minimum wage law?
>> Lee Ohanian (15:30):
I suspect so,
because what we know aboutthe fast food minimum wage law,
which singles out the fast food industryto pay a $20 an hour minimum wage,
compared to $16 minimum wage in allother industries within the state.
What we saw when that law took effecton April 1, is that prices for
(15:54):
fast food within Californiaimmediately jumped.
They jumped between 7 to 10%.
So voters are feeling that andI think they understand that
the higher the minimum wage,those costs get passed on to them.
And a lot of Californians are strugglingmightily when it comes to financial
(16:16):
issues.
So yes,I do believe that that was a factor.
And Bill, I'll just emphasizethe importance of Proposition 5
being declined by voters.
Because as you andI've talked about before,
the legislature has been trying fordecades to get their hands around and
(16:36):
open up the Pandora'sbox of Proposition 13.
Which was passed in 1978,which freezes property taxes.
They've been trying every way, every wayto try to get to try to open that up.
And Proposition 5 was a way to do that.
I was worried that the way it wasmarketed would lead to passage.
(16:59):
And the way it was marketed is that lowerthe supermajority from 67% to 55% for
building infrastructure andaffordable housing.
So typically, those are buzzwords that inthe past voters have been very positively
disposed to, not this time, I believeit didn't come close, what was it?
(17:21):
Is it about 57, 43 right now?
Yep.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (17:25):
Gentlemen, staying on the election post-mortem, Kamala Harris
apparently is a leading contender tobe the Golden State's next governor.
According to a poll by the UC BerkeleyInstitute of Governmental Studies, 33 33%
of respondents say they are likely toSupport her and 13% are somewhat likely.
Sure, she has some name ID andmoney advantages, but
(17:47):
does she really want to be weigheddown by pesky local issues
like affordable housing,homelessness, and wildfires?
Would she would she be up forthe job, Bill?
>> Bill Whalen (18:00):
Welcome to my world because not a day has gone by since
the election where I've not had a reportercall and ask about this question,
what the future holds for her.
Now we're looking at the governor'srace based in part on the poll you just
mentioned, Jonathan.
It might be very tempting forher because it's actually, I think,
pretty easy in this regard.
She would jump into the racefar more name recognition,
ability to raise a lot of money in a hurryand she would just scatter the field.
(18:23):
You there are about a half a dozenDemocrats looking at this right now of
various prominence, butnot really in the same league as her.
So she would force many, if not most ofthem out of the race almost automatically.
If she got into a one on one race with theDemocrat in November, thanks to the open
primary, she would probably win thatjust based on her being Kamala Harris.
If she ran against Republican,enough said she'd win that race.
(18:44):
So it's there for the taking, but youreally raised the key question, Jonathan.
Would she want this job?
And also, Lee,is she really right for this job?
I have worked for a California governor.
I would argue that it is the second mostdifficult job in American politics because
something is happening inCalifornia almost every day.
Some of it is man made,you have a very messy,
(19:04):
complicated bureaucracy doing its bestto complicate life for you politically.
You you have a legislature, 120 peoplewho think they're the governor and
you have to deal withthem on a daily basis.
And then mother nature is alwaysthrowing curveballs at us.
Witness the fact that we're doing this onthe same day that a so called bomb cyclone
is coming California's way, whichmeans the governor has to have his or
act together when it comesto emergency services.
(19:27):
It's not a job for the faint of heart.
It's also not a job for
somebody who is not really much ofa manager as Kamala Harris, as we've seen,
and also somebody who doesn'treally have very deep policy chops.
So why would she do it?
I guess political rehabilitation,
I thought that maybe it wouldget her toward the presidency.
Look at the calendar right now,if the Democratic race for
(19:47):
2028 is not underway already,it soon will be.
And it'll be in full bloom in the summerof 2026 when 2028 aspirants are running
around supposedly helping othergubernatorial candidates, but in fact,
setting themselves up for a run.
She would be running forgovernor at the same time.
She would have to then turn aroundliterally to her inaugural address and
say, thank you very much,I'm now off to Iowa.
(20:07):
That's just not gonna work.
So to me, if she becamegovernor of California in 2027,
she'd have to wait until 2032, at whichthis a Democrat in the White House,
maybe she is an unpopulargovernor by then.
I just don't see it as reallykind of making sense for her.
And I frankly don't thinkit's a good fit for her.
And I think it would just be terribleif she were the governor of California.
I just don't think she's the right fit forit, guys.
>> Lee Ohanian (20:28):
Bill, I agree with your points,
the timing is very problematic for her.
I agree that she could walk into the jobgiven the state's political composition
and given her name recognition.
And she received what, 58% of the voteagainst Trump any Democrat would.
(20:50):
But when you look at the othercontenders for the job,
Villa Ragosa has been out ofthe spotlight for a long time.
Bonta is not a household name,Eleni Kunalakis is lieutenant governor.
But she's, in my opinion,
has been frozen out of most ofthe policy issues by Newsom.
(21:11):
Tony Thurman is state schoolsuperintendent, not a household name.
So, yeah, I agree,I think she would just walk right in
even if she did facea Democrat in tthe election.
>> Bill Whalen (21:25):
I'm looking at the IGS poll numbers right now among
Democratic voters.
Katie Porter, you might remember she's theOrange County congresswoman who ran and
lost in the Senate primary.
She leads the pack with 22%.
Kunalakis, Antonio Villa Rosa, the formermayor of Los Angeles, Javier Becerra,
currently the federal HHS secretary,former state attorney general.
They're all hovering around 10 to 11%.
(21:45):
That's what I mean, when F Kamala came in,she'd be like a cannonball in the pool.
She would just create a wave, and
the wave would force a lot ofthose lesser Democrats out.
So again, it's there for the taking.
But, you know, Lee, you mentioned 58%.
Most politicians would kill for 58%, butthat actually is a little underwhelming.
As far as California goes.
When you look at what Hillary pulledagainst Trump in 2016 and Biden,
(22:06):
she was about four orfive points weaker than them.
So again, it's the mystery of thiselection why Californians were not
jazzed about Kamala Harris.
>> Lee Ohanian (22:14):
Yeah, and Bill, I think it boils down to the fact that despite
she was California's,one of California's senators and
she was state attorney general.
It's hard to look at her resume andpoint to a lot of really
concrete accomplishments fromthe standpoint of what obvious,
(22:39):
positive outcome she ownthat people can point to and
say, hey,this is a great thing Kamala did.
And I think polls were done about thiswhile she was running for president.
No one really could come up with much.
So no, she doesn't have the track record.
I don't think she's particularly wellsuited to this incredibly complicated and
(23:04):
complex job that's involved with governor.
You and I have talked a lot about beingsomewhat critical of Newsom's performance,
including the fact that he doesn't seem tokeep his eye on his day job very often.
But it is an incrediblydifficult job to do.
It's much more difficultwhen Schwarzenegger did it,
(23:24):
a lot more difficult thanwhen Pete Wilson did it.
And whoever does it is gonnabe having to deal with a mess.
One third of the state is living in or
near poverty,homelessness continues to grow.
The state budget is underremarkable pressure,
(23:45):
we still haven't invested in waterconveyance or water storage.
Our highways and roads and bridges areamong some of the worst in the country.
Just go down, our schools perform awfully,public schools K through 12.
Illegal immigration, I mean,you name a policy area and
most likely California is gonna behaving a difficult time with that.
(24:09):
So it really is a bit of a thankless job.
So I don't know at some level whather end game would be if she took
the governorship, because as you noted,the timing is very awkward.
She was stepping into the Governor'sMansion and then almost immediately say,
hey, guess what, I'm running forpresident again.
If she went two terms,then she would, what,
(24:30):
I believe probably 67 if shedecided to run for president again,
which, today that's not old,obviously, as a president, but
who knows what happens ten years from now.
So I suspect that it's not a great fit forher in a lot of ways.
I suspect she understands that.
I'm thinking she's gonna write that bookand make up a lot of money from that.
(24:56):
And then what she and Mr. Emhoff decideto do after, that's hard to say,
but I just don't know what purposeit would really serve for her,
how much of the benefit it would deliver.
I would think that if shereally wants to be president,
then the time to try wouldbe this coming would be 28.
(25:18):
But my God, it would be really difficultto do that if she was running,
if she was a brand newCalifornia governor.
>> Bill Whalen (25:24):
Okay, then let's spend a minute now, let's talk about Gavin Newsom.
Because whereas the timing forher would be complicated,
the timing for him is almost ideal now.
Because as you mentioned,he is term limited come 2026,
which means he can leaveoffice in January 2027 and
just campaign to his heart'sdelight up and down America.
But my question, Lee and Jonathan,is Gavin Newsom the cure for
(25:44):
what ails the Democratic Party right nowin terms of both substance and style?
And it's the style I'mlooking at the moment.
Peggy Noonan wrote a very smart column inthe Wall Street Journal over the weekend
in which she, as a million other punditshave done, have tried to analyze and
break down what happened tothe Democrats on Election Day.
And she said, one of the problems isin addition to voters just not really
(26:04):
enjoying being talked down toin kind of a condescending way,
especially by celebrities.
It's the approach just as kindof relentless coming at you and
the relentless talk aboutdemocracy hanging in the midst and
just people tired andburned out of politics in general.
And here you have a governor wholiterally the day after the election,
wants to do a special session,hops on a plane and goes to Washington.
(26:25):
It's just kinda pounding the tom toms,there's no break here, there's no respite.
And so I just don't know,
Lee, if Newsom's style is the rightfit for the Democrats moving forward.
I'm not saying this ina Bill Clinton centrist way, but
just, it just might be too much to take.
>> Lee Ohanian (26:40):
Yeah, Bill, I asked myself,
what if it had been Newsom ratherthan Harris running this time around?
Obviously, a huge hypothetical.
But I can't imagine any of those swingstates, they would have gone for
Newsom, because she backtrackedon a lot of policy areas.
She tacked towards the middle.
(27:02):
I don't see him doing that, and yet
she still lost in everyone of those swing states.
Bill, you look at medianhousehold income in
a place like swing states such as Georgia,
Nevada, Arizona,any of those swing states,
(27:25):
Michigan, it's about $65,000 annually.
These are not particularly wealthy people.
Median net worth under $150,000,
they've got some equity in their home,modest retirement savings.
They are not looking fora president who is gonna be
(27:49):
more focused on raisingtheir energy prices in and
castigating them for potentiallyconservative social political views.
They're looking for a president who'sgonna make their life a little bit easier.
And I just don't see that,
[LAUGH] I don't see them respondingfavorably to Governor Newsom.
>> Bill Whalen (28:12):
So once again, get back to the style side of things.
His style would have beenmuch different from hers.
Whereas, she was very averseto doing media interviews,
did not do the Joe Rogan podcast,was not really able to think on her feet.
He would have been the polar opposite,he would have done Joe Rogan.
He would have gone on to Fox News,
he would not have saidno to any media request.
I think he would have just beena complete media hawk in that regard.
(28:34):
But here's the problem, and now we getinto the substance side of things.
One of the most effective ads run againsther was the ad showing her running for
president in 2019 and
bragging about how California was doingtransitional work with prisoners.
And this led to the Trump ad, she's forthey, them and Trump's for you.
You take her out of the race andput Gavin Newsom in there.
(28:54):
And Gavin Newsoms have to explain how hesigned a law which forbids schools from
telling parents that their childrenhave changed their gender identity.
Again, just a big problem outin America with this issue.
But then you go from swing stateto swing state across America.
I think the Trump campaign would havevery cleverly put California on display,
would have gone to Michigan and made GavinNewsom the king of electric vehicles,
(29:14):
he wants to destroy combustion engines.
Would have gone to Nevada andtalked about gasoline prices,
would have gone to Arizona and talkedabout California sanctuary policies.
And whereas Kamala Harris waskinda quasi-attached to California
in that regard, not being the Governor,the Governor owns the state.
And so I think that just would havebeen a giant millstone around him, and
he would not have succeeded.
So easy to say that a more articulatepolitician might have done a better job
(29:37):
than her.
No, at the end of the day, he still hasthe same policy problems that she does.
And this is the challenge ofthe Democrats moving forward.
Are they gonna stay wed to these issues orare they gonna try to adapt?
As we're seeing right now, those Democratswho are trying to adapt or move forward,
they're already paying a price for it.
>> Lee Ohanian (29:52):
Yeah, Newsom would have received votes
from those who he preachesto in terms of the choir.
But when you note transgender issues,illegal migration issues,
California is, he's proud to makea California sanctuary state.
Voters don't,
(30:13):
very few voters really wanna debateabout what does it mean to be a woman?
>> Bill Whalen (30:19):
Right.
>> Lee Ohanian (30:20):
Should biological males participate in girls' sports?
We know where the governorstands on those, but
that is simply not where votersin those swing states stand.
So I just simply just don't seehim moving the needle whatsoever.
I think people more like Shapiroin Pennsylvania or a slightly more
(30:41):
conservative take, which would beAndy Beshear, Governor in Kentucky.
I suspect that's gonna be morethe future of the Democratic Party.
I think Gavin Newsom's political flavor,I think, is probably fading into the past.
>> Bill Whalen (30:57):
Our colleague Niall Ferguson wrote a really clever column
a few months ago about the election.
He called it the Barbie vs Oppenheimerelection in that she was running kinda
the sorta happy,joyful Barbie campaign, and
he was running the dark,sinister Oppenheimer campaign.
Lee, if Gavin Newsomhad been the candidate,
it would have been the McDonald's campaignversus the French laundry campaign.
>> Lee Ohanian (31:16):
[LAUGH] And Gavin wouldn't have been doing prep work in the kitchen.
>> Bill Whalen (31:22):
And that, by the way, and we can move on after this.
My God, the French Laundry,
there are a handful of things thatare just gum on the shoe for Gavin Newsom.
And the photograph of him andKimberly Guilfoyle lying on the rug in
the Getty Mansion is justsomething he cannot get away from.
The affair he had asmayor of San Francisco.
I just notice anecdotally, when I travelaround the country and people mention him,
it's like the first thing that comes up.
(31:43):
And now the French Laundry, that justreally sticks in people's craws, I guess,
because it's just the embodiment ofdouble standard privileged politicians.
I tell you to stay home,don't go anywhere, and
I go to a fancy restaurant andI lie about it.
>> Lee Ohanian (31:55):
Yes, and it was a political dinner as well.
And again,not to pile on the governor, but
it was announced eitherearlier this week or
last week that he purchased a $9million plus home in Marin County.
I don't believe that hisoffice has confirmed that.
And apparently he opened a newLLC that purchased that to see
(32:20):
if he could fly under the radar.
And again, the governor is a wealthy man.
He of course, in a market economy,has the opportunity and
the freedom to purchase whateverthat he's able to afford.
But probably not a great look forhim to be governing a state where
a third of the population is living in,on or near the poverty line.
(32:42):
And there's a $9 million home thathe'll be splitting his time between
Sacramento and Marin forthe next two years as governor.
>> Bill Whalen (32:51):
What about the mortgages on that?
>> Lee Ohanian (32:55):
[LAUGH] It takes enormous income to qualify for a mortgage on that
unless there's an enormous down payment,so we won't know that.
But just off the top of my head,if that was a standard 80,
20 mortgage,that's about a $7 million mortgage,
(33:17):
6% interest rate,that's about 500,000 just in interest.
500,000, it's probably about700,000 including property taxes,
just 700,000 for mortgage interest,principal, and taxes.
So 700 grand on a home annually,a little bit of a tax savings.
(33:44):
Say, that's a deep pocket.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (33:46):
Gentlemen, New York Post columnist Susan Shelley asked readers
if California's progressive facadeis shattered beyond repair.
Meanwhile, the LA Times reports that givenCalifornia's repudiation of progressive
policies and office holders, the state'spolitical identity is being questioned.
But is it really?
And Governor Newsom hascalled a special session for
(34:07):
the state legislature on December 2nd,as you mentioned before.
And as Calmatters reports,the session is, quote,
to protect California from Donald Trumpon civil rights, reproductive freedom,
climate action, and immigrant families.
Lee, how can we measure the shift awayfrom the progressivism in California or
toward heightened progressivismin the Golden State?
>> Lee Ohanian (34:27):
Well, so what Newsom and State Attorney General Rob Bonta
are particularly worriedabout is Trump's campaign
pledge to deport illegal migrantsliving in the United States.
And who knows how that's gonna play out?
(34:48):
I suspect that any emphasis on that wouldbegin with those with criminal records,
which the Governor Newsom's constituentsclearly want that to happen.
Californians, despite the fact thatwe're a very, very blue state,
60 to 70% of Californians are veryconcerned about border security.
(35:10):
They view illegal migrants as being a,quote,
drain on the state and the economy.
Protecting illegal migrantsis what the governor and
the state attorney general want to do.
But that's gonna require probablybillions of dollars from a budget
where there simply is not billionsof dollars to spend on that.
(35:32):
So that's an investment that theirconstituents simply don't want.
They're also worried aboutCalifornia's clean air standards and,
in particular,California's low-carbon fuel standards.
And again, this is something that's notin the best interest of Californians,
(35:54):
because no matter where peoplestand on climate change and
what the role of green gases are.
Everyone agrees that greenhousegases are a global phenomena.
California is responsible for
about six-tenths of 1% ofglobal greenhouse gases.
If we could wave a magic wand andshut and become carbon neutral tomorrow,
(36:15):
it would literally not matter.
It would be a grain of sand on the beach.
So California is raising the priceof energy in terms of gasoline,
in terms of electricity, andalso the reliability of electricity.
We've done just a horrible job on that,and for
really no other reason than saying,well, California, we want to be proud,
(36:40):
we're leading the way interms of climate change.
Well, that's not really sellingwith Californians anymore.
There's enormous pushback on theCalifornia Air Resources Board's latest
decision to reduce carbon inthe state's gasoline supply even more,
which is gonna raise California'sgas prices substantially.
(37:03):
And Democrats within states,both the assembly and the Senate,
wrote letters to the Air Resources Boardasking them not to pursue this.
Yeah, so I think the short answer isthat the direction that Newsom and
Bonta are pushing is notone that's consistent with
(37:24):
what the state wants andnot consistent, I think,
with what a successfulDemocratic Party is gonna look like.
>> Bill Whalen (37:34):
Yeah, Jonathan, you asked about the view of California from within.
Well, the view from outside is thatit's a freak show in some regards.
The New York Post treatsCalifornia like a chew toy.
Almost every week there is some columnjust taking a shot at California policy.
It's easy, it's shooting fish in a barrel,if you will.
But inside California,the view is different.
And I think actually you're gonnasee lawmakers here much more dug in.
(37:56):
And I would refer you, for example,to the Los Angeles Unified School Board of
Education, which voted on fourdifferent resolutions the other day,
one of which is to declareLAUSD a sanctuary district.
And here's kind ofan interesting conversation,
I think it's gonna happen on immigration.
If I'm the left, if I'm a CaliforniaDemocrat, I'm gonna say Donald Trump
(38:17):
cannot come and take away children andmake this about kids.
And I think if Trumpwere smart about this,
if he wanted to kinda do a more nuancedapproach, and herein lies the challenge.
Donald Trump and nuanced are antonyms,if ever they're antonyms.
But what they could do is go to governorNewsom in the Attorney General, Mr Bonta,
and say, look it, we're gonna kind ofgo through this deportation in phases.
(38:38):
And the first phase beginswith people in this
country illegally who havecommitted crimes, away they go.
And I would just kindachallenge the governor and
the state attorney generalto get in the way of that.
Because, as Lee mentioned,in terms of public opinion here,
I don't think any population is gonnareally wanna do favors for criminals.
And then maybe you go from that to thensaying, okay, there's a deadline here for
(38:59):
people coming out of the shadows andreporting themselves.
And then we're gonna look at variousways in which you conducted yourself in
this country.
Have you worked, have you paid taxes, howmuch government services have you taken,
and so forth, to maybe prioritize it.
But, Lee, I would start there,I'd start with that one class and
kind of make it sort of a trial balloon,if you will.
>> Lee Ohanian (39:20):
Yeah, that's the obvious approach that should be pursued.
And yeah, I mean, there's no Californianswho are gonna be opposed to that.
And again, I'll go back tothe statistic of about a 25 point
swing in favor of Trump,2024 versus 2020 among Hispanic voters.
And ostensibly, that is the immigrantcommunity that the Democratic
(39:45):
leadership has thought washaving their backwhen it comes
to these sanctuary policies,that's not the case at all.
Hispanic voters have roughlythe same opinion about
illegal migrants as whites,as Asians, as blacks.
So Bill, I like the way you put that.
(40:07):
Yeah, let's see if Bonta andNewsom are gonna get in the way of that,
going after criminals.
Politically, I can't see how they would,
because there would literallybe no support for that.
And then you start there,you see how much costs.
You see how many people thatyou deport who are criminals.
And Bill,I wouldn't be all that surprised if Trump
(40:30):
kinda declares victory after that.
And says, look,in the last two or three years,
those 15,000 evicted murderers who are inthe country illegally, they're gone.
The X number of other criminals,they're gone.
And that would be a win for the country,it would be a huge win for Trump,
(40:53):
huge win for the Republican Party.
It would be a win,win literally for everyone.
So yeah, this is just another case,I think, where the Governor and
the Attorney General just touch.
And Bill, we're getting newrevenue numbers today from the,
from the state's Revenue Department.
But there just isn'tthe money within the budget
(41:17):
to spend on the Attorney General'soffice to defend
thousands of legal migrants from,from ICE, deporting them.
>> Bill Whalen (41:29):
Yeah, the last boast out of the Department of Finances,
I think they had a $5 billionprojection ahead of revenue.
$5 billion doesn't go very far when you'retalking about a budget that's several
hundred billion dollars.
Lee, I wanna circle back to the LAUSD and
the Board of Education'sresolutions they voted on.
I wanna ask you a question, if you gettired of your teaching gig at UCLA,
I might have a new teaching gig foryou, Lee.
(41:51):
Because one of the resolutions that LAUSDvoted on was want to make students,
and I quote, ready for the world.
And here's what they want to do, Lee,quote, critical thinkers to be able to
understand current events, to be able tounderstand how events impact our politics.
To know the effects ofspecific policy proposals,
to be able to understand allsides of key political issues.
(42:12):
And within 160 days from now, LAUSD issupposed to issue report which discusses,
quote, the feasibility of establishinga contemporary political issues course for
high schools.
So Lee, how far do you think you and
I would get in California teachinga contemporary political issues course?
>> Lee Ohanian (42:28):
Yeah, that sounds great,
I don't think we'd be at the topof the list [LAUGH] for hired.
And as we've talked about before,not just in LA, but throughout the state.
Only one out of four K through12 kids are proficient at
federal standards in math orlanguage arts or science.
(42:50):
And I like the idea of preparing kids forthe world they're gonna enter,
we're not preparing them.
If you can't do the basics,then figure out how to do the basics.
And the state's educational systemhas been failing at that for
an awful long time.
And the obvious resolutions tomaking progress on that front,
(43:14):
there's obvious changes that need tobe made regarding teachers' unions and
teacher tenure andthe lack of seniority-based pay.
And those are simply anathema withinthe education political complex.
So it's awfully sad, andthe saddest part of that is some
(43:37):
of these students are going tobecome the homeless of tomorrow.
Which [LAUGH] will make a problemthat becomes impossible to
resolve if we don't addressour educational deficiencies.
>> Bill Whalen (43:52):
Where I think LA misses the mark here is there needs to be
an emphasis on civics inhigh school education.
We need to teach kids the origins ofthe country, why America exists, so
kids can understand just the root causesof the revolution, the Civil War,
the nuances between a democracy anda Republican, so forth.
They don't need a lesson in contemporarypolitical issues because my God,
(44:14):
just how stilted andone-sided will that be?
That's just, that's a waste, and the ideaof even making that a credit course,
I think is just outrageous.
>> Lee Ohanian (44:21):
Yeah, and how can you appreciate the differences we see today
if you don't understandthe issues you just noted?
What does it mean to bea democratic republic?
What's in the Constitution?
What's in the Bill of Rights?
If you don't understand that [LAUGH]if you can't walk before you run,
(44:45):
then good luck if you try to run.
>> Bill Whalen (44:47):
Yeah, but Lee, you can appreciate as Professor Lee, though,
it might be the easiest teaching gig inAmerica because all you'd have to do is go
in a classroom, Lee, andturn on MSNBC and come back in an hour.
>> Lee Ohanian (44:55):
[LAUGH] That would be the right.
I don't know what would be the left,but I suspect for
some classrooms MSNBCwould be center right.
Who knows what they would find forcenter left, God help us.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (45:12):
Circling back to the elections for
a moment with George Gascon recalled,
he was presiding over the caseinvolving Eric and Lyle Menendez.
And he was considering a petition forresentencing both of those men.
It was reported yesterday that GovernorNewsom won't hear their call for clemency.
(45:39):
So that matter won't beaddressed until the new
prosecutor in Los Angeles is inaugurated.
What is the implications of that ruling by
Governor Newsom for not offering clemency?
>> Bill Whalen (45:59):
Well, I think what he said is he wants the process to play through
before he does anything.
So I don't think he shut the dooron it necessarily, has he?
>> Lee Ohanian (46:08):
I suspect, well, he- >> Bill Whalen
look, Nathan Hochman's the new DA.
Hochman has to review things now andthen make a recommendation.
So I think that's actuallywhat's going on here,
that Newsom's waiting tosee what the new DA does.
But if that's the case,I think I would have two responses.
One, is there are more important issuesin California right now than the fate of
Mendez brothers, I'm sorry,Governor Newsom.
(46:30):
And secondly,it's probably good news for Netflix,
cuz they probably get anotherseries out of the Mendez brothers.
But, I mean, I hate to be sucha jaded cynic, but who cares?
Yeah, one media story I read,
it seemed to indicate Newsomhad made up his mind, but
he was going to wait untilNathan Hockman took office.
>> Bill Whalen (46:53):
Yeah. >> Lee Ohanian
suggesting Newsom was inclinedto lead court clemency,
but that perhaps he didn't wantto step on Hockman's shoes.
But, Bill, I agree with youthere's a lot more pressing
issues that requirethe Governor's attention.
(47:17):
Yeah, I mean, I'm sorry,
you can focus on the fate of the Mendezbrothers, or you can deal with what's
going on in cities in Californiaright now if you're the governor.
And I think he's much better suited tobe worrying about real time problems and
what happened to those.
Those two characters 30 years ago,end of rant [LAUGH].
>> Jonathan Movroydis (47:34):
Okay, final question, gentlemen,
with Thanksgiving just a week away,what are you especially thankful for, Lee?
>> Lee Ohanian (47:41):
Well, yeah, Jonathan,
I've lived in California, I think,
except for a period between 19.
I lived in California, except the timeI would been in grad school and
I was on the faculties ofthe University of Pellet.
Pennsylvania, Minnesota,which was between 1988 and 1999.
(48:05):
Despite all the all the venting bill and
I do in our Californiaon your mind columns and
in in these podcasts,I love living within the state.
It's just God's smiled whenhe made California and
I'm very thankful forbeing able to live here.
(48:26):
And having a wonderful family and
being health to enjoy whatjust is a remarkable state.
I continue to keep my fingerscrossed that we will have so
I'm thankful to be able to continueto be helpful for better policies.
Because I think just a few small changes,
relatively small changes can makeit an even better place to live.
>> Bill Whalen (48:48):
Yeah, it's interestingly, economically,
Thanksgiving is a mixed bag forCalifornians.
Wells Fargo did a study, it foundthat brand turkeys were selling for
about 2% less than last year,that's good news.
Brand name stuffing is up about 9%,don't know what's going on there.
Cranberry berries are downabout 3% due to a bumper crop.
And bad news in the Mavrotes householdwine prices are up about 2.4% and
(49:10):
beer is up 3.3%.
I joke because Jonathan is the parentof young children, and boy.
If anything would have me reaching forthe pantry,
it would be chasing littlekids around on Thanksgiving.
Yeah, I'm with you, I'm being thankful forCalifornia in that regard, Lee.
Especially, thankful that Footballbegins at 9 o'clock in the morning out
here on Thanksgiving Day.
>> Lee Ohanian (49:27):
[LAUGH] Yeah, we get a full day of it.
>> Bill Whalen (49:29):
Yes, well, as always, gentlemen.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (49:31):
Thank you for another hour of interesting,
timely analysis, thank you for your time.
>> Bill Whalen (49:36):
Thanks fellas.
Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Lee Ohanian (49:38):
Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (49:39):
Happy Thanksgiving.
You've been listening tomatters of policy and politics,
the Hoover Institution podcastdevoted governance and
balance of power here in America andaround the free world.
Please don't forget to rate, review, and
subscribe to this podcastwherever you might hear it.
And if you don't mind, please spread theword, get your friends to have a listen.
The Hoover Institution has Facebook,Instagram, and X feeds.
Our X handles @HooverInc,that's @Hooverinst, Bill Whalen is on X,
(50:00):
his handle is @billwhalenca.
And Lee Ohanian is also on X,his handle is @lee_ohanian.
Please visit the hoover website@hoover.organd sign up for the Hoover Daily Report
where you can access the latestscholarship and analysis from our fellows.
Also check out California on your mind,where Bill Whalen and
Lee Ohanian write every week.
Again, this is Jonathan Movroydis sittingin Bill Whalen's chair this week,
he'll be back for another episodeof Matters of Policy and Politics.
(50:21):
Thank you for listening.
>> Presenter (50:23):
This podcast is a production of the Hoover Institution,
where we generate andpromote ideas advancing freedom.
For more information about our work,to hear more of our podcasts,
or view our video content,please visit hoover.org.
[MUSIC]
[MUSIC]
>> Jonathan Movroydis (00:03):
It's Wednesday, November 20, 2024, and
you are listening to Matters of Policy andPolitics.
At Hoover Institution podcastdevoted to governance and
the balance of power here inAmerica around the free world.
I'm Jonathan Movroydis, senior productmanager at the Hoover Institution, and
I'm sitting in the chair of Bill Whalen,
the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter DistinguishedPolicy Fellow in Journalism.
So that he can answer questions and
provide commentary about California policyand politics in which he's well versed.
(00:26):
Bill Whalen, in addition to beinga Washington Post columnist,
writes weekly for Hoover's Californiaon your Mind Web channel.
Whalen is joined today by Lee Ohanian,Hoover Institution Senior Fellow and
professor of economics anddirector of the Edinger Family Program.
And macroeconomic research atthe University of California, Los Angeles.
Ohanian also writes weekly about thepolicy environment for the Golden State,
for California on your Mind.
(00:46):
A good day gentlemen, let's talk aboutthe latest developments in policy and
politics in the Golden State.
At the top of the ticket inthe presidential election,
Kamala Harris won all of California's54 electoral votes as expected.
Congressman Adam Schiff alsowon the US Senate seat,
which Dianne Feinstein helduntil our passing last year.
Both received a littleunder 60% of the vote, but
the top of the ticket didn'thelp progressives down ticket.
(01:09):
Proposition 36 passed resoundinglyby 70% of voters, allowing for
felony charges forcertain drugs and thefts under $950.
Proposition five failed, allowing for55% of the local electorate rather than
two thirds, to approve bond andlocal property taxes for
affordable housing, supportive housing,public infrastructure.
And it was recently reported thatproposition 32 was rejected by a narrow
(01:33):
margin, 32 would have boostedthe minimum wage to $18 per hour.
Of the five house races up for grabs inOrange county in the Central Valley, it
appears that two, by a razor thin margin,will go to the democrats at this point.
Lee in your most recentCalifornia on your Mind column,
California residents did vote indeeddifferently in this election.
(01:54):
You write that the results demonstrated,quote,
voter frustrations about quality oflife issues within the state and
increasing voter skepticism aboutthe state's political leadership.
Lee the question is,
will leaders in Sacramento beresponsive to their electorate?
>> Lee Ohanian (02:06):
Jonathan, there was a substantial shift within California in
our election, it was not surprising,of course, that Harris defeated Trump.
But what I found surprising is thatI believe in almost every county,
the amount of vote that went to Trumpthis time increased relative to 2020.
(02:31):
And in particular, what was striking wasthe voting patterns of Hispanic voters.
So do you put some perspective onhow much that demographic changed in
terms of how they voted?
In 2020, the vote for Biden versus Trump
was about 80, 20 Biden over Trump,
(02:52):
this time it looks it was closer to 55,45.
Harris over Trump with nine counties,
including the large counties of Fresno,San Bernardino and Merced counties,
which are all Hispanic majority counties,all flipped to Trump.
So there were some substantial changes andit really does highlight,
(03:16):
California is becoming just increasinglyfrustrated with the problems
that have been plaguing us fora number of years.
Homelessness, crime, drug abuse,budgets that are incredibly generous,
but that just are notdelivering the services and
goods from the public sectorthat people are expecting.
(03:38):
And despite these changes that virtuallyeveryone in the political sphere is
talking about, including those on theleft, political leaders within the state,
I think are not listening.
So for example, governorGavin Newsom immediately called for
a special legislative session for
next month to discuss howto Trump proof California.
(04:02):
And interestingly,he didn't have to call for
a special session in December, he couldhave just addressed that in January.
But by calling for a special session,
he got an awful lot of media coverage,including a New York Times article
which paints him asthe leader of the resistance.
So politically I think he isgonna try to ride that, but
(04:24):
this is not respondingto constituent concerns.
[LAUGH] It's elevatingNewsom's national prominence,
which had taken a nosedivefollowing Harris replacing
Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket.
So Californians are speaking, butI don't see the state's political
(04:45):
leadership really listening it,at least so far.
>> Bill Whalen (04:50):
Yeah, I would have answered that in one word, no, [LAUGH] it
hasn't really changed Sacramentobecause it's a very insular place, and
Lee's absolutely right.
The governor's decision to notonly call a special session, but
then also hop on a plane andgo to Washington.
And meet with Bidenadministration officials,
meet with California's congressionaldelegation and so forth.
(05:10):
There is a thing called zoom, he didn'thave to travel across the country, but
that is about raising his profile.
As Lee mentioned,because as it's not just Gavin Newsom,
it's JB Pritzker in Illinois,it's other governors around the country,
all of whom wanna be seen as the headof this so called resistance.
Also, Kamala Harris has to decide shewants to play in the world of resistance,
but I wanna look at the electiona different way and
(05:31):
I wanna look at simply from mathematics.
And we're still counting votes here,incredibly, sadly in California we have
until the first week ofDecember to certify the vote.
So it's still limping along, there'sstill some races to be called, the last I
checked, the estimate of turnout inthis election is about 16 million votes.
That's about 1.6 million fewer votesthan in 2020 for Joe Biden, and
(05:54):
this is hugely important in this regard.
Lee mentioned proposition 32, whichwould have raised the minimum wage in
California from $16an hour to $18 an hour.
It was rejected, the first time in statehistory that a minimum wage increase has
been rejected in a statewide vote.
I checked the numbersbefore we came on the air,
it's trailing right nowby about 250,000 votes.
(06:15):
Now if you consider thatif this were 2020 and
there are 1.6 million votes out there andCalifornia is about a two to one
Democratic to Republican statein terms of party registration.
Let's assume that that 1.6 million votesbreaks about 1 million for Democrats and
about half a million forRepublican slash conservatives.
That's a 500,000 vote boost forDemocrats, prop 32 is gonna pass.
(06:37):
And so I think when you look at some ofthese ballot measures that were defeated
and part of it was becausethe turnout was not what it was.
And this to me is one of the greatmysteries of this election that we need to
figure out moving forward.
You had a historic election in California,
Kamala Harris seeking to be the thirdCalifornia to be elected president,
seeking to be the first woman, the firstwoman of color to be elected president.
(06:58):
California should have turned out, butthey didn't in the same numbers as 2020,
and Lee Jonathan mightbe as simple as this.
The lead measure on the ballot,the one that kind of was the drove
the tailwind was Prop 36,the anti crime measure.
It was pushing close to 70%, it's about68, 69%, that is rarefied air and initiat.
(07:20):
And this caused huge problems forDemocrats in terms of being divided, but
I think it just kinda cast a pallover the electorate, Lee Jonathan.
In terms of just California's mood,we've seen in polls for
years that people think thatCalifornia is on the wrong track.
But Prop 36, Lee was really kind ofthe embodiment of wrong track California.
>> Lee Ohanian (07:37):
Yeah, Prop 36 is really interesting, Democrats,
including Governor Newsom, includingthose in the Legislative assembly and
the state Senate tried veryvery hard to block this.
And my theory as to whythey want to block it,
including the fact that Ithink just politically,
(08:00):
many do not want toincrease the penalties for
crime under $950 is that,it's go increase the prison rolls.
And it's incredibly expensive toincarcerate someone in California,
annually costs about $133,000 per inmate.
(08:23):
And that's going to put enormouspressure on the state budget,
if a lot more people are convicted,and what people were so
upset about with the original Prop 47,it goes back, I think about 10 years now.
Bill was that 2014?
>> Bill Whalen (08:40):
It's 2014.
>> Lee Ohanian (08:41):
Yeah, I believe Harris was attorney general at that time,
and Prop 47 didn'tdecriminalize retail theft,
but it made it a misdemeanor,for theft under $950.
And we go to a city San Francisco,
(09:02):
retail theft is substantial.
Now you have drugstores, pharmacies,closing up shop, particularly in high
crime low income areas, which putsenormous burdens on individuals living.
They're particularly elderly people whohave a hard time getting around if they
can't get their prescription at CVSa block away, then becomes difficult for
(09:24):
them to find that.
So that was, I believe that Prop47 was called the Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Act.
>> Bill Whalen (09:32):
Right [LAUGH]. >> Lee Ohanian
by Harris, soit was an ingenious marketing,
I think it passed with almost60% approval 10 years ago.
And she did not endorse it,
she took a pass on it justlike she took a pass on 36.
>> Lee Ohanian (09:45):
Yes, this time around in 2024, she did not take a stand on
Prop 36 despite the fact thatshe named the ballot proposition
9 year before, that this onewas going to largely reverse.
And Bill, as you know that passed, I thinkit's about 68 or 69% ahead right now.
(10:06):
It is shocking that the mosttechnologically advanced state in
the most technologically advancedcountry we count votes like
we did 100 years ago, butit's gonna, pass overwhelmingly.
And the Democrats triedtwice to introduce their own
(10:27):
legislation to addressesballot initiative and
bill, I'll read just fora moment an editorial
from the typically very progressive.
From the typically very progressiveSan Francisco Chronicle,
about the Democrat strategy andtrying to block the Proposition 36,
(10:52):
which raises to felony charges forthose who commit that theft.
But on the other hand, [COUGH] it dropsthe charges if those people complete
a drug treatment program, soit's very reasonable from that standpoint.
And I think that's one of the reasons whyit's passing with such a large margin, so
(11:13):
this from the San Francisco Chronicleearlier this year.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Democraticlegislative leaders really don't want
California voters to approve a Novemberballot measure which is Prop 36.
In fact, they're so desperate toprevent the measure from succeeding,
they're willing subvert andtwist the very process
they claim to revere more than anythingelse democracy to achieve their aims.
(11:37):
That's from the San Francisco Chronicle,so that just shows the enormous divide
between the state's political leadershipand what voters are thinking about.
And Bill, when you noted voter turnout,
I was also struck by voterturnout in California.
And some who argue against voter ID talk
(11:59):
about how voter ID suppress voting.
Well, I went ahead andI looked at voter turnout comparing
California to some states thathave the require photo voter ID.
Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, andturnout was remarkably higher in those
(12:20):
states compared to California,which has no voter ID whatsoever.
[COUGH] And Bill, it's interestingthe it wasn't just those propositions,
but voters were very frustratedabout crime in terms of voting out
La Da George Gascon and alsoAlameda County Prosecutor Pamela Price.
(12:40):
And I believe that vote was maybe20 to 30 percentage points in both.
>> Bill Whalen (12:47):
She was taken out about a two to one march and
she finally conceded the other day.
But Lee it's also the mayor ofOakland who was recalled and
then back in San Francisco, London Breed,
who supported Proposition 36 which put herat odds with Newsom in the legislature.
She was also run out of office andshe was defeated in exchange,
the new mayor has no political experience.
(13:08):
He's not a product of the Boardof Supervisors in San Francisco,
he's not part of the machine thatproduced London Breed and Gavin Newsom.
So voters are really taking a departureand I think that's maybe just
a reminder legislature you would liketo think, especially look at Oakland.
Which is just a sad story just nomatter how you cut it about government
management, that really lawmakers haveto do a better job in California.
(13:29):
And that to me is the bigquestion moving forward in 2025.
Has Newsom, have lawmakersreally learned any lesson here?
>> Lee Ohanian (13:37):
Yeah, and again, when you think about the division,
I mean just the large gapbetween where voters are and
where Governor Newsom and the supermajority in the state legislature are.
This is a state with roughly24% registered Republicans.
Newsom's approval inan October poll was only 44%,
(13:59):
which is to me that's not that shocking inperhaps the bluest state in the country.
And when you compare that to approvalratings of governors in all other states,
there's a lot that haveapproval ratings over 60%.
There's very few that have approvalratings anywhere close to Newsom.
(14:21):
And the state legislature hasan approval rating of 42%.
So yeah, Bill, your one word answer of no,
[LAUGH] political leaders are notlistening to constituents and we'll see
what happens as we go forward in termsof how much that's going to hurt them.
Because Californians are gettingvery frustrated about
(14:43):
a lot of items that are essentiallypublic policy failures.
The political leadership seems to bedoubling down on what they've done in
the past and, it doesn't seem to beworking, at least as far as I can see.
>> Bill Whalen (14:55):
We should note, by the way,
Californians also voted inclassic kinda gas break fashion.
They voted for
a couple of bond measures that slapon about another $20 billion in debt,
actually, it's something like $32 billionin debt when you factor the interest.
At the same time, they voted down ameasure of Proposition 5 which would have
reduced the thresholddata to pass local bonds.
But Lee, I want to close out before wemove the next segment, I want to close out
(15:18):
the question going back to Proposition 32,this minimum wage law that got defeated.
Do you think that maybe one ofthe factors here in its defeat was all
the conversation we've had in California,
all that you've written aboutthe fast food minimum wage law?
>> Lee Ohanian (15:30):
I suspect so,
because what we know aboutthe fast food minimum wage law,
which singles out the fast food industryto pay a $20 an hour minimum wage,
compared to $16 minimum wage in allother industries within the state.
What we saw when that law took effecton April 1, is that prices for
(15:54):
fast food within Californiaimmediately jumped.
They jumped between 7 to 10%.
So voters are feeling that andI think they understand that
the higher the minimum wage,those costs get passed on to them.
And a lot of Californians are strugglingmightily when it comes to financial
(16:16):
issues.
So yes,I do believe that that was a factor.
And Bill, I'll just emphasizethe importance of Proposition 5
being declined by voters.
Because as you andI've talked about before,
the legislature has been trying fordecades to get their hands around and
(16:36):
open up the Pandora'sbox of Proposition 13.
Which was passed in 1978,which freezes property taxes.
They've been trying every way, every wayto try to get to try to open that up.
And Proposition 5 was a way to do that.
I was worried that the way it wasmarketed would lead to passage.
(16:59):
And the way it was marketed is that lowerthe supermajority from 67% to 55% for
building infrastructure andaffordable housing.
So typically, those are buzzwords that inthe past voters have been very positively
disposed to, not this time, I believeit didn't come close, what was it?
(17:21):
Is it about 57, 43 right now?
Yep.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (17:25):
Gentlemen, staying on the election post-mortem, Kamala Harris
apparently is a leading contender tobe the Golden State's next governor.
According to a poll by the UC BerkeleyInstitute of Governmental Studies, 33 33%
of respondents say they are likely toSupport her and 13% are somewhat likely.
Sure, she has some name ID andmoney advantages, but
(17:47):
does she really want to be weigheddown by pesky local issues
like affordable housing,homelessness, and wildfires?
Would she would she be up forthe job, Bill?
>> Bill Whalen (18:00):
Welcome to my world because not a day has gone by since
the election where I've not had a reportercall and ask about this question,
what the future holds for her.
Now we're looking at the governor'srace based in part on the poll you just
mentioned, Jonathan.
It might be very tempting forher because it's actually, I think,
pretty easy in this regard.
She would jump into the racefar more name recognition,
ability to raise a lot of money in a hurryand she would just scatter the field.
(18:23):
You there are about a half a dozenDemocrats looking at this right now of
various prominence, butnot really in the same league as her.
So she would force many, if not most ofthem out of the race almost automatically.
If she got into a one on one race with theDemocrat in November, thanks to the open
primary, she would probably win thatjust based on her being Kamala Harris.
If she ran against Republican,enough said she'd win that race.
(18:44):
So it's there for the taking, but youreally raised the key question, Jonathan.
Would she want this job?
And also, Lee,is she really right for this job?
I have worked for a California governor.
I would argue that it is the second mostdifficult job in American politics because
something is happening inCalifornia almost every day.
Some of it is man made,you have a very messy,
(19:04):
complicated bureaucracy doing its bestto complicate life for you politically.
You you have a legislature, 120 peoplewho think they're the governor and
you have to deal withthem on a daily basis.
And then mother nature is alwaysthrowing curveballs at us.
Witness the fact that we're doing this onthe same day that a so called bomb cyclone
is coming California's way, whichmeans the governor has to have his or
act together when it comesto emergency services.
(19:27):
It's not a job for the faint of heart.
It's also not a job for
somebody who is not really much ofa manager as Kamala Harris, as we've seen,
and also somebody who doesn'treally have very deep policy chops.
So why would she do it?
I guess political rehabilitation,
I thought that maybe it wouldget her toward the presidency.
Look at the calendar right now,if the Democratic race for
(19:47):
2028 is not underway already,it soon will be.
And it'll be in full bloom in the summerof 2026 when 2028 aspirants are running
around supposedly helping othergubernatorial candidates, but in fact,
setting themselves up for a run.
She would be running forgovernor at the same time.
She would have to then turn aroundliterally to her inaugural address and
say, thank you very much,I'm now off to Iowa.
(20:07):
That's just not gonna work.
So to me, if she becamegovernor of California in 2027,
she'd have to wait until 2032, at whichthis a Democrat in the White House,
maybe she is an unpopulargovernor by then.
I just don't see it as reallykind of making sense for her.
And I frankly don't thinkit's a good fit for her.
And I think it would just be terribleif she were the governor of California.
I just don't think she's the right fit forit, guys.
>> Lee Ohanian (20:28):
Bill, I agree with your points,
the timing is very problematic for her.
I agree that she could walk into the jobgiven the state's political composition
and given her name recognition.
And she received what, 58% of the voteagainst Trump any Democrat would.
(20:50):
But when you look at the othercontenders for the job,
Villa Ragosa has been out ofthe spotlight for a long time.
Bonta is not a household name,Eleni Kunalakis is lieutenant governor.
But she's, in my opinion,
has been frozen out of most ofthe policy issues by Newsom.
(21:11):
Tony Thurman is state schoolsuperintendent, not a household name.
So, yeah, I agree,I think she would just walk right in
even if she did facea Democrat in tthe election.
>> Bill Whalen (21:25):
I'm looking at the IGS poll numbers right now among
Democratic voters.
Katie Porter, you might remember she's theOrange County congresswoman who ran and
lost in the Senate primary.
She leads the pack with 22%.
Kunalakis, Antonio Villa Rosa, the formermayor of Los Angeles, Javier Becerra,
currently the federal HHS secretary,former state attorney general.
They're all hovering around 10 to 11%.
(21:45):
That's what I mean, when F Kamala came in,she'd be like a cannonball in the pool.
She would just create a wave, and
the wave would force a lot ofthose lesser Democrats out.
So again, it's there for the taking.
But, you know, Lee, you mentioned 58%.
Most politicians would kill for 58%, butthat actually is a little underwhelming.
As far as California goes.
When you look at what Hillary pulledagainst Trump in 2016 and Biden,
(22:06):
she was about four orfive points weaker than them.
So again, it's the mystery of thiselection why Californians were not
jazzed about Kamala Harris.
>> Lee Ohanian (22:14):
Yeah, and Bill, I think it boils down to the fact that despite
she was California's,one of California's senators and
she was state attorney general.
It's hard to look at her resume andpoint to a lot of really
concrete accomplishments fromthe standpoint of what obvious,
(22:39):
positive outcome she ownthat people can point to and
say, hey,this is a great thing Kamala did.
And I think polls were done about thiswhile she was running for president.
No one really could come up with much.
So no, she doesn't have the track record.
I don't think she's particularly wellsuited to this incredibly complicated and
(23:04):
complex job that's involved with governor.
You and I have talked a lot about beingsomewhat critical of Newsom's performance,
including the fact that he doesn't seem tokeep his eye on his day job very often.
But it is an incrediblydifficult job to do.
It's much more difficultwhen Schwarzenegger did it,
(23:24):
a lot more difficult thanwhen Pete Wilson did it.
And whoever does it is gonnabe having to deal with a mess.
One third of the state is living in or
near poverty,homelessness continues to grow.
The state budget is underremarkable pressure,
(23:45):
we still haven't invested in waterconveyance or water storage.
Our highways and roads and bridges areamong some of the worst in the country.
Just go down, our schools perform awfully,public schools K through 12.
Illegal immigration, I mean,you name a policy area and
most likely California is gonna behaving a difficult time with that.
(24:09):
So it really is a bit of a thankless job.
So I don't know at some level whather end game would be if she took
the governorship, because as you noted,the timing is very awkward.
She was stepping into the Governor'sMansion and then almost immediately say,
hey, guess what, I'm running forpresident again.
If she went two terms,then she would, what,
(24:30):
I believe probably 67 if shedecided to run for president again,
which, today that's not old,obviously, as a president, but
who knows what happens ten years from now.
So I suspect that it's not a great fit forher in a lot of ways.
I suspect she understands that.
I'm thinking she's gonna write that bookand make up a lot of money from that.
(24:56):
And then what she and Mr. Emhoff decideto do after, that's hard to say,
but I just don't know what purposeit would really serve for her,
how much of the benefit it would deliver.
I would think that if shereally wants to be president,
then the time to try wouldbe this coming would be 28.
(25:18):
But my God, it would be really difficultto do that if she was running,
if she was a brand newCalifornia governor.
>> Bill Whalen (25:24):
Okay, then let's spend a minute now, let's talk about Gavin Newsom.
Because whereas the timing forher would be complicated,
the timing for him is almost ideal now.
Because as you mentioned,he is term limited come 2026,
which means he can leaveoffice in January 2027 and
just campaign to his heart'sdelight up and down America.
But my question, Lee and Jonathan,is Gavin Newsom the cure for
(25:44):
what ails the Democratic Party right nowin terms of both substance and style?
And it's the style I'mlooking at the moment.
Peggy Noonan wrote a very smart column inthe Wall Street Journal over the weekend
in which she, as a million other punditshave done, have tried to analyze and
break down what happened tothe Democrats on Election Day.
And she said, one of the problems isin addition to voters just not really
(26:04):
enjoying being talked down toin kind of a condescending way,
especially by celebrities.
It's the approach just as kindof relentless coming at you and
the relentless talk aboutdemocracy hanging in the midst and
just people tired andburned out of politics in general.
And here you have a governor wholiterally the day after the election,
wants to do a special session,hops on a plane and goes to Washington.
(26:25):
It's just kinda pounding the tom toms,there's no break here, there's no respite.
And so I just don't know,
Lee, if Newsom's style is the rightfit for the Democrats moving forward.
I'm not saying this ina Bill Clinton centrist way, but
just, it just might be too much to take.
>> Lee Ohanian (26:40):
Yeah, Bill, I asked myself,
what if it had been Newsom ratherthan Harris running this time around?
Obviously, a huge hypothetical.
But I can't imagine any of those swingstates, they would have gone for
Newsom, because she backtrackedon a lot of policy areas.
She tacked towards the middle.
(27:02):
I don't see him doing that, and yet
she still lost in everyone of those swing states.
Bill, you look at medianhousehold income in
a place like swing states such as Georgia,
Nevada, Arizona,any of those swing states,
(27:25):
Michigan, it's about $65,000 annually.
These are not particularly wealthy people.
Median net worth under $150,000,
they've got some equity in their home,modest retirement savings.
They are not looking fora president who is gonna be
(27:49):
more focused on raisingtheir energy prices in and
castigating them for potentiallyconservative social political views.
They're looking for a president who'sgonna make their life a little bit easier.
And I just don't see that,
[LAUGH] I don't see them respondingfavorably to Governor Newsom.
>> Bill Whalen (28:12):
So once again, get back to the style side of things.
His style would have beenmuch different from hers.
Whereas, she was very averseto doing media interviews,
did not do the Joe Rogan podcast,was not really able to think on her feet.
He would have been the polar opposite,he would have done Joe Rogan.
He would have gone on to Fox News,
he would not have saidno to any media request.
I think he would have just beena complete media hawk in that regard.
(28:34):
But here's the problem, and now we getinto the substance side of things.
One of the most effective ads run againsther was the ad showing her running for
president in 2019 and
bragging about how California was doingtransitional work with prisoners.
And this led to the Trump ad, she's forthey, them and Trump's for you.
You take her out of the race andput Gavin Newsom in there.
(28:54):
And Gavin Newsoms have to explain how hesigned a law which forbids schools from
telling parents that their childrenhave changed their gender identity.
Again, just a big problem outin America with this issue.
But then you go from swing stateto swing state across America.
I think the Trump campaign would havevery cleverly put California on display,
would have gone to Michigan and made GavinNewsom the king of electric vehicles,
(29:14):
he wants to destroy combustion engines.
Would have gone to Nevada andtalked about gasoline prices,
would have gone to Arizona and talkedabout California sanctuary policies.
And whereas Kamala Harris waskinda quasi-attached to California
in that regard, not being the Governor,the Governor owns the state.
And so I think that just would havebeen a giant millstone around him, and
he would not have succeeded.
So easy to say that a more articulatepolitician might have done a better job
(29:37):
than her.
No, at the end of the day, he still hasthe same policy problems that she does.
And this is the challenge ofthe Democrats moving forward.
Are they gonna stay wed to these issues orare they gonna try to adapt?
As we're seeing right now, those Democratswho are trying to adapt or move forward,
they're already paying a price for it.
>> Lee Ohanian (29:52):
Yeah, Newsom would have received votes
from those who he preachesto in terms of the choir.
But when you note transgender issues,illegal migration issues,
California is, he's proud to makea California sanctuary state.
Voters don't,
(30:13):
very few voters really wanna debateabout what does it mean to be a woman?
>> Bill Whalen (30:19):
Right.
>> Lee Ohanian (30:20):
Should biological males participate in girls' sports?
We know where the governorstands on those, but
that is simply not where votersin those swing states stand.
So I just simply just don't seehim moving the needle whatsoever.
I think people more like Shapiroin Pennsylvania or a slightly more
(30:41):
conservative take, which would beAndy Beshear, Governor in Kentucky.
I suspect that's gonna be morethe future of the Democratic Party.
I think Gavin Newsom's political flavor,I think, is probably fading into the past.
>> Bill Whalen (30:57):
Our colleague Niall Ferguson wrote a really clever column
a few months ago about the election.
He called it the Barbie vs Oppenheimerelection in that she was running kinda
the sorta happy,joyful Barbie campaign, and
he was running the dark,sinister Oppenheimer campaign.
Lee, if Gavin Newsomhad been the candidate,
it would have been the McDonald's campaignversus the French laundry campaign.
>> Lee Ohanian (31:16):
[LAUGH] And Gavin wouldn't have been doing prep work in the kitchen.
>> Bill Whalen (31:22):
And that, by the way, and we can move on after this.
My God, the French Laundry,
there are a handful of things thatare just gum on the shoe for Gavin Newsom.
And the photograph of him andKimberly Guilfoyle lying on the rug in
the Getty Mansion is justsomething he cannot get away from.
The affair he had asmayor of San Francisco.
I just notice anecdotally, when I travelaround the country and people mention him,
it's like the first thing that comes up.
(31:43):
And now the French Laundry, that justreally sticks in people's craws, I guess,
because it's just the embodiment ofdouble standard privileged politicians.
I tell you to stay home,don't go anywhere, and
I go to a fancy restaurant andI lie about it.
>> Lee Ohanian (31:55):
Yes, and it was a political dinner as well.
And again,not to pile on the governor, but
it was announced eitherearlier this week or
last week that he purchased a $9million plus home in Marin County.
I don't believe that hisoffice has confirmed that.
And apparently he opened a newLLC that purchased that to see
(32:20):
if he could fly under the radar.
And again, the governor is a wealthy man.
He of course, in a market economy,has the opportunity and
the freedom to purchase whateverthat he's able to afford.
But probably not a great look forhim to be governing a state where
a third of the population is living in,on or near the poverty line.
(32:42):
And there's a $9 million home thathe'll be splitting his time between
Sacramento and Marin forthe next two years as governor.
>> Bill Whalen (32:51):
What about the mortgages on that?
>> Lee Ohanian (32:55):
[LAUGH] It takes enormous income to qualify for a mortgage on that
unless there's an enormous down payment,so we won't know that.
But just off the top of my head,if that was a standard 80,
20 mortgage,that's about a $7 million mortgage,
(33:17):
6% interest rate,that's about 500,000 just in interest.
500,000, it's probably about700,000 including property taxes,
just 700,000 for mortgage interest,principal, and taxes.
So 700 grand on a home annually,a little bit of a tax savings.
(33:44):
Say, that's a deep pocket.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (33:46):
Gentlemen, New York Post columnist Susan Shelley asked readers
if California's progressive facadeis shattered beyond repair.
Meanwhile, the LA Times reports that givenCalifornia's repudiation of progressive
policies and office holders, the state'spolitical identity is being questioned.
But is it really?
And Governor Newsom hascalled a special session for
(34:07):
the state legislature on December 2nd,as you mentioned before.
And as Calmatters reports,the session is, quote,
to protect California from Donald Trumpon civil rights, reproductive freedom,
climate action, and immigrant families.
Lee, how can we measure the shift awayfrom the progressivism in California or
toward heightened progressivismin the Golden State?
>> Lee Ohanian (34:27):
Well, so what Newsom and State Attorney General Rob Bonta
are particularly worriedabout is Trump's campaign
pledge to deport illegal migrantsliving in the United States.
And who knows how that's gonna play out?
(34:48):
I suspect that any emphasis on that wouldbegin with those with criminal records,
which the Governor Newsom's constituentsclearly want that to happen.
Californians, despite the fact thatwe're a very, very blue state,
60 to 70% of Californians are veryconcerned about border security.
(35:10):
They view illegal migrants as being a,quote,
drain on the state and the economy.
Protecting illegal migrantsis what the governor and
the state attorney general want to do.
But that's gonna require probablybillions of dollars from a budget
where there simply is not billionsof dollars to spend on that.
(35:32):
So that's an investment that theirconstituents simply don't want.
They're also worried aboutCalifornia's clean air standards and,
in particular,California's low-carbon fuel standards.
And again, this is something that's notin the best interest of Californians,
(35:54):
because no matter where peoplestand on climate change and
what the role of green gases are.
Everyone agrees that greenhousegases are a global phenomena.
California is responsible for
about six-tenths of 1% ofglobal greenhouse gases.
If we could wave a magic wand andshut and become carbon neutral tomorrow,
(36:15):
it would literally not matter.
It would be a grain of sand on the beach.
So California is raising the priceof energy in terms of gasoline,
in terms of electricity, andalso the reliability of electricity.
We've done just a horrible job on that,and for
really no other reason than saying,well, California, we want to be proud,
(36:40):
we're leading the way interms of climate change.
Well, that's not really sellingwith Californians anymore.
There's enormous pushback on theCalifornia Air Resources Board's latest
decision to reduce carbon inthe state's gasoline supply even more,
which is gonna raise California'sgas prices substantially.
(37:03):
And Democrats within states,both the assembly and the Senate,
wrote letters to the Air Resources Boardasking them not to pursue this.
Yeah, so I think the short answer isthat the direction that Newsom and
Bonta are pushing is notone that's consistent with
(37:24):
what the state wants andnot consistent, I think,
with what a successfulDemocratic Party is gonna look like.
>> Bill Whalen (37:34):
Yeah, Jonathan, you asked about the view of California from within.
Well, the view from outside is thatit's a freak show in some regards.
The New York Post treatsCalifornia like a chew toy.
Almost every week there is some columnjust taking a shot at California policy.
It's easy, it's shooting fish in a barrel,if you will.
But inside California,the view is different.
And I think actually you're gonnasee lawmakers here much more dug in.
(37:56):
And I would refer you, for example,to the Los Angeles Unified School Board of
Education, which voted on fourdifferent resolutions the other day,
one of which is to declareLAUSD a sanctuary district.
And here's kind ofan interesting conversation,
I think it's gonna happen on immigration.
If I'm the left, if I'm a CaliforniaDemocrat, I'm gonna say Donald Trump
(38:17):
cannot come and take away children andmake this about kids.
And I think if Trumpwere smart about this,
if he wanted to kinda do a more nuancedapproach, and herein lies the challenge.
Donald Trump and nuanced are antonyms,if ever they're antonyms.
But what they could do is go to governorNewsom in the Attorney General, Mr Bonta,
and say, look it, we're gonna kind ofgo through this deportation in phases.
(38:38):
And the first phase beginswith people in this
country illegally who havecommitted crimes, away they go.
And I would just kindachallenge the governor and
the state attorney generalto get in the way of that.
Because, as Lee mentioned,in terms of public opinion here,
I don't think any population is gonnareally wanna do favors for criminals.
And then maybe you go from that to thensaying, okay, there's a deadline here for
(38:59):
people coming out of the shadows andreporting themselves.
And then we're gonna look at variousways in which you conducted yourself in
this country.
Have you worked, have you paid taxes, howmuch government services have you taken,
and so forth, to maybe prioritize it.
But, Lee, I would start there,I'd start with that one class and
kind of make it sort of a trial balloon,if you will.
>> Lee Ohanian (39:20):
Yeah, that's the obvious approach that should be pursued.
And yeah, I mean, there's no Californianswho are gonna be opposed to that.
And again, I'll go back tothe statistic of about a 25 point
swing in favor of Trump,2024 versus 2020 among Hispanic voters.
And ostensibly, that is the immigrantcommunity that the Democratic
(39:45):
leadership has thought washaving their backwhen it comes
to these sanctuary policies,that's not the case at all.
Hispanic voters have roughlythe same opinion about
illegal migrants as whites,as Asians, as blacks.
So Bill, I like the way you put that.
(40:07):
Yeah, let's see if Bonta andNewsom are gonna get in the way of that,
going after criminals.
Politically, I can't see how they would,
because there would literallybe no support for that.
And then you start there,you see how much costs.
You see how many people thatyou deport who are criminals.
And Bill,I wouldn't be all that surprised if Trump
(40:30):
kinda declares victory after that.
And says, look,in the last two or three years,
those 15,000 evicted murderers who are inthe country illegally, they're gone.
The X number of other criminals,they're gone.
And that would be a win for the country,it would be a huge win for Trump,
(40:53):
huge win for the Republican Party.
It would be a win,win literally for everyone.
So yeah, this is just another case,I think, where the Governor and
the Attorney General just touch.
And Bill, we're getting newrevenue numbers today from the,
from the state's Revenue Department.
But there just isn'tthe money within the budget
(41:17):
to spend on the Attorney General'soffice to defend
thousands of legal migrants from,from ICE, deporting them.
>> Bill Whalen (41:29):
Yeah, the last boast out of the Department of Finances,
I think they had a $5 billionprojection ahead of revenue.
$5 billion doesn't go very far when you'retalking about a budget that's several
hundred billion dollars.
Lee, I wanna circle back to the LAUSD and
the Board of Education'sresolutions they voted on.
I wanna ask you a question, if you gettired of your teaching gig at UCLA,
I might have a new teaching gig foryou, Lee.
(41:51):
Because one of the resolutions that LAUSDvoted on was want to make students,
and I quote, ready for the world.
And here's what they want to do, Lee,quote, critical thinkers to be able to
understand current events, to be able tounderstand how events impact our politics.
To know the effects ofspecific policy proposals,
to be able to understand allsides of key political issues.
(42:12):
And within 160 days from now, LAUSD issupposed to issue report which discusses,
quote, the feasibility of establishinga contemporary political issues course for
high schools.
So Lee, how far do you think you and
I would get in California teachinga contemporary political issues course?
>> Lee Ohanian (42:28):
Yeah, that sounds great,
I don't think we'd be at the topof the list [LAUGH] for hired.
And as we've talked about before,not just in LA, but throughout the state.
Only one out of four K through12 kids are proficient at
federal standards in math orlanguage arts or science.
(42:50):
And I like the idea of preparing kids forthe world they're gonna enter,
we're not preparing them.
If you can't do the basics,then figure out how to do the basics.
And the state's educational systemhas been failing at that for
an awful long time.
And the obvious resolutions tomaking progress on that front,
(43:14):
there's obvious changes that need tobe made regarding teachers' unions and
teacher tenure andthe lack of seniority-based pay.
And those are simply anathema withinthe education political complex.
So it's awfully sad, andthe saddest part of that is some
(43:37):
of these students are going tobecome the homeless of tomorrow.
Which [LAUGH] will make a problemthat becomes impossible to
resolve if we don't addressour educational deficiencies.
>> Bill Whalen (43:52):
Where I think LA misses the mark here is there needs to be
an emphasis on civics inhigh school education.
We need to teach kids the origins ofthe country, why America exists, so
kids can understand just the root causesof the revolution, the Civil War,
the nuances between a democracy anda Republican, so forth.
They don't need a lesson in contemporarypolitical issues because my God,
(44:14):
just how stilted andone-sided will that be?
That's just, that's a waste, and the ideaof even making that a credit course,
I think is just outrageous.
>> Lee Ohanian (44:21):
Yeah, and how can you appreciate the differences we see today
if you don't understandthe issues you just noted?
What does it mean to bea democratic republic?
What's in the Constitution?
What's in the Bill of Rights?
If you don't understand that [LAUGH]if you can't walk before you run,
(44:45):
then good luck if you try to run.
>> Bill Whalen (44:47):
Yeah, but Lee, you can appreciate as Professor Lee, though,
it might be the easiest teaching gig inAmerica because all you'd have to do is go
in a classroom, Lee, andturn on MSNBC and come back in an hour.
>> Lee Ohanian (44:55):
[LAUGH] That would be the right.
I don't know what would be the left,but I suspect for
some classrooms MSNBCwould be center right.
Who knows what they would find forcenter left, God help us.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (45:12):
Circling back to the elections for
a moment with George Gascon recalled,
he was presiding over the caseinvolving Eric and Lyle Menendez.
And he was considering a petition forresentencing both of those men.
It was reported yesterday that GovernorNewsom won't hear their call for clemency.
(45:39):
So that matter won't beaddressed until the new
prosecutor in Los Angeles is inaugurated.
What is the implications of that ruling by
Governor Newsom for not offering clemency?
>> Bill Whalen (45:59):
Well, I think what he said is he wants the process to play through
before he does anything.
So I don't think he shut the dooron it necessarily, has he?
>> Lee Ohanian (46:08):
I suspect, well, he- >> Bill Whalen
look, Nathan Hochman's the new DA.
Hochman has to review things now andthen make a recommendation.
So I think that's actuallywhat's going on here,
that Newsom's waiting tosee what the new DA does.
But if that's the case,I think I would have two responses.
One, is there are more important issuesin California right now than the fate of
Mendez brothers, I'm sorry,Governor Newsom.
(46:30):
And secondly,it's probably good news for Netflix,
cuz they probably get anotherseries out of the Mendez brothers.
But, I mean, I hate to be sucha jaded cynic, but who cares?
Yeah, one media story I read,
it seemed to indicate Newsomhad made up his mind, but
he was going to wait untilNathan Hockman took office.
>> Bill Whalen (46:53):
Yeah. >> Lee Ohanian
suggesting Newsom was inclinedto lead court clemency,
but that perhaps he didn't wantto step on Hockman's shoes.
But, Bill, I agree with youthere's a lot more pressing
issues that requirethe Governor's attention.
(47:17):
Yeah, I mean, I'm sorry,
you can focus on the fate of the Mendezbrothers, or you can deal with what's
going on in cities in Californiaright now if you're the governor.
And I think he's much better suited tobe worrying about real time problems and
what happened to those.
Those two characters 30 years ago,end of rant [LAUGH].
>> Jonathan Movroydis (47:34):
Okay, final question, gentlemen,
with Thanksgiving just a week away,what are you especially thankful for, Lee?
>> Lee Ohanian (47:41):
Well, yeah, Jonathan,
I've lived in California, I think,
except for a period between 19.
I lived in California, except the timeI would been in grad school and
I was on the faculties ofthe University of Pellet.
Pennsylvania, Minnesota,which was between 1988 and 1999.
(48:05):
Despite all the all the venting bill and
I do in our Californiaon your mind columns and
in in these podcasts,I love living within the state.
It's just God's smiled whenhe made California and
I'm very thankful forbeing able to live here.
(48:26):
And having a wonderful family and
being health to enjoy whatjust is a remarkable state.
I continue to keep my fingerscrossed that we will have so
I'm thankful to be able to continueto be helpful for better policies.
Because I think just a few small changes,
relatively small changes can makeit an even better place to live.
>> Bill Whalen (48:48):
Yeah, it's interestingly, economically,
Thanksgiving is a mixed bag forCalifornians.
Wells Fargo did a study, it foundthat brand turkeys were selling for
about 2% less than last year,that's good news.
Brand name stuffing is up about 9%,don't know what's going on there.
Cranberry berries are downabout 3% due to a bumper crop.
And bad news in the Mavrotes householdwine prices are up about 2.4% and
(49:10):
beer is up 3.3%.
I joke because Jonathan is the parentof young children, and boy.
If anything would have me reaching forthe pantry,
it would be chasing littlekids around on Thanksgiving.
Yeah, I'm with you, I'm being thankful forCalifornia in that regard, Lee.
Especially, thankful that Footballbegins at 9 o'clock in the morning out
here on Thanksgiving Day.
>> Lee Ohanian (49:27):
[LAUGH] Yeah, we get a full day of it.
>> Bill Whalen (49:29):
Yes, well, as always, gentlemen.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (49:31):
Thank you for another hour of interesting,
timely analysis, thank you for your time.
>> Bill Whalen (49:36):
Thanks fellas.
Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Lee Ohanian (49:38):
Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Jonathan Movroydis (49:39):
Happy Thanksgiving.
You've been listening tomatters of policy and politics,
the Hoover Institution podcastdevoted governance and
balance of power here in America andaround the free world.
Please don't forget to rate, review, and
subscribe to this podcastwherever you might hear it.
And if you don't mind, please spread theword, get your friends to have a listen.
The Hoover Institution has Facebook,Instagram, and X feeds.
Our X handles @HooverInc,that's @Hooverinst, Bill Whalen is on X,
(50:00):
his handle is @billwhalenca.
And Lee Ohanian is also on X,his handle is @lee_ohanian.
Please visit the hoover website@hoover.organd sign up for the Hoover Daily Report
where you can access the latestscholarship and analysis from our fellows.
Also check out California on your mind,where Bill Whalen and
Lee Ohanian write every week.
Again, this is Jonathan Movroydis sittingin Bill Whalen's chair this week,
he'll be back for another episodeof Matters of Policy and Politics.
(50:21):
Thank you for listening.
>> Presenter (50:23):
This podcast is a production of the Hoover Institution,
where we generate andpromote ideas advancing freedom.
For more information about our work,to hear more of our podcasts,
or view our video content,please visit hoover.org.
[MUSIC]
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.