Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

One of the initiatives approved by Californians yesterday was Proposition 14, which eliminates separate party primaries. From now on, everyone will compete instead in a single big primary, with the two top vote-getters advancing to the general election regardless of whether or not they come from different parties. Jesse McKinley of the New York Times explains what happened:

Whether the measure will empower more independent voters — who were already allowed to vote in Democratic or Republican primaries, provided they requested a ballot — remains to be seen. But what did seem certain was that California was again poised to capture the mood of the country, just as it did in 1978 with Proposition 13, which distilled widespread antitax sentiment into a cap on property taxes.

This time, it is the anger of the electorate that Californians have bottled, experts said, even if they are not totally sure what they are doing. “I don’t know that people really knew what they were voting for,” said Bruce Cain, director of the University of California Washington Center, based in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Cain said the state of the state — high unemployment, record foreclosures and a palpable anger at legislators — had primed the pump. “When people get mad,” he said, “they lash out.”

Italics mine. Now, this piece is labeled “news analysis,” so a bit of opinion-mongering is OK. But still: where does this stuff come from? Prop 14 was billed as a measure that would produce more moderate candidates. It was endorsed by most of the state’s big newspapers, it was supported by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and it was heavily favored by the state’s business community (which apparently thinks that “moderates” are more likely to be pro-business). It won by the epic margin of 54-46.

So what prompts McKinley to suggest that its passage was the result of voter rage? Aside from the fact that apparently Bruce Cain couldn’t think of anything more substantive to say about it when McKinley called, nothing. It’s just a handy hook because everyone knows — everyone! — that voters these days are enraged, so if something passes that must be the reason.

Well, who knows? Maybe that was the reason. We don’t think much of our politicians, it’s true. But I have to say that I didn’t notice any special rage surrounding the Prop 14 campaign, and I haven’t seen any polls suggesting that Prop 14 won because mobs of frenzied moderates took to the streets. It won because, of the whopping 20% of California’s registered voters that cared enough one way or the other to cast a ballot, a whopping 300,000 more liked the idea than didn’t. That doesn’t sound especially angry to me.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate