Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Our Next Governor...? (Post #14)

This evening the first California gubernatorial debate took place. If you watched it, you may have noticed that there were only two candidates standing up there--Meg and Jerry. However, there are four other candidates representing the Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom and American Independent Parties also running for governor. Why weren't those candidates invited to the debate? Are they not invited because they have no chance of winning, or do they have no chance of winning because they are not invited to said debates? Here are the websites for ALL of the candidates.

Jerry Brown
Meg Whitman
Laura Wells
Dale Ogden
Chelene Nightingale
Carlos Alvarez

Which candidate appeals to you? Who would you vote for governor? Did you watch the debate? What did you think? Is there too much emphasis on image and not enough on substance?

163 comments:

  1. At first, when I watched the debate, I thought maybe we should allow people from these other parties to debate, but then I realized that having everyone debate would take way too long, and it would just waste our time. There are only two people with any real chance to win the election, and those two are Jerry Brown, and Meg Whitman. I don't believe that giving all of these other wonderful candidates a chance to speak would help them at all. I just think that it would take too long, and have no real purpose.
    Bauer per. 1
    Sloan per. 3

    ReplyDelete
  2. At first, when I watched the debate, I thought maybe we should allow people from these other parties to debate, but then I realized that having everyone debate would take way too long, and it would just waste our time. There are only two people with any real chance to win the election, and those two are Jerry Brown, and Meg Whitman. I don't believe that giving all of these other wonderful candidates a chance to speak would help them at all. I just think that it would take too long, and have no real purpose.
    Bauer per. 1
    Sloan per. 3

    ReplyDelete
  3. Danielle Smith, Sloan P1September 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM

    I agree with Jonny on why the other four candidates weren't in the debate. They really don't have much of a fighting chance to win. Not being invited to the broadcast probably didn't help those chances any, but it is clearly a race between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman. Meg Whitman appeals to me much more than Jerry Brown and I would vote for her to be our governor if I could. I actually did watch some of the debate and I thought it went well. It seemed to me like Jerry Brown was sort of...trying to appeal to the masses. Granted, that is the objective, but I felt like he was doing it in a way where he wouldn't be able to follow through with his statements, which would end up like a smaller scale of our president and our nation at this time. It seems like there is much more emphasis on image and not enough substance to what some of the candidates have said, but I feel that Meg Whitman would be very fitting for the job; especially with how our economy is right now and the slump our state is in. She knows how to make money and she knows how to create jobs; two things that California is in DESPERATE need of right now. She has better ideas about how government should be run and what should be fixed. I think she would be a wonderful governor. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Josh McNearney P.3 BauerSeptember 28, 2010 at 8:52 PM

    i believe that each person(s) running for governor should get to debate. maybe if the other candidates from the other parties stood up there and spoke then they could probably change a few minds or actually be a threat to the main candidates Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown. them not getting invited to the debate more than likely hurt their chances of getting anywhere near considered for governor. RAWR

    ReplyDelete
  5. i agree with Josh that every person should be able to debate because that would make it more fair and simpler.If the other candiates were not allowed to come it is not fair ba=ecause they didnt have a chance to speak to the public.

    Jaskiran Kaur
    Mr. Bauer
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  6. everyone has a right to say what they want, the debate for governor involved all of the candidates, so all of the candidates should be there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do agree that everyone running for an office should be included in a debate. It's unfair to exclude people because you think they have no chance of winning. If I could vote, I would vote for Meg Whitman. She was the president of Ebay and started with 30 people and ended up hiring thousands. She put very many people to work and has good ideas for our educational system. It would be good to get someone new in office and because of her good ideas I would like to see her try to help California.

    Jana Hackett
    Mr. Bauer
    Period 5

    ReplyDelete
  8. The reason that there were only two candidates standing and not all 4, is because they are members of the two most powerful parties. The republican and democratic parties. The other parties are the minorities in this situation and dont really get voted for as much as the republican and democratic parties do. I do not have a preference of either candidate but I do see a lot of emphasis on image and not enough on substance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The others weren't invited to the debate because they don't really represent the majority of the Californians' views and therefore have no real chance of winning. Jerry Brown appeals to me more than Meg Whitman does. Jerry seems more qualified for the job as he's already been the state's governor, while Meg has had no political experience.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steven Reichmuth, Bauer, period 2September 28, 2010 at 9:36 PM

    I think that the other two candidates were not there because the parties they represent aren't very popular. I watched some of the debate and from that, I hope Jerry Brown wins. I liked how he didn't just attck Whitman the whole time like what she did to him. I also believe Whitman is just trying to buy her way into the governor seat, it probably is more of a status thing for her rather than helping the people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Samantha Barragan. Mr. Bauer. Pd. #September 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM

    I didn't watch the debate, but i do think everyone should get a chance to speak, but it's different in this case. They are the two most important people and are the only real choices people actually look at, they are the people that we want to see and hear. It seems like they are the most importnat so tehy should be the ones to debate, why waste time and effort? i personally am in favor of Brown because he seems more experienced and knows what to do different or new thanks to earlier experience. He knows what will help us.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Samantha Barragan. Mr. Bauer. Pd. 3September 28, 2010 at 9:47 PM

    didn't watch the debate, but i do think everyone should get a chance to speak, but it's different in this case. They are the two most important people and are the only real choices people actually look at, they are the people that we want to see and hear. It seems like they are the most importnat so tehy should be the ones to debate, why waste time and effort? i personally am in favor of Brown because he seems more experienced and knows what to do different or new thanks to earlier experience. He knows what will help us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. stephen goerzen

    the 4 that wee not invited i belive were not invited because more people are focused on meg and jerry. it may be because they are more popular or just seem to have better ideas. i cant answer why they are werenot there because i amn not a polotition, but what i can say is i belive meg whitman will win because she is more devoted to becoming it than anyone else. i want meg to win..

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe that those people should have a chance to debate. I would vote for Jerry Brown because i believe he will be a better governor than Meg Whitman. I did not watch the debate but have heard and read about both of their debates.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe that those people should have a chance to debate. I would vote for Jerry Brown because i believe he will be a better governor than Meg Whitman. I did not watch the debate but have heard and read about both of their debates.

    Trista Dowdy
    Sloan per.5

    ReplyDelete
  16. All party canadites should have a chance to debate and speak their position. However they probably do not because they are dwarfed by the other two parties. I am a Rupublican but would not vote for Meg Whitman. She to me is just another Arnold Schwarzneger, only a Republican in name. Infact, no canidate appeals to me and I would probably not vote for any of them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kevin Krivda Bauer P1
    Jimmy is right, Meg and Jerry come from the dominant Republican and democratic parteis and so with most california citizens votign for them, they were the ones debating. Since i take after my parents and they are my role models after all, I would cast my vote for Meg Whitman since my parents are republican and I proudly say I am too. The other candidates would hav eno shot of winning in my opnion wheter they were there or not. I also believe there is way too much emphasis on image because image is a big deal to American citizens these days

    ReplyDelete
  18. The main reason why there were only 2 candidates debating this evening is due to the gridlock in our country. There is basically a 2 party system. People are either Democrat or Republican in our country at this time. It is my dream that these small 3rd party candidates get the right to be known and also be able to participate in the debate. With this being granted many more Californians will see more than just 2 options and be given an the many alternatives and what they stand for. I would love to see Americans form more parties and have them actually be apart in the system. There is a need of more than 2 main parties in this country and along with that a system that allows them to compromise and for coalitions, not just Democrats with Democrats and Republicans with Republicans. I in fact was not able to watch the whole debate. I was volunteering out side of the Mondavi Center were the debate was taking place in Davis, with the Jerry Brown supporters/College Democrats/Bera for Congress supporters and many more. I was able to hear most of the debate on the radio and then back at the Bera for Congress campaign headquarters. The candidate that appeals to me and who I would vote for is Jerry Brown. My reasoning being that he has ran California before. Plain and simple he has experience that Meg Whitman just does not have. Sure Whitman was the CEO of Ebay. That has no measure in the race to be governor. Meg is used to the hierarchy of a company were she gave the orders and everyone listened. That is not how politics or the government are run. The United States Government is a bipartisan system, with senators, congressmen/congresswomen, state assembly men and assembly women all grasping for power and support in their own select areas. Jerry Brown has been there as Governor and mayor before, he knows how to run California for the people, all the people and not just for the top 8% of the State as Whitman is. The main topic I am most sold on is Jerry Browns push for more Green Energy. Through this we as Californians can create over a hundred thousand jobs for our state. We as a state are at 12.2% unemployment rate. There has not been an unemployment rate this high in decades! This is unexceptional for a state that has the most manpower and is the largest in the union. Through Jerry Browns leadership we will get out of this mess and become a stronger state. Another issue is the state budget. We are now going into our 89th day of no budget. Under Jerry Brown he had every budget done on time and had a 9 million dollar surplus for California. There is no way Meg Whitman can do this with her million dollar tax breaks to the billionaires and the millionaires. The last point I would like to hit on is Meg Whitman's 119 million spent on her campaign. This is horrific. There needs to be a spending limit. Her use of more than any candidate in the history of California is showing her buying this election. There is no way Mrs. Whitman wants to be the Governor of California, it seems to me she wants the be the CEO of California and get what she wants for the high class and the extreme wealthy. We need to stop Wall Street politics and get back to what the people of California want!

    Bauer Period 1 - AP Gov

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kaylanie L. Per.1 Mr. BauerSeptember 28, 2010 at 10:41 PM

    It is shocking that there are in fact all these candidates. I, as well as voters in my family, were only aware of the two named previously. I believe the reason being is that they simply have the means and the money to pay for pyblicity. As unfortunate as this may be, it is an ongoing accurance in politics today.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kevin would you be so kind to please tell me your reasoning behind supporting Meg Whitman. Your parents being Republicans is not the answer. My father is a very conservative Republican and I am a very liberal Democrat. So please give me one good example ad I will be happy.

    Follow up on Kevin Krivda's comment.

    Bauer Period 1 - AP Gov

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ashley Parker, Bauer P2September 29, 2010 at 12:03 AM

    If I were to choose, I would either go for Brown or Nightingale. I think they both want to help our government and all our issues. But my number one choice would be Brown. Even though I did not watch the debate, I think Brown has both media power and people like him. I like the fact that he has many things he wants to fix in California. And he is wayyyyyyy better than Arnold.

    ReplyDelete
  22. it is unfortunate that other canidates dont get the same oppurtunity as Brown and Whitman to debate topics adressing their campaign and California but those two are the real canidates for our state. to win elections like these you have to have a lot of money which Brown and Whitman have. i havent seen one TV ad mentioning any of the other canidates. it just goes to show you how what money can do for you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Everyone running for governor should have the chance to debate about issues that the people are concerned about. If the candidates don't have a lot of money for advertising this could be where they make their points and where they can try to persuade the people for their votes. Sloan p.3

    ReplyDelete
  24. I did not watch the debate so I didn't see what happened. I think that only having the two candidates running were the only one who should have been there because voters should focus on their views because they are the ones they are going to be voting. I would vote for Jerry Brown for governor because he is about the people. Jerry Brown also supports law enforcement, which is someting this state should not cut back on.
    Sloan p. 2

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well i did see the debat it was quite intresting to see what their responses were. Meg is not someone i will vote for. it is as if she were trying to buy her way in whih she has dione just soo. She has no political exp. But she does have exp. in finaces and that is a big plus but not enough to win me over. i believe Brown will have a better outcome if elected as govonor of california. Now as for the other canidits that did get to debate well you can't make everyone happy but it would have been nice for them to allow them to be there but not a chance.

    Gary Vasquez Mr.Bauer 3rd period

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maria Schmidt, Bauer, Per 5September 29, 2010 at 1:21 PM

    I believe that all of the candidates that are running for governor should have the chance to voice their positions and ideas to the public. The reason why only Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown were invited to the debate was because the majority of California only knows about them. The other four candidates most likely will not win, but they should still be able to voice their opinions. Based on the brief videos of the debate that we saw in class today, I would probably vote for Jerry Brown because he has much more experience.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think everyone running should get a chance in the debate. It may be a waste of time to some but it would change people's vote from a Republican to Democrat depending of the person's views.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Haley Neal Bauer per 1September 29, 2010 at 2:48 PM

    As a voter, it is more important to listen to the opinions of those who have a chance at winning. The public isn't hearing from the other candidates because in this election, their opinions don't matter as much. (I know this sounds bad; I don't mean to be rude! Their opinions DO matter but not in the sense that it will make them more likely to win) California citizens know the race is really only between Whitman and Brown. They are the only names anyone has heard of. Going to the debate probably wouldn't have helped much.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In my opinion the canidates not being invited should bea sign to them that nobody really cares except a small group supporting them, it is a waste of time to try and have a massive debate with canidates that have no realistic chance of winning. They only invite the two main canidates because thats who the majority of people care about.
    jake beilby
    sloan per 1

    ReplyDelete
  30. bauer 4th

    I belive the other 4 were not invited becuse they wernt funded as much and dont have as much support. being in a political pary is all about haveing a good reputaition and having the recorses for exploting that. in the county of america , people are republican or democratice and people like a 1 v 1 battle. people like choosing one or the other and my feel flustrated if there is 6 choses all on the air at one time. i also belive that non of the other 4 are going to win ebcuse i have never heard of any of them before outside of class.

    jacob farrar

    ReplyDelete
  31. I believe the reason they were not invited is because they did not have enough support to be significant. Contracting maybe .5% of the vote is not enough to get you televised because you obviously would not be elected anyways. However, i dont agree with that at all. I believe the real reaosn only Brown and Whitman were there is because they have money behind them. Whitman has her own personal fortune and Brown has the Unions behind his campain.
    I personally throw my support behind Chelene Nightingale. Not only is she conservative but she is pretty attractive. Well... she is waaaaay better than Whitman, anyways. I would vote for Chelene Fo Sho!
    Yes, i did watch the debate. I was surprised to see that Jerry Brown had been let out of his retirement home. I was equally surprised to see that Whitman was not wearing a leash. Yes, i do think people care too much about appearance. Many years ago it did matter because nobody saw those that were running; they simply heard them on the radio or from far off at a rally. Now candidates are constantly on TV and, due to our animalistic but totally natural and subcontious mental processes, we automatically like those who are more phisically attractive. It is a fact of our nature as human beings. No, i dont think it should affect our decision, but it is in our DNA to do that so it is unavoidable.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I meant to say it didnt matter what people looked like years ago when there was no TV. My bad.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I did not watch the debate but i think that anyone running for governor should be allowed a chance to tell others about what they represent and why people should vote for the. There may be two people already who have a much better chance at election than others, but that could change if more people where allowed on the debate. Some people may change their opinion, but the winner will still be chosen by the majority vote. So if people like what you represent, the will vote for you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Emily Staab Bauer Per 2September 29, 2010 at 6:19 PM

    None of the canidates really appeled to me. I think there is to much emphasis on image. I am always seeing commercials for Meg about how much money she has and the other say i heard that she wants to go into the job without owing anyone any money. As i am writing this, a Meg Whitman radio commercial comes on. All that is ever talked about during er commercials is how she is the CEO of eBay and how muh she can spend. She is tearing apart Jerry Brown's image by talking about all the things he has done in the past and talking about his physical appearance. I just don't get why they don't focus on the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Danielle Bulmer -- Bauer -- 4September 29, 2010 at 6:21 PM

    Well I feel bad because my comment is going to be short compared to everyone else but oh well... They only chose Whitman and Brown because they are the main candidates that the population cares about mostly; Democrat vs republican. Although I think I may vote for Carlos if I had the opportunity because his plan seems pretty decent and fantastic; however, I doubt he will be able to accomplish all that he promises if he were governor mostly due to the fact that the economy is terrible and CA is in the dumps and high up in debt.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I believe everyone that is running for governor should have been able to debate because it would have been fair. I think it was unfair that the other candidates didn't have a chance to speak out to the public.

    Jasmine Singh
    BAUER,Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  38. I Agree with Jasmine Singh.
    Everyone that was running for candidate should have competed with one another. It would be fair for all of them. It would be more Interesting to watch all the people that were running for Govt In CaliFoRNia.

    SANIA BACHA
    BAUER!
    P,3!

    ReplyDelete
  39. i think the people werent at the debate because they were just like a back up for governor. they had no chanceof winning against those two, but there still considered in the election because they are backup.
    kimberlie hernandez
    sloan
    period 4

    ReplyDelete
  40. The democratic and republican party are the powerful parties. Because of this other parties do not get much recognition. This is why they will not win or be invited

    Haran Piggee

    ReplyDelete
  41. This situation is similar to the presidential campaigns. There are more parties than just Democrats and Republicans, such as the Green Party. Democrats and Republicans have been the dominating forces, so those two parties have the most supports. The two parties also tend to be in the media more often, so therefore the United States population actually know about them. I was not aware of the three other governor candidates until I read this blog post. Sadly, this is because only Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman have been active in the media and on television and they catch my attention. People are not aware of the other parties which affects the lack of support for the candidates. Therefore, it would be difficult for any of the other three candidates to be elected. It would not be impossible, but it would be unlikely.

    Devin Smith, Mr. Bauer, P.1.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Carlos Alvarez actually appeals to me the most. At first, I was leaning towards Jerry Brown, but the ideas that Alvarez brings up on his site seem very interesting. I have always been a small supporter of socialist ideals and have believed that it socialism has many benefits to offer. I have also wondered whether or not a more leftist way of governing is what we need to fix the economy right now. So I would either vote for Alvarez or Brown in the upcoming election. I didn't watch the debate but would have preferred that the other candidates had the chance to speak.
    Conner Woods Bauer

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think its unfair that the other candidates they should of represented themselves more.To me Brown appeals more than whitman, i think that he knows more what he is doing and his job is while whitman isnt as educated as Brown.I didnt have a chance to watch the debate but i seen more information on brown so i would vote for him.


    tania hinojosa
    sloan p5

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nathalie Trevino; A. Bauer period1September 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM

    I wish the other candidates would have been able to voice their opinions on the issues facing California, I was completely unaware anyone else was even running and i'm sure i'm not the only one. Carlos Alvarez appeals to me the most, although he may seem a tad extreme his take on racism, and immigration is refreshing.His "people over profits" slogan spoke to me as well. I also love that he seems to be an everyday guy working at the grocery store, thats pretty cool too.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I watched a bit of the debate yesterday when I was at the gym, but I got bored. However, just from the short part I saw, Jerry Brown appealed to me more because he seemed more personable and likeable. I liked that he made his audience laugh several times, while staying serious about what he was doing.
    As for the other candidates not being included, politics these days is definitely for the rich, and those two bought the top spots. If you can't campaign and get your name out there, you're out.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Of the two main candidates, Jerry Brown appeals to me more because he seems to have good solutions to the current problems of CA based off what he said in the debate. I also like his view that immigrants that come to the U.S. and commit crimes should be deported. I also believe that Meg Whitman is simply trying to buy her seat as governor of California because of her emphasis on helping the upper class.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Josh Agans, Bauer P.5September 29, 2010 at 10:36 PM

    After watching some of the debate in class today, Jerry Brown was more appealing to me. He seemed like he actually had a plan and was going to actually get stuff done. He also has more experience than Meg Whitman so that gives him a bit of an advantage. I think the other candidates should have been invited to the debate though. Just because Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman are the two biggest parties, doesnt mean they already have it won. If the other candidates went to the debate they could have won some people over and got their votes. How could people vote if they dont even know the other 4 candidates? The voters should know about everyone in the race otherwise i dont think it is fair.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lourdes Godinez
    Mr Bauer Period 2

    From the video clips we watched in class, I would vote for Jerry Brown. Although his presantation wasn't the best, I personally liked his ideas better. I liked his plans on immigration and school expenses.
    I think the other candidates were not in this debate because they are kind of put to the side in the election. I think Whitman and Brown have the most potential in being govenor because they have campaigned the most. Therefore they have spent the most money.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Brian Magina, Sloan P.3September 30, 2010 at 12:18 AM

    Although I am a firm believer in everyone having a chance, I just do not believe, Cherlene, Dale, Laura, and Carlos have no chance in cutting it to be Governor. None of them seem to have the experience to be Governor of our econom-stricken state. If I were 18 I would vote for Jerry Brown, not only because it seems like he has more experience thatn Meg, but the way she spent the most money on her campaign just shows that she is not good with handling money.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I never got to see the debate... and considering that many people haven't seen the debate either will still vote based on things such as their websites. definitely the most appealing webdsite to me was megs because it was the most user friend with barely any words but still professional.

    ReplyDelete
  51. We have a two party system. Two parties have the money, so no one else has much of a chance, regardless of whether or not they are invited to televised debates. I'm going for Meg Whitman because many experienced political gurus have already tried to solve the fiscal problems of California, and now I would like to see what a business person can do.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Just like very one else said, we have the democratic and republican parties. therefore, no one else is known enough for the public to vote for. so even if they were invited to debate no one would pay attention to them, so why invite them to debate at all?

    ReplyDelete
  53. It's obviously known that those candidates who weren't invited to the debate were clearly shown to lose. Although, they should still be able to put themselves out there. I don't really care about politics as much because I don't have the interest in it. Therefore, I would be those individuals who wouldn't vote for others. Other individuals may vote for the new governor for the state I live in.

    Chrissy Vue
    Sloan
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  54. i think that meg whitman should be our next governer. she is a business woman and she can run the state like such. she made ebay a huge success and i think that she can do the same with california. she will hold people accountable for what they do. if things are late, such as the budget, she will make the people who were responsible for that have consequences, like any other business. she obviouslt knows how to work with people if she is in charge of such a huge company. i think she can improve californias economy.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I would definitely vote for Jerry Brown. He has helped California before and he can do it again. He isnt like Meg Whitman she things she is all powerful because she is with EBAY to me she is just like Arnold Schwarzenegger. She has the ebay thing that people know about so they will be drawn towards that just as Arnold was an actor and people chose him because of that. Thats why Jerry Brown should be governor because he knows what to expect. We dont want another Arnold do we?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think there's only two there because they have the greatest chance of winning. so Yes, it's mainly because the other don't have a chance. however, it's not right. All 4 should be there and they should all be given a chance even if the odds are against them.

    Daniel Ruiz
    Sloan
    govt, per. 5

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think the other canidates were not invited to the debate because they we not as popular Brown and Whitman. I think that Brown should be the next governor becuase he has the experience. Also, Whitman is not looking so good with the illegal immigration scandal.
    Erica Ayala
    Mr. Bauer
    Per. 4

    ReplyDelete
  58. The other candidates weren't invited to the debate because they're not of the parties that have the most power. And I didn't watch the debate, because I really don't care about government that much.

    Brian S.
    Per. 4

    ReplyDelete
  59. Alexis Watson Bauer 3September 30, 2010 at 4:16 PM

    Isn't our country a democracy to ensure equality? Shouldn't that apply to political candidates? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I think the other parties should have been able to debate they might not be popular but maybe they have some good points. If I were to vote I would vote for Meg Witman she seems to know what Californis needs. Sloan per 1

    ReplyDelete
  61. The reason why the other four candidates weren't at the debate was because they really don't have a chance at winning. I didn't even though that they existed until seeing the blog. They probably don't have the money nor experience that Meg and Jerry have to make themselves noticed to the public.

    If there was a choice between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, I would choose neither. This mainly has to do with their image. Although it shouldn't matter in electing, it does. Seeing the commercials I get the idea that Jerry Brown has no idea what he is doing, and that Meg Whitman has no experience to take such a job on her hands. In order to make a decision I have to get more properly informed.

    ReplyDelete
  62. MIRIAM BEJINES P.5 MR.SLOANSeptember 30, 2010 at 4:35 PM

    I didnt watched the debate but I think that the four candidates werent able to participate or win because they were not shared their opinions.The candidate that appeal to me is Carlos Alvarez because his party is about fighting for the rights of workers, which I think he would be a good governor.I will vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I did not watch the debate. I think the other four candidates weren't invited to show up because they do not normally have views to the same as the majority of people voting. I'm not sure who i would vote for governor because i don't really like one in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Hannah Engebretsen/Bauer P2September 30, 2010 at 5:17 PM

    I would vote for Meg Whitman, because in the debate she provided the most persuading evidence and support to her ideas. Jerry Brown is just getting old and needs to retire. I don't think he is qualified enough for the job anymore. He keeps rechanging his ideas and answers to questions that people ask him.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I believe that the other candidates were not in the debate because they are not known as much as Brown and Whitman are. Brown and Whitman have done much more campaigning. I would probably vote for Brown. His ideas sound better than Whitman's, especially the immigration idea.

    Melissa Quezada
    Mr.Bauer
    P.2

    ReplyDelete
  66. I agree that the other four candidates who weren't in the debate did not stand a chance to win because they are not recognized as much as the main two.
    I would vote for Jerry Brown because he seems more down to earth and like us, unlike Meg Whitman who seems to have a lot of things hidden about her.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I think that everyone should have the chance to debate because they may not have a chance of winning but they might have something good to say that could change everyone's thinking.

    Tori Milligan
    Sloan per.3

    ReplyDelete
  68. if i were to vote for a canidate i would vote for Jerry Brown. Even though i did not get a chance to watch the debate i still think jerry brown would be a better canidate. to me it seems that he cares about what the people want.
    monica salazar

    mr.sloan

    ReplyDelete
  69. In my opinion, I would vote for Jerry Brown, mainly because he has the experience, and what it will take. While Meg, on the other hand, in my opinion, doesn't know what it will take to be governer, I don't belive she even has an idea. Sure she has an online business but to me, that doesn't make her qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I think there may be too much emphasis on image, because all candidates simply bash one another instead of stating what they person stands for. However, scandels do affect voter's decisions. Right now, I personally won't vote for either major party candidate, because their image is appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  71. the dabate oviously was directed for the people to know more about the ideas of the two canidated who seem to have a greater chance at wining the election. on the contrary i belive that all the candidates should have had a chanse to speek about their views and goals. it is ovious that the ideas that the two canadadates hold are dominant and therfore they where selected to talk a bit more about what they whanted to achive as governor.
    Alondra Munoz
    sloan p.5

    ReplyDelete
  72. I belive that every candidate should have a chance to debate because the people of california need to see what their goals and plans as governer are. If they dont get a chance to debate then there is a less likely chance that they'l even come close to winning the election. I am undecided on who i would want as governor because jerry has the expercience but Meg is promising alot.

    Clarisa Carrillo
    Per.4
    sloan government

    ReplyDelete
  73. I believe that there were only 2 candidates at the debate because they represent a majority of the way that people vote because the other candidates seem to have more extremist views. Also, we have mainly a two-party system in the U.S. and so we focus more on the representatives from the Democratic or Republican parties. I think that the other four candidates would actually stand a much better chance of winning if they were featured in the debates, but no one really wants to watch 6 people debating all of their views for hours at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Image is a huge part in running for governor. The other candidates are simply not popular or "rich" enough to be invited to such debates. If they were so popular, people would throw a fit for only Brown and Meg being invited. This not being the case it is safe to say that image is key. As for who i would vote for is Brown simply because i don't like Meg... sorry to be blunt about it but do you relay want that face as our governor? Didn't think so. That and she should spend more time on talking about "her campaign" not attacking Brown.

    Michael Robles
    Bauer, period 3

    ReplyDelete
  75. If I could vote I would vote for Jerry Brown, because he has more experience, and seems like he would represent the middle class more. Rather than Meg Whitman who would help the upper class.

    -Ivan Cardenas
    Mr. Sloan Per.3

    ReplyDelete
  76. I agree with Mr. Robles that image has a big part in running for governor. People like to see the confidence that the person has to run as a governor. The other people are not noticed because they simply do not get their name out there. They may not have enough money to show advertisements. If people don't know who they are, then they wont vote for them. They weren't invited to the debate because they dont have a chance to win so its up to the people who are close to winning.
    Blake Harrison
    Bauer
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  77. Faye Roberson, Bauer, period 5September 30, 2010 at 8:05 PM

    I believe since those candidtes werent invited to the debates they have no chance in winning. Well they have a chance but not a very high one. Most candidates who arent televised dont get recognized or they are over looked.

    ReplyDelete
  78. karina ramos mr sloan period 1

    i would vote for jerry brown.i did not watch the debate.i would vote for jerry brown because i hear a lot of him and from him.i believe that image is more important. jus like meg an jerry they are the only ones that ive heard from not from the others.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Christina Luna
    A. Bauer
    P.1

    I agree with N.Trevino the other candidates should of had the opportunity to speak of their plans for California.

    ReplyDelete
  80. All the candidates deserved to have been able to debate. The people of California have a right to know the views of all of them, not just the ones who have a "greater chance." Alvarez appealed the most to me, since he's anti-racism and he's for the rights of workers. He is also against war and feels there needs to be full equality for all.

    Guadalupe Velasquez
    Sloan, Period 1

    ReplyDelete
  81. I think that either way we are screwed, if Whitman makes it we have a Republican governor with a Democratic majority in the legislature meaning Whitman won't sign any bills and legislature won't compromise and nothing will get done - like right now. If Brown wins although he did seem more charismatic at the debate he doesn't exactly have a track record of excellence - he sucked in the 70's so now when he is 72 he is supposed to be better? He was also the mayor of Oakland and well we all know how that turned out. The governor doesn't really have enough power to make a difference he doesn't make the laws the legislature does and people need to realize that. The only thing the governor can do is add pressure and that in reality really doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  82. It is only fair that all candidates should be able to debate with each other. The whole idea of Democracy revolves around fair and balanced elections.
    Even though the uninvited candidates may not currently have much chance against the two, them participating in a mainstream debate would help broadcast their ideas and make them just as widely known.

    Like others said before, there is too much greed for power in the candidates, displayed exceedingly by whitman

    ReplyDelete
  83. I think that Jerry Brown would have to be the one I would chose If i could vote the reason why is because is a person who looks and seems to have Experience and sounds like he could maybe make a change
    richard Manzo
    Mr. Sloan pr.5

    ReplyDelete
  84. i watched the whole debate and jerry brown portrays me as an idiot. He answered AROUND every question and i say around because he never directly answered a question. he spoke around it. and there was a time where he even scratched his head and said uh ya thats all. Even though meg w. said um and uhs she still had strong points in her debate.i dont understand why the others weren't included in the debate and i didnt even know there were others so they did a poor job of making themselves known.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Omar Delgado, per 4 sloanSeptember 30, 2010 at 8:57 PM

    well i watched the debate and the first thing i noticed is that they start off trying to charm the audience. both did this but brown not so much. whitmen rambled on alot. but they probably use this to buy time to think. either way i liked browns ideas better but also agree on lowering unemployment rate. mayb if they combined some of there ideas it would work better.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Richard May Mr. Sloan Per. 4September 30, 2010 at 9:05 PM

    I think that if these candidates are serious about winning they would fight for the chance to be at the debate. The candidates i believe don't think that they have a chance so don't really bother. There is a problem with image orver substance. Because jerry and Meg are from the major parties they get the most notice even though the other candidates may have a really strong foundation for running the state.

    ReplyDelete
  87. i think that all the candidates should have have the chance to be in the debate and have their voices heard. they could have had something really good to say. its not fair for them not to be included.
    erika oropeza
    mr.sloan
    p.4

    ReplyDelete
  88. Janeiry Balderas, Mr. Sloan, Period 4September 30, 2010 at 9:11 PM

    In California there are many problems and we really need someone to guide us in the right way and not bring us down like the Hollywood star that we have as a governor. It is really hard though to choose who one would vote for because there are various candidates. Though some may seem good (such as Meg) we do not really know if they will really help our state and most of all manage to go through with all the things that they promise. First of all personally i would not really choose any of them but if i had to i would choose Jerry. Yet i can not be certain since i did not watch the debate and did not get to see exactly what they believe and stand for. As for the other candidates they might not have been invited because they are not as controversial as Meg and Jerry.

    ReplyDelete
  89. California is not perfect in our government and candidates, but it is good. If I could vote I would vote for Meg because she had started with only a few people with E-bay but came out to hiring thousands of them. She would make a great candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I believe everyone should be able to debate even if they are not close to winning the election.To me, Jerry brown appeals more. Mainly because it looks like he has more experience in the government and knows how it works more than meg whitman.
    jose alvarez-sloan p.4

    ReplyDelete
  91. I think that the candidates from the other parties were not invited because they do not have a chance to win. Most people are Democrats or Republicans, and most people only care about the position of these two parties. Maybe if the other parties had more publicity more people would care; however, it is tough for them because they do not have many supporters so their funding is not as much. Because their funding is low they cant reach as many people; it is a cycle that keeps them down.

    Omar Hoyos
    Bauer

    ReplyDelete
  92. Kayla O'Hara Sloan p.5September 30, 2010 at 9:27 PM

    i think if there are more than those two canidates than all of them should be in the debates. any and all the debates.

    ReplyDelete
  93. i agree with josh. everyone running for office should get to debate. not just the two who have the advantage over the other "not so well known" candidates.

    jesse morales
    mr bauer
    per 3

    ReplyDelete
  94. Cierra Gonsalves, Mr. Bauer, Period 2September 30, 2010 at 9:41 PM

    Candidates such as Laura Wells, Dale Ogden, Chelene Nightingale, and Carlos Alvarez were probably not invited to the debate because not very many people know about them or what they represent. I believe that all of the candidates have a chance at winning, it all depends on how much effort they put into making themselves noticable to the people of California. If I had to vote, I'd choose Meg Whitman because she is the most knowledgable and doesn't beat around the bush when answering important questions.

    ReplyDelete
  95. PERSONALLY I BELEIVE THAT EVERY CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OF DEBATING. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MANY CANDIDATES LEFT I DISAGREE WITH ALL OF THEM. SOME OF THEIR VIEWS SOUND OKAY BUT THEN THE REST DO NOT MAKE SENSE AND DO NOT APPEAL TO ME. I FEEL LIKE THEY ARE LYING AND JUST SAYIN WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS TO HEAR IN CRISIS.
    DIANA REYES =]

    ReplyDelete
  96. If I could vote I would vote for Jerry Brown because he has more experience. He seems like he would represent the middle class more to. I think Meg Whitman would just help the upper class.
    Ricardo Rivera
    Bauer
    P.5

    ReplyDelete
  97. Only having the Republican and Democrat candidates’ debate is highly inequitable. It is proving that “money” is the ultimate advantage. On Laura Well’s website she says that she never takes corporate campaign contributions. Yet Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown have money out the you-know-what. Who got on T.V.? They did. It’s sad that today the people vote for the people just on T.V. or by their image. The voters do not take the time to find out who all the candidates are, nor do they research them! That is imperative for them to even make a smart decision. In reality, if a voter isn’t going to take the time to actually research the candidates, they should not vote. And we wonder why we have these politicians in office messin’ everything up. If we want a person to lead California or the nation in general in the right direction, the people need to stop being so stupid and do what they should be. Voting is a privilege and people need to be properly educated on what to look for when voting. People need to broaden their horizons on who they vote for too. I absolutely hate it when someone will vote for someone just because they are a democrat or republican. Just because they fall under that label, does NOT mean they will do well in office! And not every democrat is the same, or republican. Some support pro choice, some pro life, just as an example. It depends on the person and these political parties should not be a stereotype. I cannot even count how many times I’ve heard people say “Oh I’m not voting for him/her, he’s a democrat” or visa versa. What does that have to do with anything!? Can you back that up please on maybe what you don’t like about their campaign? Oh yeah that’s right, you didn’t take the time to actually research that. I think the big problem here is that America is LETTING these people not get the publicity they deserve. By us not demanding that, nobody pays attention to the problem. I think that if more Americans were responsible and strayed away from voting by party or image, and actually voted by substance of the candidates’ campaign that we would have a better government system.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I did not watch the debate but i think every person should get a chance to debate. They should at least be able to get their point out
    p.3
    Mr. Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  99. Alejandro Ibarra, (Mr. Sloan P.1)September 30, 2010 at 10:07 PM

    even though i did not watch the debate i do want to vote for carlos Alvares. To me he sounded like he wanted to help everyone in whole.In the campains he is said to have done it stats alot about helping workers, homeless, and stop racisim of all kinds. he also wants to help undocumented people who are often mistreated.To me this is something really important thats should be done and thats why i would vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  100. as was the issue in the former blog, california needs more jobs. i support meg in her effort to bring familes more security by getting parents back on a payroll. i liked the part where brown said he'd lower his salary and the salary of others by 18 percent. haha that's never going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Bryana Zamarripa Bauer p3September 30, 2010 at 10:12 PM

    i havent watched the debates and im not that into politics. as far as i know the debates are all about image and it influences a lot of peoples judgements.
    Bryana Zamarripa
    Bauer p3

    ReplyDelete
  102. I think that Jerry Brown would be a good person for California because he seems like a person who knows what he is saying . I also think that others should get the chance to do debate and be herd .

    ricardo villalpando
    Sloan pr.5

    ReplyDelete
  103. Sergio Maldonado, Sloan p.3/Bauer p.4September 30, 2010 at 10:18 PM

    The other candidates were not invited because there are two major parties(Democrats and Republicans) and the minor parties probably do not have enough support to win. None of the main candidates were appealing because they seem to try to put eachother down instead of explaining their beliefs and plans more.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I believe that all canadites, big or small, should have a fair chance to voice there opinions. It's unfair if someone has a more pull with the public, while others go without major media coverage. & I completely agree on what Brian said, that "the whole idea of democracy, revolves around fair & balanced elections".

    ReplyDelete
  105. Emily Geiszler, Bauer, Period 4September 30, 2010 at 10:44 PM

    All of the candidates should be able to participate in the debate so they all have a voice. In a perfect world, they all would get their opinions known. The reality is that usually only Republicans and Democrats are invited to these debates. Image impacts people's decisions way too much. I would probably vote for Meg Whitman based on all of the advertising the candidates are doing. Meg is the only one who I have seen anything positive about. There truly should be less emphasis on image and more on the platforms they stand for.

    ReplyDelete
  106. There is definitely too much emphasis on image and not enough on substance. Even though I didn't watch the debate, I did watch a fact versus fiction report on KCRA 3 on Wednesday night. I learned that while the statistics Meg Whitman said are true, they are deceptive. She stated that a specific type of crime nearly doubled during Jerry Brown's previous term as governor; however, she did not state that the OVERALL crime rate went down. News 3 mentioned a few more statistics like this. She also penalizes Jerry for raises that went through even though he voted against it. She says that she will cut legislative waste. What she doesn't understand is that she needs legislation to back her up, and that is not going to happen if she continues to slam them and the Democrats. At the end of the report, KCRA 3 posted an online survey of who viewers thought won the debate. 56% of voters say Jerry Brown, while the remaining 44% voted Meg Whitman. Even though I don't know who I would vote for if I could, I know it wouldn't be Meg Whitman. She didn't vote in the last 20 years of elections. Why? If she doesn't believe in our system, then why should she get elected into office by it? Even though Meg undoubtedly is a good business woman, I question her understanding of our government system. I like Kyle's response.

    ReplyDelete
  107. There is a reason politicians join political parties and a reason that politicians usually come from the upper class of our society: it takes a whole lot of money and publicity to win an election. Frankly, either Meg or Jerry will win because they are the most well known candidates. Why? Because the Democrats and the Republicans are huge organizations with loads of connections and money.
    Caleb Boyd
    Mr. Sloan
    Per. 2

    ReplyDelete
  108. Dominique Jimenez Sloan 5th.September 30, 2010 at 10:56 PM

    If i had to choose wich governor to vote for with these choices id choose jerry brown. Id choose her because she seems like shed be the better choice than all the others, and it seems like she would benefit more than the others running. The fact that at the debate jerry and meg were the only ones there is unfair to the others running, and the others did probably take that personal. i do believe there is too much emphasis on image and not on substance. Honestly, the two candidates with the flashy websites and sweet talk are obviously getting what they want and the others are just in the background and that's completely unfair to them.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Amanda Eckroth
    yes i believe that everyone should have the right to have a debate.. becuase if you dont then how do u know what person is stronger... i will like the pick the strogest person :) so let everyone debate now lol :)

    ReplyDelete
  110. mallory lemieux mr sloan pd4September 30, 2010 at 11:15 PM

    i wasnt able to watch the debatge but i do think that everyone should have the right to debate so they can appeal to the voters and tell the voters what they think should happen with the government. if i had to pick one canidate to win i would choose jerry brown, he seems like a cool dude.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Maria Perez
    Sloan
    Per:4
    I believe everyone has the right to think and vote for what they think is right for each of them. I also think that all the candidates shoudl have the chance to participate in the debate. In my opinion I would maybe vote for Meg Whitman because of her help to schools, which is an important topic for me.

    ReplyDelete
  112. The Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally one in the same. Both corrupt and at a disregard for what the people want. California hasn't come to this realization yet, but the rest of the nation has and that's why the Tea Party movement has gained so much momentum.(Sloan P.3/Bauer P.4)

    ReplyDelete
  113. kayla rodriguez sloan 5September 30, 2010 at 11:40 PM

    alll of the canidates that are running should be involved with the debate. its only fair to include them. when i occasionally listen to the radio, all i hear is meg whitman this and meg whitman that. the commercials are very appealing to our state economically. this is why i would vote meg. she knows what we need and how to get it

    ReplyDelete
  114. I was not able to watch the debate but i believe it would not matter if the other four took place in the debate or not. It always comes down to the top two people which are clearly meg and jerry. I really do not have a favorite out of the two because I dont know to much about either one I just know that there is always a top two and the rest usually dont have a chance.
    Spencer Pellandni
    Sloan
    P.1

    ReplyDelete
  115. I believe thatevery candidate should have been able to be included in the debate because this would hav gave each and everyone one of them a fair chance in this election.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Yes ryan dosnt think that those other canidants have a chance to win even if they did got to the debate they wouldnt win Thats just how it is. As for whos gonna be are governer and who ryan wants is jerry brown or CA is going to be the worst place to live. meg is not a canadite she is a bussness person bussness cant run a state she thinks shes all cool when ebay hit big but mind you ebay is a world wide site and not calirofna based yes she helped may get jobs but most of them are from other countries good job there meg your not going to win cause ur not fit for gov

    ReplyDelete
  117. Honestly I would just vote for the person that looks like they would be committed to the job and someone who will be a great governor.
    Sloan Period. 1

    ReplyDelete
  118. Chad Farris Period 4 - SloanOctober 1, 2010 at 7:19 AM

    The debate was between the 2 most well known candidates. All of them should have a chance to debate. They don't all need to be on TV, but available on the internet to be seen.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Jacqueline OlympiusOctober 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM

    Unfortunately, I was not able to watch the debate. I do believe though that it is not an issue of fairness as to why the other candidates didn't appear on TV as well. I believe, since most of our population is either democratic or republican, even if we did listen to the candidates from the other parties, it's still either going to be Whitman or Brown that's going to pull through. Knowing this, if it were up to me to decide to cast my vote between the two, I would definitely back Mr. Jerry Brown. It seems to me that we would be a better governor as he actually has more experience it politics instead of simply just business. Ebay is one thing, California is another. The two are completely non-related. Sorry, Meg Whitman.

    --Sloan
    AP Econ, Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  120. I didn't watch the debate, but I think that every candidate should be able to attend the debate and have their fair chance at winning the election. If I had to choose, I would probably choose Meg Whitman. Her commercials and statements on what she plans on doing seem appealing, but that doesn't always mean people are going to do what they say they're going to do.
    -Period 2 Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  121. Jacqueline OlympiusOctober 1, 2010 at 7:27 AM

    P.S.

    In addition, Jerry Brown is a family friend as he appointed my grandfather Victor Barrera to Municipal Court in 1979. I really would have no choice to vote in his favor. ;)

    --Sloan
    AP Econ, Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  122. I would probably want the republican candidate to win for governor because its always been in my roots to be a Republican. i think the most important thing for acandidate to win is to tell people and prove they will get California out of economic hardship.

    ReplyDelete
  123. The cinidate that apeals to me is meg whitman. she has a plan to bring jobs back into the state by bringing companies back in the state. I feel she also is not all about image which is exactly what we need in california.

    ReplyDelete
  124. The other 4 canidates were not allowed to the debate because they had no real chance of winning. The population that supports those parties are just way too small. If they were allowed to go to the debates it would just be a waste of their time and everyone else's.

    ReplyDelete
  125. As we have learned in class, some candidates simply have no chance in winning. Meg W. and Jerry B. are the only two candidates that matter because they are the only two with a chance of winning. Jerry Brown seemed easy-going whereas Meg seemed to be nervous. Jerry Brown has plans to create new jobs and Io believe would satisfy some of the needs of California. Vote Brown.
    Gabby Cello
    P.3
    Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  126. doesnt matter who wins our state gov is jacked up and they will have to have super powers to fix it
    jordan elzie per 2 sloan

    ReplyDelete
  127. I believe that everyone running for governor should have been able to debate because it would have been fair. I think it was unfair that the other candidates didn't have a chance to speak out to the public and have their chance.
    amanda hommond
    mr.sloan per1

    ReplyDelete
  128. All of the canidates should of been there, but the ones with the money get to be publicized.
    Forrest Macdonald

    ReplyDelete
  129. I lean more to the Meg Whitman side because of her outlook on things, but at this point no mater which of the two wins matters anymore. Cal is sunk and is not going to get better by ether of the two. Are real problem at the moment is are presidential party. Nothing Meg Whitman can do will combat with this.
    Michael Freeman

    ReplyDelete
  130. id like to see what meg whitman can do about the financial state we are in. since she has a history in business maybe she has the knowledge to help clean up the mess.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I believe that everyone that is running for governor should be at the debates because they all should have the equal amount of chances to tell what they wanna say. it shouldn't matter how much money you have or whos campaign is bigger but the individual that presents themselves the best.
    also, i did watch part of the dabates and i believe meg Whitman did do a better job at answering the questions but she seemed very fake. her smile urked me.. haha
    VICTORIA CHARLES
    A.BAUER
    ECON
    P.2

    ReplyDelete
  132. The candidate that appeals to me the most would have to be Jerry Brown, and this is because i know the most about him and his ethics appeal to me. Meg Whitman seems like she doesn't know what she is talking about and also that she would be a corrupt governor. This thought was given to me when i saw that she had hired a illegal immigrant as a house keeper. she must have known that it was an illegal immigrant because of the letter that was sent to her in 2003 saying that the housekeeper used a fraudulent social security number. it seems like Jerry brown really knows what hes talking about and i would give him my vote if i had one to give.

    Mr. Bauer
    Economics
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  133. Luis Anguiano
    Mr. Bauer
    Period 2

    I did not watch the debate but in my thought i think that meg whitman is the best governor for california because of the way she has been saying how she will make califonia a better place

    ReplyDelete
  134. I saw the debate, and i think that Meg Whitman is trying to make Jerry Brown, look really really bad. She insists in blasting him on things he did in the past, and on all the errors he commited when he was previously governor. Also, Meg Whitman tries to crticsize his image, which is a good tactic, but it makes her look bad. I honestly think each candidate of every party should be eligible to participate in these debates, but that is never the case. Although maybe the other candidates have some really good points, they will never have a chance to express themselves, or sell themselves to the people of the state of California.

    Stephanie Romero
    Bauer
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  135. i think there is too much emphasis on the image of the politicians. whenever the commercials pop up o the tv the politicians are always trying to show how much better they are than the other opponent. I think that the other canidates for govenor are not going to have a chance at participating at such things such as debates becuase their image isn't as highly vauled as the other more popular canidates.
    katey santillan
    bauer p1

    ReplyDelete
  136. I think that each candidate should get a chance to debate to show themselves and their points of view. Although Meg and Jerry are much more advertised, I think that the others might been able to change the minds of some people. Overall I think that Meg and Jerry will be voted for much more than any other of the candidates.

    Melody Morphis
    Mr. Sloan
    per. 1

    ReplyDelete
  137. Bryana Zamarripa Bauer p3October 5, 2010 at 5:19 PM

    i didnt watch the dabate but i think that everyone was too focused on image. the candidates were just telling eachothers secrets to make them look bad. i dont think that its fair that the other candidates didnt even get to speak just because they dont have the money to be noticed.
    Bryana Zamarripa
    Bauer p3

    ReplyDelete
  138. the candidate that appeals to me the most is Meg Whitman. In the debate she constantly attacks Jerry Brown for all the ,istakes he committed in the past. I honestly do not like any of them, but one of them will be California's govenor. The other candidates should have gotten the chance to participate in the debate. I would have liked to here what they had to say about many things. When i read the articles about them it did not make them seem as strong as Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I think that all candidates running should get the opportunity to speak at the debates. It could give them the chance to persuade people to vote for them. If I were to vote for any of the candidates it would be Jerry Brown because i feel like he has good ideas and could really be a change for California.

    Chelsea Ray
    Mr. Sloan, p.1

    ReplyDelete
  140. I think every candidate should be able to debate. Not just because one is more popular than the other. The other candidates should be able to debate to let the voters know what they are about.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Gerardo Salcido
    Bauer/P.5

    I think Brown should be the next governer because i liked what he said in the debate about several issues and i think he could fix California

    ReplyDelete
  142. i think from my point of view that Jerry Brown would be a better governor then Meg Whitman because he has once been a governor and has more experience in it. In my opinion Meg Whitman is more about the fame then anything else and i think she has a lot of things to say but when i comes down to the moment of actually doing something she is only going to freeze up and actually have a negative effect on the econ. I don't think all the candidates should have a part because one, it would take way to long and in other points they aren't that strong in there position because of what they want to do! We need someone that has power and is not afraid to mess up, someone that will never give up for his fellow American citizens!
    Mr. Bauer
    Per. 5
    10-5-10

    ReplyDelete
  143. Meg Whitman is all money and no change. Jerry Brown all the way.

    Victoria Turney
    Bauer 1st

    ReplyDelete
  144. I agree with what most people said. The other candidates may have not made it to the top two election spots because of various reasons. One could be the strength of their campaigns, how much was put into them, and their popularity. Just now as I am posting, both a Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman campaign have been advertised. I have seen nothing of the other candidates.
    I also believe that we are a society based on image. Meg Whitman comes off as a fake, and Jerry Brown comes off so old and decrepit, why let him in office? Our candidates images are horribly reflected, especially in each others campaigns. It is the perfect example of politics.
    If all candidates in a race had the same amount of influence, then we would most likely see more campaigns and more debates. More so, we may overlook images and focus on who presents the stronger case.

    ReplyDelete
  145. The other candidates were not invited because they were not wealthy enough i think. Me personaly, i would vote for jerry brown because he seems like a nice guy. The other candidates probaly didnt had any chance of winning.
    Jonathan Ramos
    Per.2
    Mr. Bauer

    ReplyDelete
  146. The race for political office has gotten ridiculous in my opinion. No one knows what anyone stands for, but simply supports them because of their political party, or because they have had less opportunity to do bad things than the other. The TV ads are simply painful to watch, as it seems all the candidates are bad people, not because of their slander, but because of what they say about others in the race. I finally am able to vote in this coming election, and I'm starting to feel like I'd be better off voting on just this issues, and not the politicians.

    Sasha Schotzko-Harris
    Bauer p1

    ReplyDelete
  147. A known politician has a great chance to become elected. I believe that these two candidates reaped the benefits of flooding the media with their face. Most people now know of them and thus are more likely to be invited to the debate. I know meg has been campaigning for a while now.


    I am personally most likely going to vote for Chelene when the election comes around.

    Caleb Newman

    ReplyDelete
  148. To be frank...Meg Whitman...has got it goin on. She knows how to do business and improve that business. Who's to say she cant do the same thing as governor. Its the same animal, just different stripes.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Lucero Cardiel. Mr. Bauer 3rd periodOctober 6, 2010 at 8:59 PM

    The issue on image has been around for many years. I don't think it will ever change because humans just think a certain way. Meg Whitman caught my attention and I was on her side. One of the big reasons is she's a woman and she has tons of information out there about herself. However, a recent incident happened that changed Whitman's campaign. She had an illegal immigrant in her home for 9 years. She would mistreat the poor maid. This made me go towards Brown.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Spencer PellandiniOctober 6, 2010 at 9:44 PM

    I believe there will always be to much emphasis on how good the politicians look. The only thing they do is try to make eachother look bad in adds and make their image look perfect. They only want to let the people know how much money they can save and how good they are with distributing money. They can never just be straight shooters and for this fact the much smaller canidates never have a chance against the known canidates. Their image does not hold a big enough background for anyone to look at them closely.
    Spencer Pellandini
    Sloan
    P.1

    ReplyDelete
  151. I think I would probably vote for Meg Whitman. It "seems" like she knows what she is talking about, yet at the same time I’m not sure if I believe the same things she does. In the debate her strategy appeared to be putting Jerry Brown down, that seemed to be her main focus. I say id probably vote for Meg Whitman, however I don’t think e either one will do a very good job as our governor.

    ReplyDelete
  152. i think that they dont get invited because they aren't part of one of the two bigger parties. they should get better advertising so people know wo they are

    ReplyDelete
  153. I think that the other candidates deserve a chance to debate their ideas publicly because it would be possible that it would change the minds of many people.Although, because Meg and Jerry are well advertised, the other candidates won't be much competition.I don't know who I would vote for.

    Melody Morphis
    Mr. Sloan
    per. 1

    ReplyDelete
  154. I posted on this on Sunday I think but it hasn't showed up so I just posted again.

    Melody Morphis
    Mr. Sloan
    per. 1

    ReplyDelete
  155. Justin Tyler, Bauer, P.3October 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM

    I feel like Meg is trying to hard to boost her image rather than really back up what she says. I think that Brown has an advantage considering that he has done this before and he seems to have a good solid plan that will help Americans. I fel that it was wrong to only invite these two parties to the debate because now no one knows what the other canidates have to offer which is not fair.

    ReplyDelete
  156. The governor that appeals to me the most is Jerry Brown, he did a good job in Oakland back in the day and I think still can do good job.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I believe that all of the candidates that are running for governor should have the chance to voice their positions and ideas to the public. The reason why only Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown were invited to the debate was because the majority of California only knows about them. The other four candidates most likely will not win, but they should still be able to voice their opinions. Based on the brief videos of the debate that we saw in class today, I would probably vote for Jerry Brown because he has much more experience.
    Stephanie Arredondo
    Mr.Sloan
    Per.4

    ReplyDelete
  158. I really liked wat Carlos Alvarez ideas and beliefs. I believe he will be a great if he won the election. I think the everyone puts too much into voting for members in the two parties(rebublican and democrat) just as Jimmy said.it would b nice if we mixed it up and give one of the other candidates a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  159. i dont even think they should aloow them to run because there just a waste of votes. whos really gonna vote for them? people kno there not gonna win because there mortly the hippie group.

    ReplyDelete
  160. I think that the other candidates were not in this because they were not as poplar as the others and they did not have enough otes and were not close to wining if they were involved, but it would be nice if they were in because it would give them a cahnce to express themselves and maybe that would make a big change in peoples minds and a change for themselves as well.

    ReplyDelete
  161. I believe its pretty unfair for the other four candidates..they really had nooo chance compared to brown and whitman.. ive definetely never heard of any of their names before..if they're going to be in the running they should be given an equal opportunity so voters can truly know they are voting for the best candidate in their opinion.

    Danielle Barros
    Sloan p.4

    ReplyDelete
  162. enrique salazar sloanper5December 15, 2010 at 3:43 PM

    the reason there were only two candidates standing is because theyre the representatives of the two major parties; democratic and republicans

    ReplyDelete

All comments will be reviewed before they are published. Make sure to leave your name to receive credit.