Bigger surprise: Prop 37 or Drudge fail?

11/07/2012 01:41:00 PM
Tom Karst

National Editor Tom KarstPerhaps the biggest shocker on election night wasn't the fact that the Drudge Report's mojo for Mitt Romney failed to materialize in the popular vote.

From checking in on Drudge daily for the past month, I was sure that his collection of headlines pointed to an ultimately decisive Romney win. Not even remotely true. The Politico Election site has all the unvarnished details about presidential and Congressional contests.

If I was surprised Mitt didn't have a stronger showing, I was even more shocked that left-leaning California voters defeated Prop. 37, a ballot measure that would have called for labeling of biotech food at retail.

A great debate on Prop 37 can be found at the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group.

The topic has generated a lot of passion leading up to the vote, and the recriminations after the election are just as juicy.

Why did prop 37 lose?

 From the Cornucopia Institute:

Sacramento, CA -- After a deluge of allegedly misleading advertisements paid for in large part by pesticide and biotechnology corporations, California voters defeated Proposition 37, which would have given them the right–to-know whether the foods they buy at the grocery store contain genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs).

TK: As much as Monsanto is again the "bad guy," It is interesting that some organic purists are knocking the resolve of Whole Foods to join the fight.

Later in the release.....

Meanwhile, some corporations that should have stepped up to the plate gave token contributions at the eleventh hour. Whole Foods, a corporation with net sales as high as Monsanto’s—both have approximately $11 billion in annual sales—contributed a mere $25,000, just two business days before the election, Cornucopia noted in its research. On the other hand, Monsanto contributed $8,113,000 to the "No on 37" campaign effort.

"Had we seen the same level of enthusiasm for consumers’ right-to-know from Whole Foods as we saw against the right-to-know from Monsanto, the playing field would have been more level, and the misleading information spewed by giant corporate agribusinesses would quite possibly not have prevailed on election day,” said Kastel. "Meaningful participation from Whole Foods could have been a game changer."


Prev 1 2 Next All


Comments (7) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

JoAnne Lingo    
Pauma Valley, CA  |  November, 07, 2012 at 04:29 PM

Monsanto contributed $8,113,000 to defeat Prop 37-no surprise there. Whole Foods rakes in the same amount in net sales yearly as Monsanto-a bit surprising. Whole Foods contributed a mere $25,000 two business days before the election-SHAMEFUL!!!

Steve Savage    
encinitas ca  |  November, 07, 2012 at 09:58 PM

it seems that the california electorate didn't like something designed to be enforced by lawsuits and which had inexplicable exemptions. Maybe they are smarter than the prop 37 folks would care to admit

LARRY VLASSOFF    
SAN DIEGO CA  |  November, 08, 2012 at 03:13 PM

While both candidates were vague on issues, Obama's position was consistent while ROMNEY'S consistently changed. Leaders are supposed to be ROLE MODELS. Romney's lies were so obvious and blatant to the last one -JEEP JOBS TO CHINA - EVEN WHEN IT DIDN'T MATTER, lying to lie- what kind of confused person is this. Certainly not a leader to be admired or to hold up to your kids as a role model. President of the USA sets a higher bar. The benefit is a role model, a trusted gentleman. I saw a vote for Romney a vote for not only the good Republican baggage but the worst of dirty politics Carl Rove super-packs, attempts at voter fraud to limit voter rights. Obamacare can now be continued and corrected and improved and people not socialists can benefit. The REPUBLICAN party will dissolve if it continues to force members to continue the misguided ideological tract they perused last term. See the loss of disgruntled members. We didn't hire a congressman to subjugate themselves to a rigid party line, though the party wants this. We don't elect a party, political parties are not on ballots. We hire a variety of hopefully divers individuals who represent the country's diversity.

John    
Chelan County Wa.  |  November, 09, 2012 at 04:40 PM

The same people who believe that our conventional food supply is poisoned by Monsanto also believe that organics are grown without the use of "chemicals". There is no benefit from having elected a tool of the extreme left. To re-elect the man Will assure the death knell of our Representative Republic. The Senate has broken the law by refusing to pass a budget during the last four years. The 2010 House presented budget proposals that were simply ignored by the Senate and the president.

Sam Adams    
Caluifornia  |  November, 09, 2012 at 08:45 PM

The same non-thinking crown that voted for Obama was easily swayed by the 2d grade arguments against prop 37. The historic USA is dead. Long live our new loser society!!!

Paul    
Washington  |  November, 10, 2012 at 08:21 AM

Larry- Keep drinking the Kool-aid. If you want to talk about honesty, let's start with Benghazi and the cover-up by the Obama administration. It is disgusting that they let our American diplomats get murdered.

Thomas P Redick    
STL MO  |  November, 12, 2012 at 03:36 PM

Whole Foods Markets did nothing shameful but was correct in expressing misgivings over government intrusion on a well-ordered NonGMO marketplace, and the "zero tolerance" standard for GM content, which is commercially impossible to attain (i.e.,, test every bean seed and they are not viable seed but mostly meal!). WFM caved in to irrational activists in the end, but fortunately too late to do itself massive economic harm. Thank goodness California voters were too smart to be fooled by the "GM free organic" lies told in the FAQ for Yes on 37!

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight