Com. Sokolowski and I exchange as follows:
____________________________________________
> California Secretary of State's office reports about 8.3
> million votes cast this election versus 7.6 million last election
(which
> represented a record low turnout in a California gubernatorial
election,
> according to the Mercury News). There were 7.9 million votes on
question 1
> anyway and I am guessing about 7.5 million on question 2. The final
numbers
> will be larger , I think.
The numbers you presented did not show that - I summed the votes distributed by various candidates and they added up to the 7.4 million figure. What happened to the "missing" 0.9 million votes who reportedly cast their votes? ___________________________________________________
My numbers were obviously raw. You can refer to the site at http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov and go to the historical numbers from the front page as well. It really does seem, by the way that the numbers for total votes are always higher than the numbers for votes cast on any particular question and by a margin that I find surprising - on a first appraisal, anyway.
Exchange continues: _________________________________
> Davis got fewer votes in
> 2002 than there were "No" votes on the recall, you'll note.
That does not surprise me. I think a more meaningful comparison is between Bustamante in 2003 and Davis in 2002, because they can be thought of as votes cast for a Democrat in both elections (since unlike the Repugs, Democrats put all their eggs in the Bustamante's basket in 2003). And that shows that Dems lost about 1.1 million votes between 2002 and 2003. ______________________________________
I really disagree with you on this. Bustamante and Davis ran largely competitive campaigns. That was clear from the first. "No" on the recall is what Davis campaigned for. Bustamante was a largely orphaned candidate.
Com. Wojtek continues: _____________________________________
With that in mind, the question is whether these 1.1 vote "switch" is an expression of political discontent, or infatuation with celebrity. I think it is the latter, at least in the great majority of cases. That is to say, everything else being equal, if Schwartz were running as Democratic replacement of Davis, the Dems would have won, if he was running as a Libertarian or Green, CA would now have a Libertarian or Green governor.
I am fairly certain that the great majority of U.S.-ers are fundamentally incapable of any rational thought when facing a celebrity. _________________________________________
Okay, if the Democrats had been smart enough to run, say, Tom Hanks, I think they would have had a better chance, but by no means a lock. Being the chosen candidate of your party is really the most important kind of celebrity when it comes to elections. Dick Reardon (former Mayor of L.A. - I didn't remember) pointed out that Arnold polled 22% in the beginning and ended up with 48%. Maybe a good part of that 22% was celebrity but let's look at the reaction to the porno star. Mary Carey was easily the most mentioned alternative candidate and she only got about 11K as I remember. If this election skewed so male and dumb, why didn't a big-breasted woman who puts out poll higher?
Frankly, comrade, I am hearing this "celebrity" thing as sour grapes. My friend in the California Teachers' Association is taking this line and, while I understand her disappointment, I don't agree. I think the predominant factor was the abject failure of DLC politics. Factoid: Arnold plus McClintock got nearly as many votes (4.7M) as Davis got in '98 (4.85M) when he blew away a weak Republican by 20 points. Next fact: Davis lost roughly 1.4 million votes between '98 and '02 when he ran against yet another Republican idiot. Then if we take your numbers we add another million votes to the loss a year later. That is a total reversal of a 20 point mandate in five years.
Com Woj continues: ________________________________
On the related subject - your comments about beating the Repugs inside the Democratic party were brilliant. Could not agree more and already sent my 2 cents do Dean. _______________________________
You're too kind but I think it's a good choice. Listen, I swore in '94 that I would not vote for another Democrat for President until the DLC was dead. I have voted independent parties since then. I desperately want to vote for a guy who can beat Bush but I have to keep my oath. For me, that means it's Dean, Green or Libertarian. The Greens are largely idiots and the Libertarians are kooks but I simply can't vote for DLC politics. Al Gore, the 2002 elections and Gray Davis show me that the potential failures are just too huge and too dangerous.
We must kill DLC politics. There is a moderate, trustable, ideologically consistent line that Democrats can stick up for without being crypto-progressive or crypto-conservative. Dean has not quite expressed it - yet - but at least his thinking is on the right track and he is not poisoned by the personal agendas of Clintonistas
peace,
boddi _____________________________