[lbo-talk] Myth Making on Schwarzenegger's victory

Joseph Wanzala jwanzala at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 13 15:56:48 PDT 2003


Writing from California, I find Boddi's insights on the California recall, and its national implications to be right on. Schwartzeneggers victory was an opportunistic infection that took advantage of the malaise of the Democratic Party in California. Gray Davis was a singularly uninspiring figure who managed to alienate even most members of his own party, few of who he was on speaking terms in Sacramento. Davis created a leadership vacuum in California and Schwarzengger was a cypher to which many Californians could attach their vaguely defined sentiments of apathy towards the Democratic Party in general. The Democrats had complacently assumed that their control of all state-wide elected offices, their overwhelming majority on the voter rolls (a 1.5 million more registered Democrats than Republicans) and general anti-Bush (ergo anti-Republican) apathy would win the day and they did not feel an obligation to make any genuine efforts to inspire and mobilize their base. As Boddi correctly points out, the Schwartnegger juggernaut triangulated them back. If the recall has told us anything, it is that it is time for the Democrats to jettison the DLC/Clintonista miliue. Arnold is also in a very strong position as he won a majority vote in most districts controlled nominally by Democrats, so legislators will have to at least appear to be pandering to him to appease their constituents. Incidentally, he has included many prominent Democrats, e.g. Willie Brown, barely recovered from the 'stop the recall' hustings, on his transition team.

Joe W.


>From: "boddhisatva" <boddhisatva at netzero.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Myth Making on Schwarzenegger's victory
>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:55:14 -0700
>
>
> After he and I looked at the same Washington Post exit poll, Comrade
>Geboski suggested that I was wrong to think that Scwarzenegger won the
>female vote (which he did). He then writes:
>
> > "Look at the exit poll data, sent on the list yesterday. There is a
>gender
> >gap on the recall vote--for the non-party affiliated ("independent").
>There
> >were still a lot of women voting for Arnold, but the gap would have
>knocked
> >down the recall--if the Democrats could have gotten their party vote
> >together."
>
> The recall WON among women, despite the gender gap, and let's remember
>that around 400,000 "no" voters on question 1 had to have voted for
>Republicans to make the numbers come out. Possibly, better Democratic
>turnout could have beaten the recall AMONG WOMEN but Arnold would almost
>certainly have won question 2 AMONG WOMEN, as the L. A. Times poll tends to
>confirm.
>
> Comrade Geboski writes:
>
> >>"What won for Arnold and the Repugs was truly impressive Republican
>solidarity. They got their vote out (it all but matched the Dems, who lead
>in actual registered voters) and, when they voted, they voted party line
>(88-12 on the recall)."
>
> I am surprised that there were 12% "no" votes among Republicans.
>
> C. Geboski continues:
>
> >>"The recall vote data show that, if the Dems had pulled out more voters,
>or if the party stood for something enough so that their own members
>wouldn't defect from them, or both, then the recall would have failed and
>Arnold would be irrelevant."
>
> Let's remember that the recall and Arnie both won among union
>households. The defection was massive in '03 and it was on top of massive
>defection in '02. Gray Davis and the California Democrats managed to
>completely reverse a gubernatorial mandate in five years.
>
> Com. G. says:
>
> >>"The exit poll data don't show breakdowns for candidates by sex, only
>for
>the recall. And if the party affiliation data were broken out--well, I
>suspect that you would see a large gender gap in the Gropenfuhrer vote."
>
> There was a gap, but it was obvious even from the Washington Post poll
>that Arnold had to have won women. Now the LA Times confirms for us that
>there was a gender gap and that Arnold crushed Bustamante among female
>voters by ten points.
>
> Next:
>
> >>>"Also, the Gropenfuhrer had huge negatives (45%) for a "winning"
>candidate. Of course. Davis and Bustamante were over the top that's over
>the
>top. But I still wonder whether Arnold could have won a real November
>election over a long campaign one-on-one against a Democratic challenger.
>
> >>>A very important thing to keep in mind: This was not a gubernatorial
>election. It was a referendum on Davis and a truly mad process for filling
>the vacant seat.
>
> >>>All this assumes that the Repugs would not have stolen a close vote,
>which I strongly suspect they were set up to do."
>
> Three myths in one! First, Arnold ran as a front-runner the whole time
>(clearly his polling was very good). That basically means you shut up,
>smile at the cameras, sit on your positives and figure that the best
>strategy is to lose votes slowly because there is not enough time for the
>trend to hurt you. A frontrunner strategy always makes the candidate
>appear
>weaker over time. In fact, it killed Al Gore.
>
> Second, this election was a LANDSLIDE WIN for the Republicans -
>LANDSLIDE
>WIN. If this had been a gubernatorial process and Arnold had won the
>primary, McClintock would not have been in the race. If you think that
>Bustamante was going to make up 25-30 points if the race had been longer,
>well...think that, but it's a myth.
>
> Finally, it's wasn't a mad process. It was a rational, legal process
>that other California governors have survived many times. We have such a
>process in Washington state and I, for one, wish all states had it. Again,
>either you generate turnout in elections or you get turnout in recalls.
>(Also, California history suggests that it was much more likely that
>Democrats would have been the ones to use dirty tricks in a close vote.)
>
> I think Democrats who do not take the California election seriously (as
>they do not) are setting themselves up for an absolute beating on par with
>Labor's victory over the Tories in England. Gray Davis was a typical
>triangulating, "centrist" Democrat who thought life was great because
>Republicans tend to be dominated by their ideological base. He beat two
>TERRIBLE Republican candidates, but now we see the potential of a
>traingulating Republican. We've already seen that potential in New York
>state, New York City and New Jersey - not to mention neo-libertarian Jesse
>Ventura in Minnesota. Those were all "blue" states, kids.
>
> While DLC Democrats are fretting about the possibility of liberals'
>polarizing the electorate, Republicans are waking up to the fact that,
>after
>working hard for decades to polarize the electorate in their direction,
>they
>may now have the greater claim to the "center". It's a prospect I find
>very
>disturbing.
>
> peace,
>
> boddi
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list