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