Why the recall does NOT bode well for Republicans.

[Sean Reynolds]

I know many people here at DU believe now that California has a Republican governor they have a better chance of swinging that way in 2004. I do not see it that way, in fact I truly believe that this does not bode well for the Republicans because it shows a large anger in the citizens from the established political system. Today California voters did not vote for a Republican mandate - they voted for a change in the process of how the political mechanics work.

People voted for Arnold because he offered that change. They didn't see that 'R' by the name and I can tell you that if this were a Republican incumbent the Democrat probably would have won. With that said, Bush is in trouble.

California voters were sick of the established candidate, horrible economy, and huge deficit. How does this compare to the national stage? Well many people are sick of the established candidate, horrible economy, and huge deficit. When 2004 rolls around, the Democrats can use the same ploy the Republicans used to oust Davis -the lack of leadership of President Bush; the lack of handling of the economy and large deficits. When Californians go to vote in 2004, it will not matter that their governor is Republican - it WILL matter however that their president has ignored the problems that have continued to plague the country.

It is my belief that in 2004 California will go to the Democratic nominee, in a landslide.

[Cha]

1. Sounds Good to me, Sean!

It's not over yet!

[unfrigginreal]

2. Only if the Democratic nominee is "seen" as a real change.

Agree with your assessment.

[YourDad]

3. no you're wrong

the election was rigged. what it shows is that the votes of the people were tossed out and the rigged electronic voting booths put a republican in office. you can't say the election results say anything because they are false results.

[meisje]

5. it was not rigged, get a grip

Davis and the dems lost because they are a total failure and CA wanted change.

[Terran]

7. A lot of people are saying that

but where is the evidence? I keep hearing folks here just repeating and repeating that charge as if that will make the argument, but so far no one has any evidence of it. I'll believe that when I see it.

[fizzana]

8. Only one county with a sizeable population in Calif uses

the electronic machines & that is Alameda county. Los Angeles, which has by far the biggest population still uses good old punch cards.

This was all about Davis being a weak and complacent governor and an even worse candidate.

[spooky3]

4. Interesting points. I also think it's interesting that

the most Bush-like candidate, McClintock, got less than 15% of the vote.

Is anyone else surprised by the low turnout? As I understand it only about 8 million out of more than 20 million registered voters voted. But all day the media were reporting a high turnout.

[corporalclegg9]

6. Yes, look at New York

New York is one of the more liberal states out there, but for some reason has elected Pataki a number of times. In some respects, Pataki fits a similar political mold as Arnold, i.e. he's more of what I'll call a traditional fiscal conservative. They are Republican in that they are pro-business, small government supporters, but that's basically their platform. I don't suspect that Arnold or Pataki are going to start passing laws restricting civil rights, and I don't suspect that they are going to start engaging in preemtive war against unfriendly states.

My basic point is that I don't find it inconsistent for an everyday American to support a fiscally conservative yet relatively socially liberal governor and then be against Bush, because Bush is NEITHER fiscally conservative or socially liberal.

[fizzana]

9. I agree

This was more about getting rid of the establishment and you don't get more 'establishment' than the current White House.

[rasputin1952]

10. AS is going to fall flat on his face...

He still has to deal with a Dem CA gov't, and NOTHING of sunstance can be done without theri help.

CA has problems because CA'ians have not come to the reality that to provide services costs $, and if you cut off all of income to the state, your going to starve it. That is the crux of the situation.



No one 'likes' to pay taxes. But taxes are what keep available the services we've come to depend on. People tend to forget, or rather ignore, that reality. When their house burns to the ground, or when they have a heart attack and can't get an ambulance, or the burglar feels free to run rampant around the neighborhood, people will start to realize just what their tax money pays for.

If there was any seriousness to GOP positions on taxation, they would begin by investigating white collar crime. For every dollar that is being taken by a social service recipient unlawfully, ten is absorbed by white collar criminals. Davis was not the cause of CA's economic problems. CA's economic problem are multi-fold; from Enron ripoffs, to bad tax policy and Federal aid, the problems in CA are a case study in bad policy, and not enough enforcement against those that would suck the life out of the state.

AS cannot stop this, he is a fantasy character, just like Reagan was, and his weaknesses will show up quickly.

:kick: