The recall was not a repudiation of the Democratic Party

[Fight_n_back]

It was a repudiatin of a Governor with the worst negative ratings in the history of American politics. Worse than Nixon after he lost to Pat Brown.

Arnold would not have won the Republican nomination. This is actually good for some social issues. Things like choice and gay rights. The Republican party is about to go through a purge like the one that hamstrung the Dems in the 80s.

This is both a fluke and a pattern. The fluke is a ready made publicity machine in Arnold and the pattern is one of complete disgust with business as usual. It did not start today but with Perot and then Ventura.

Lets just hope that a REAL populist steps forward. Fake populists often end up being like Ah Nold's child hood hero.

Optimism always

[E_Zapata]

1. I have to disagree.

The recall action began right after that alleged horrible governor was fairly and freely elected by a majority of voters.

The entire affair is a subversion of democracy.

[Fight_n_back]

3. One has nothing to do with the other

you aren't really disagreeing with me because I didn't comment on that. He wasn't popular when he won reelection (and it wasn't a majority but a plurality).

[E_Zapata]

9. Then you are absolutely complicitous in the subversion of democracy!

Because if someone wins, they win. Period. Wait till the next election UNLESS (and only unless) there is an overriding problem with the official that would legitimately require that he be removed. Something about a criminal act. That sort of thing.

So, your patent dismissal of recalling a governor of a state on grounds that he was supremely unpopular is outlandish and disheartening. He won the election and there was no overriding reason to recall him. And him losing the recall vote is not proof that a recall was warranted (the ends don't justify the means).

"He was unpopular." The first thing I looked at when I read your post was your post count. I can't tell you how disheartening it was to NOT find that you only had 25 posts under your belt, because odds are that you represent a majority of democrats. And that scares me to no end.

And that EXPLAINS why we lost the recall election, and it bodes very poorly for all of our futures.

Might I assume that you will also stand behind the redistricting actions in Texas and Colorado as well? I mean...if the repukes can figure out a way to undermine the original statutory intent of redistricting, then it must mean that those states need to be redistricted? Same logic, Yang. Same logic.

[ibegurpard]

17. Oh, very well said.

The sentiments like this I am seeing expressed here today are very worrisome to me as well.

[HitmanLV]

5. look, an election can't be a subversion of democracy...

...it is democracy.

[AP]

13. An election in which the person who comes in second place and wins

is a subversion of democracy.

A recall that started two months after a Democratic election is a subversion of democracy.

[HitmanLV]

14. what are you talking about?

If the first remark is about Bush, he came in first in electoral votes, second in popular vote. In the system we have, that means he wins.

The recall drive gained steam when it was clear Davis cooked the books and hid the ball on the campaign trail. Indeed, recall is the exact remedy for that - it is not a subversion, indeed, that's hard to argue when

* millions of Californians supported the recall, of all political stripes.

* Cali had the higest voter turnout in 20 years, and more people voted in the recall than in the 2002 election that put Davis in office.

*More people on a percentage basis voted for Arnold in 2003 than for Davis in 2002. More people in terms of numbers voted for Arnold in 2003 than for Davis in 2002. More people voted for Arnold in 2003, than voted against the recall (and for Davis) in 2003.

How can a day when more people come out to vote possibly be a subversion of democracy.

Blaming the recall is counterproductive. The truth is, there was a perception that Davis was unfit for office. That's open to debate. What isn't open to debate is on his recall election day, he could not overcome that perception, and got squashed. If Davis could defend his record, and communicate that, the recall would have gone the way of the previous 30+ attempts. Failure.

He didn't. He lost. It's politics.

[kiahzero]

15. He's talking about the Recall

45% of the voters supported Gray. But because 55% of the voters didn't support Gray, the man who got something like 40% of the vote won. I can see why that's nutty.

[HitmanLV]

19. I don't follow:

Recall wins 55-45. More people voted for the recall. More people voted against Davis than for Davis.

Arnold got 48% of the vote. That was:

1. more votes than Davis got in 2003 (The No Recall votes)
2. a higher percentage of votes than Davis got in 2003 (The No Recall votes)
3. a higher percentage of votes than Davis got in 2002.
4. move votes than Davis got in 2002.

Where does the 40% of the vote come in - Arnold won all these tallys. Davis lost his vote of confidence 55-45.

[West Coast Democrat]

21. I think I've heard this sort of language before

back when the Bushies were claiming their guy had a mandate because he received more votes than Clinton had in his 2 elections. The irony that Gore received more votes than either Bush or Clinton was apparently lost on the freaks who made that argument.

[blackcat77]

7. One one level I agree that it subverted the election result

But on the other, remember that Davis worked very hard to defeat Riordan in the primaries. That was below the belt as well, but it worked. Riordan would have won the election but Simon could not. Did that make it kosher for him to do it?

[punpirate]

2. Okay... if it's not...

... why wasn't Bustamante on top?

And "Arnold would not have won" means shit. He's CA's new governor in name. California is now being run, again, by Pete Wilson. Figger it out.

[KharmaTrain]

4. I Wish I Could Share That Limited Scope

We got our asses whopped again by a media/political machine that set this thing up years ago and are playing it out very carefully.

Yes, Davis was a lousy governor, IMHO, since he wasn't able to set up communications with the people of his state to tell them the truth...the energy crisis was manipulated...and that the raise in taxes are a direct byproduct of diminished tax revenues created by the Bush recession/depression. Along the way he disconnected with the people...even his own...until it was too late.

Meanwhile the GOOP strategy worked to perfection. They found yet another figurehead puppet they could trot out and then while everyone looks at the puppet, the puppetmasters do their work. The media played into this by first neutralizing vocal opposition...where has Jeananne Gerafalo or Rob Reiner or any other prominent voices to counteract Gropinators celebrity? Sheesh, even Bab Streisands was mum...and this is her home state. They were all cowered by the past pummelling they got in the media, and they're definitely not about to come out of their hole anytime soon.

This was a total failure to communicate to the "sheeple" (and I hate that term, but it sadly applies) about what's really going on. It has to be simple, straight, honest and in a way they feel it. That's what the GOOPs have done so well in creating their dittoheads. Hate them as you may, but these goons have turned into the storm troopers who are sweeping away our liberties...and they're too stupid to know it.

Fortunately, the state houses are in Dem control, so Arnie's not gonna have an easy time either.

[VOX]

6. Sorry, but I can't go with your spin...

Gray Davis is regrettably uncharismatic, but he was dealing with a Bush economy. The car tax was in fact authored by Pete Wilson, the dreadful Republican governor of CA who Gray Davis beat in 1994. The same Pete Wilson who is now managing Arnold's campaign.

Perot and Ventura today resemble outcasts among their former supporters. The objects that once were so bright, shiny and promising proved to be tarnished and mediocre.

People are so fed up with politics as usual they will even foul their own nests just to make a change, which is what we saw tonight.

[Fight_n_back]

8. Interesting

you say you disagree yet you end up summing up wqhat I sadi in your last sentence.

Gray Davis did not beat Pete Wilson in 1994...nobody ran for governor in 1994 and Pete Wilson did not run agaainst Gray Davis.


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis

[E_Zapata]

10. Talk about funny........

I get the impression that you have joined the side of the repuke winners.

So, let me guess......you voted YES on recall? (if you be in Calif)

[mddemo]

11. no problem

and if hes a californian voter, he can vote anyway he wants, we are all allowed to have our own opinions on politics, theres some things we agree on and some we differ, thats a democracy.

[Fight_n_back]

12. If you are talking to me

then I fail to see how you could get the impression that I was in favor of the recall.

Perhaps you are adept at reading words that are not there?

[DemPopulist]

16. In fact, Wilson was re-elected in '94

FYI, he defeated Kathleen Brown (Jerry's sister) and was first elected in 1990 against Di-Fi.

[West Coast Democrat]

18. Of Course Not! It Shows Repubs Had to Move to the Left!

The Republicans finally found a way to get a moderate into the CA Governor's seat, after losing so badly with the rightwingers they get after the primary process. They had to move to the left to win the Governorship. McClintock sure didn't have a chance.

The Republicans succeeded by running a Moderate Hollywood star against a Moderate lackluster Governor who had the extra baggage of the poor Bush Economy to contend with.

Does this mean California has repudiated the Democratic Party? No! Who controls the legislature and other major offices? Who does Arnold have to work with in order to pass his agenda?

Does any of this mean Bush* has a better shot at winning California? Probably not, although he's hoping it will. Bush* is still unpopular in California, and whether he has a shot at California depends on whether his campaign is doing well anywhere in the country.

Even with the high Republican voter turn-out last night, the Fox poll showed a very average (around 50% as I recall) approval rating for Bush among those who turned out. What does that say?

[ComerPerro]

20. The reason he had those negative ratings

Was because of the terrible situation California found itself in thanks to BushCo, and the Republican efforts to blame Davis.