Where the CA recall was lost? My simple take

[ps1074]

Here is my take:

San Francisco county - 52% turnout
YES - 45,783
NO - 187,450

compared to 2000 election
Bush - 51,496
Gore - 241,578


Only in SF more than 50.000 votes lost.

Los Angeles County - still no final turnout figures but here are the results:
YES - 770,662
NO - 817,788

compared to 2000 election
Bush - 871,930
Gore - 1,710,505
Nader - 83,731

While there are less votes for the recall than the Bush 2000 total, there are almost 1,000,000 less votes for the dems...

This data is from http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_general/pres.pdf

San Francisco:
GOP turnout is 89% of GOP 2000 turnout
Dem turnout is 77.5% of Dem 2000 turnout

Los Angeles:
GOP turnout is 88.5% of GOP 2000 turnout
Dem turnout is 47.8% or Dem 2000 turnout

You cannot win elections unless you turn out the base in your strongholds. Now why these dem voters didn't vote yesterday? Any ideas?

[AP]

1. Crowded polls? LA had Diebold.

Also, I can't believe Alameda has such a dramatically lower turnout compared to counties next door. However, the big difference, once you cross the county line, is that in Alameda you're voting on TS machines.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I will partially blame the special election

historically special elections have connies come out far more
than Democrats (hence why they wanted it as close as they could
to a special election and not during the primaries)

Second theory and this is combined, I blame the media.

They started calling this over BEFORE the polls were closed.

I am sorry but the press has no business on projecting
anything as that discourages voters to come out.

[screaming_meme]

4. Presidential elections always have the biggest turnouts

That's part of your answer right there.

[REP]

3. Democratic Party Didn't Do a Good Enough Job Of Making It Important

My county, Santa Clara, voted "no" on recall and or Bustamonte. I think the Democratic party just counts on this county to vote for them, and does little or no outreach out here, and it shows. Yes, the county voted the 'left' (as opposed to right) way, but look at voter turnout - less than 50%. Why? No one told 'us' it was important.

By 'us' I mean voters in general. In specialized populations, like at the medical center I went to today, all the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, lab workers, etc had voted, and voted No and Bustamonte, but by definition of their jobs, these people tend to be more educated and informed (and especially concerrned about Prop 54). Not that everyone else isn't educated - they just weren't educated about why this election was important.

Another problem is of course the 200 election. Before people doubted their vote means anything; 2000 proved that it really doesn't. I'm not sure how to change that.

Finally, the candidate(s) were a problem. Davis should have launched a vicious anti-Schwarzenegger campaign as he did with Simon and Riordan while trumpeting his accomplishments. Bustamonte could have sold his message better, and I don't think I was the only person who was left cold by his smarmy and condescending manner (still voted for him - just didn't like it!).

[KharmaTrain]

5. Thanks For The Breakouts

Will there be a way to get specific areas/zip codes/demos in the days to come? That will really tell who didn't show up at this party.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Not many Democrats like Grey Davis

. He was unpopular, and didn't start paying attention to the base until there was a threat of recall. Popularity isn't the same as being less terrible than your opponant. You actually have to be liked.

[Chamfer]

7. WHEN are we going to learn that 11th-hour hatchet jobs turn voters off?

My take? We lost for three reasons.

1. Lack of humility on the part of Davis. He never seemed to get the message that he was about to lose his job. Instead of constantly returning fire to his GOP critics, Davis should have acted a bit more humble

2. The last-minute attacks on Arnold's sexcapades, the parade of female victims, and calling him a Hitler-worshipper for godsakes...all these things hurt us because it looked to the public like 'the politics of dirty tricks' at the 11th hour. We did the same thing to Bush with the DUI revelation the weekend before the election. Some say it cost us the presidency.

3. WHEN are we going to understand that Bill Clinton is radioactive? Sure, the base loves him, but didn't the 2002 Senate races teach us that the man is poison as far as the general electorate is concerned? This makes three big losses for McAuliffe. Please get this Clinton puppet out of there.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Most people didn't hear of the DUI revelation

because it wasn't reported very broadly, so I doubt it had an effect. Also we didn't lose that election, and unlike the groping allegations that was on Bush's record. He was actually arrested, charged and convicted of a DUI. Also it is extremely hypocritical to say clinton is radioactive and defend Arnold. Also Bill Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the 2002 elections.

[KharmaTrain]

11. We Need Leadership

Amen on removing McAuliffe...he's just as radioactive as Clinton when it comes to the flying monkey base. He can barely appear on talk shows these days and is an ineffective spokesman; even when he's got the cover of a James Carville right next to him.

The last minute attacks was a GOOP tactic that worked like a charm. They knew the slime was there (and more than that) and had their ducks lined up. They knew where the attack would come (LA Times) and probably had the print date. They had the talking points and foot soldiers out on that one in a hurry...immediately hitting the talk shows and screaming foul.

How can things not be last minute when you have a campaign that's only 90 days? Give these guys credit, they turned the worm real good on this one. Meanwhile, a REAL sexual predator is now the Gov. of Cally Fernya.

[bearfartinthewoods]

14. especially the nazi thing

it was over the edge. a nazi lover doesn't give money to jewish orgs.
and davis should have distanced himself from the grope stuff. let the media rail about it but when he took up the subject it made it just more dirty politics instead of an outrage.

[ps1074]

8. Alameda county

Alameda county - 38% turnout

YES - 85,448
NO - 180,068

compared to 2000 election
Bush - 119,279
Gore - 342,889

GOP turned out 71.5% of its 2000 vote
Dem turned out 52.5% of its 2000 vote

..................

Even with 2000 voter turnout not even close, the Dems needed to match the % of GOP turnout in LA, SF and Alameda counties to win:

In San Francisco - 89% insted of 77.5% adds 28.000 more votes

In Los Angeles - 88.5% instead of 47.8% adds 611.000 more votes

In Alameda - 71.5% instead of 52.5% adds 65.000 more votes

Only in these 3 counties there is a total of 704.000 more votes if the Dems could only match the GOP turnout.

[msanger]

10. so in 2004 turnout will be key.

which means each of us could take responsibility for organizing our local neighborhood/precinct to make sure we match the GOP GOTV.

Last night I actually found myself thinking about donating to DEAN again, just because I think he will be able to get out the base vote, which means we win.

[dusty64]

12. The connection between the

repukes and California's economy was never made. The damage caused by enron was never explained. It would have been difficult to get this through the media filter (their bias was plain for ALL to see), but it was simply not done. The Democrats need to clean house and fast, I am NOT liking what I'm seeing. The leadership apparently has NO learning curve and the same crap happens over and over again.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. gee i wonder if it was because LA Cnty only had 1,500 polling places open

when they normally have 6,000 :shrug: