Why We Lost the CA Recall

[jiacinto]

1) Davis's unpopularity: The man was horribly unpopular. Rightly or wrongly people blamed him for the multitude of the problems facing the state. Frankly, given how unpopular he was, Satan could have beaten Davis if his name had been on the second part of the ballot.

2) Internal Bickering Among Democrats: It was obvious that the Democratic Party didn't have a unified strategy. People say that Bustamente should never have run or there shouldn't have been a second person on the ballot.

I disagree. I think that as soon as it was evident the recall was going to be announced, Davis should have resigned his position. I think that the party should have been unified together and asked for his resignation. There was no way he was going to survive and the party would have been better off if he had left.

I was against that at first; but, in looking hindsight, which is always admittedly 20/20, Davis should have dropped out. He should have resgined when it was clear that Issa et al were going to have enough signatures to push his ouster on the ballot. He should have stepped aside. The party should have all approached him unanimously with the clear data.

When it was clear that Davis was not going to step aside the party should have settled on one replacement candidate. Garamendi should never have toyed with the deicision. Bustamente should have gotten clear support.

3) Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamente: They should not have fought. They should have put their differences aside. Both of their petty attitudes cost the race. Granted it was clear neither man liked each other. But both men, in refusing to work together, doomed the other. They both need to realize that they were part of the reason why they both lost. Maybe that's what they wanted. Maybe each man thought "If I can't be Governor then _________________ won't either". Still, though, that cost us a lot.

4) Not Mentioning Enron: From what I saw here on the East Coast, which means that I may be off base here, Davis never mentiond how Bush et al ripped off California. Nothing at all. He didn't do that at all or say anything. I don't know why Davis didn't bring this up.

5) The Media: The Media campaigned for Arnold at the outset. This point, although fifth, is the most important to mention here. I used to ridicule those who said that the media was biased against Democrats. Now, through the prism of this election, I agree with them.

The California Recall debacle shows us clearly that the Democrats need a media presence. Years behind their Republican/conservative counterparts the Democrats were not able to advance their message. With talk radio and the apparent campaigning for Arnold by CNN there was no way that they could get their message across. The Democrats need to develop their own media--and do it quickly. It may be too late to do something for the 2004 election, but this media infrastructure must be in place by the 2005-2006 election cycle .

6) Following point #5 the Democrats couldn't stick to a message. There was no clear strategy. At the outset they should have developed one and stuck to it. They didn't and are playing the price.

7) Polling Stations: While I remain skeptical of the BBV claims about this election the fact that they "consolidated" polling stations helped Arnold inevitably. Democrats still haven't learned enough from election 2000 to ensure that the process runs fairly.

8) Life: It just isn't fair. And sometimes you lose. This of course is the most trite explanations. But it is the truth. Sometimes you just aren't meant to win or the dynamics may simply be too much against you. Ultimately that was the case here.

[Redbear]

1. Three moderate Democrats were running...

Two said fixing things will be difficult...

One offered the promise it will all get better magically, like in a movie.

[jiacinto]

2. One problem with the far left argument

Why didn't Arianna and Camejo do better on the replacement then? Why didn't McClintock, who was really the "true conservative", do better?

Arnold ran a moderate campaign that downplayed the more abrasive parts of the GOP agenda.

[Redbear]

25. Exactly...

Arnold sold himself as a happy can-do version of Gray Davis who promised to fix it all with no major cuts and no tax hikes.

[jiacinto]

26. Also

Arnold promised the world with no pain.

[Bushknew]

55. Because we donÕt have IRV, thatÕs why.

[MassDem4Life]

3. Just one question..

How can you honestly say that the mediA actively campaigned FOR Arnold?

Every time I heard any major media outlet they were villifying Arnold,

His father was a nazi.

We need to invesigate what his father did during the war

He groped women 27 years ago.

He professed to admire Hitlers speaking ability as a young boy in East Germany.

He is stupid, an actor, unqualified, knows nothing about running a state, etc.

I never heard any outlet say anything positive about Arnold.

And to be fair Gray Davis had it coming. He lied about the deficit to get elected, then a week after the election he admitted that the deficit would be $30 billion not the $8Billion he had claimed.

And you cant blame all of that on Enron.

Some inconvenient facts; During Gray's Tenure;

Population in Ca. increased by 12%

Revenue increased by 19%

Spending increased by 37%

Roads are crumbling, taxes are increasing, business are leaving, people are leaving, regulations are strangling the state, referendums passed by large margins are being ignored, etc.

For the first time in California's history, more people have left the state than moved here, legally.

[jiacinto]

5. Not what I saw

I followed CNN throughout most of it and it seemed to be pro-Arnold.

Again I said that his unpopularity was a major factor. Even if Satan had been on the ballot he would have beat Davis.

[Terwilliger]

8. you are uninformed

EVERY news outlet painted AHH-nold in a positive light...they didn't ask him hard questions...every time there was something that came out against AHH-nold, they acted like it was just politics and went on merrily praising AHH-nold or showing him being splashed with confetti

There was NO balance in the media...it was completely pro-AHH-nold

[dansolo]

29. All Arnold all the time

Think back to the last few weeks. How many times did you hear Arnold's name? Now how many times did you hear Cruz Bustamonte's name? This was simply a result of name recognition, and the media did whatever they could to make sure that Arnold's name was the first name that came to mind when the voters were presented with a ballot with 100+ names on it.

[MassDem4Life]

71. Really???

every day I heard a new personal attack upon Arnold.

The nazi thing, the groping, requests by Dems for a state investigation into that matter, THAt lost us a huge amount of traction because even Susan Estrich asked how we could demand investigations, and castigate Arnold for lesser offenses than we defended Bill for?


I heard repeated personal attacks by dems, and the LA Times. Nver heard much made of the fact that Gray has a flash to bang of about 1.5 seconds, his history of slapping female aids. Not nearly as much ink as Arnold got for groping.

Fact is the people by and large are sick of personal attacks. And we never confronted him on the issues. If we had made the campaign about the issues, and forced him to delineate what he would do to fix things, we could have won.

We could also have won if Davis could have put his ego aside long enough to realize that stepping aside was in the best interests of the party.

[diplomats]

78. I do agree the personal attacks backfired

Such attacks backfired on Clinton, too.

[mitchtv]

13. oh please

they were arnolding aroung the clock: et, oprah ,jay leno all the nightly news covered him daily where as Davis never got more than 10 seconds and never with sound

[AP]

16. I'm going to guess you were in Mass and not in Cal

The media worked so hard to help Arnold that it's not even funny.

They mitigated everything that was bad, and everytime the recall made news, they'd open with a three minute segment on Arnold, and then ask him what he thought about the day's event, even if it had nothing to do with him.

Affter the first debate...which he didn't show up at...the local news did a five minute opening segment on Arnold.

[MassDem4Life]

72. I heard Gray's press conferences

fif not hear him justify, or apologize for the incredible deficit, nor did I hear him say how he would fix the states myriad problems. I did hear him reverse himself on the License for illegals issue. That was a huge mistake as well. Polls show that LEGAL hispanic immigrants widely opposed that piece of legislation, and it was an obvious act of pandering, on a huge scale.

[Democat]

45. Freeper talking points, all of them

Paging the mods!

[joeybee12]

4. The Repukes won because they are always one step ahead...

...the moment there was even an inkling that they might try to recall Davis, they should have squashed it. Instead they ignored it, once again not learning from past experiences that the Rethugs will stop at nothing. By the time they realized that the recall might catch on, it was too late, and they were put on the defensive.

As soon as there is a whiff of Nazi stench in the air, REACT! don't let them get a head start!

[jiacinto]

7. Good Point

But Davis should have resigned when it looked like they were going to have enough signatures.

[mitchtv]

15. should have resigned? you are really a sellout dem

you have called me a 'fringe ' enough times I think you deserve that.

[jiacinto]

18. I am thinking in hindsight

Satan could have defeated Davis. I am not a sell out.

I called people in CA to stop the recall.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. I don't know whether you are fringe but calling Jiacinto

sell out is really not very smart. Jiacinto is a conservative antigreen dem just like Davis.

[Clete]

6. I want to answer this.

It's not that I think you are wrong. There is some clarification needed though. I hope I can tonight.

[Cha]

9. All good points!

I wonder, in retrospect, if they wish they would have done things
a little bit differently?

[bpilgrim]

10. Re: BBV - DIEBOLD MACHINES YIELD FISHY RESULTS!! - Mark Crispin Miller

IRREGULARITIES IN CALIFORNIA RACE!!

Long-shot candidates do startlingly well in Tulare County

DIEBOLD MACHINES YIELD FISHY RESULTS!!

My friend in South Carolina writes:

I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold machines to cast/count votes and found some weird figures that show a skim of votes from top candidates to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I did my hand calculator work on the California election results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96% of precincts had reported. The website showed:

Counties using Diebold Touchscreens:
Alemeda, Plumas

Counties using Diebold Optiscan:
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity, Tulare.

There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes were cast/counted on Diebold equipment.

I had earlier noticed some lower order candidates (ones who couldn't affect the result) were getting unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe' candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in other Diebold counties.

http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

discuss...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=501139


btw: i am glad you spoke out about the ENRON elephant :toast:

peace

[KittyWampus]

11. DemActivist Just Posted A Statistical Analysis Of BBV

Mark Crispin Miller's statistical analysis. Apparently in precinents where they used Diebold alow tier candidantes (who should have gotten only a small number of votes and only in their locales ) a grossly inflated number of votes while top tier candidates got lower amounts...

Votes were skimmed from the top tier and thrown to lower tier.

[lcordero]

12. I agree with you on #2 for different reasons though

Davis should have left before the petition was verified. I'm not taking into consideration about him being right or wrong, what I'm taking into consideration is that nobody is worth 25-86 million dollars to me.

[AP]

14. If anyone but Bustamante had been put forward by the CA Dems, Latinos

would have bolted from the party to the Republicans for the recall and for next year's general election.

The Republicans were working this election from about 50 angles. There's no way the Democrats were going to come out of it alive. That's why it happened in the first place. It was a huge risk for Republicans and they had to win it.

The ONLY way the Dems could have won this one was in the courts, and by holding out until the primaries, perhaps.

The tried that and they failed.

[AP]

21. Psst. Carlos. Down here. What about this.

Post 14 begging for your comments.

[jiacinto]

22. I tend to agree on some level

Hence, where I wrote that even Satan could have won the election.

[dolstein]

31. NEWSFLASH: Latinos bolted anyway

Bustamente got less than 60% of the Latino vote. Sorry, but that's pretty pathetic.

[AP]

35. Latinos are only 60% Dem, so he held them...

...and I heard an estimate that the NO vote lost about 2-3 points to latinos who voted Yes-Cruz, which they considered not being too bad, all things considered.

If the Dems dropped Cruz, they would have been punished by a very high Yes vote, and a very low Dem vote, and it would have had repercussions for years to come.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Maybe They Could Have Found A More Charismatic Latino...

Cruz seemed like a nice enough fellow but he lacked passion...

[LibDemAlways]

17. You left out the most obvious reason Ahnold came out on top...

Many Californians are uninformed and ignorant, and I am speaking as a lifelong Californian. Most of the people I know buy into the media lies - and think I'm the one who has a screw loose when I talk about secret Enron meetings and voting machine fraud. I'm not saying all Californians are stupid - far from it. Those in the Bay Area know the score. But in the repuke strongholds, Rush is God and all Dems are evil commies who want to sell the state out to illegals. You can't fight that kind of brainwashing, and it is widespread.

Ahnold also came out on top because he is a celebrity in a land of celebrity worshippers and wanna-bes. The Terminator as Governor? Cool. Who cares if he has no experience or ideas and wouldn't even agree to an unscripted debate. He's gonna kick ass!!

The acceptance of the chimp as "President" tells me all I need to know about the IQ of the American public. Californians are no different. Stupid is as stupid does.

[AP]

19. This is, unfortunately, true. The public schools in CA are dire

The Democrats have to adjust their message to recognize that these people don't have the facts to make a reasoned judgment.

[jiacinto]

20. I think the media was behind that

It's not that people are stupid. They're just not getting the entire story.

[LibDemAlways]

23. People are too lazy to seek out the truth.

I have pointed many people to DU, Buzzflash, etc. They couldn't be bothered. Truly.

And some are just plain stupid. There is a freeper at work who is a complete moron. His brain is mush from all the listening to Limbaugh. If Rush told him to wear a swastika and vote for Hitler reincarnated, he'd be goosestepping to the polls. Absolutely true.

[jiacinto]

24. They're too busy

When people have children and families to support it beoomes hard to find "free time" to "seek out the truth". The other problem is that people work so much that they don't have as much personal time.

[dolstein]

27. I disagree with you on strategy

I don't think the Democratic Party should have forced Davis to resign. That would have made the Party look no less weak than they do now. After all, they'd be letting the Republicans intimidate them into turning on their own governor. According to that logic, if Clinton's poll numbers had dropped low enough, the Dems should have voted along with the Republicans to impeach him.

In any event, that approach wouldn't have worked. Unless some Democratic insiders had incriminating pictures of Davis, nobody was going to force him to resign.

I think the Democrats either should have ignored the second ballot entirely (which is what Davis wanted) or they should have turned to someone who didn't have any ties to the Davis administration. Putting Cruz Bustamente on the second ballot was the worst of all possible moves. First, it gave legitimacy to the recall. And second, the "Democratic alternative" was easily tagged as a Davis clone. Moreover, Bustamente simply wasn't a strong enough candidate.

If the Democrats had been able to convince Feinstein to run on the second ballot, it's likely that Arnold wouldn't have run at all. It's no coincidence that Arnold waited until after Feinstein had taken herself out of the running to announce. If Feinstein had gotten in, we might have been able to run against Riordin instead. A decent, moderate Republican to be sure, but he doesn't have anywhere near Arnold's star power. And it's hard to imagine the right-wing Republicans uniting behind Riordin the way they did with Arnold. Indeed, support for the recall among the most partisan Republicans might have dropped substantially once it became apparent that the only thing they'd achieve with a recall would be replacing an unpopular Democratic governor with a popular Democratic governor.

Finally, I think it was a mistake for the Democratic legislature to push through all this left-wing wishlist legislation, in some cases without even holding hearings. And certainly Davis did himself no favors by signing the bill that gave drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It pissed off all but the most liberal voters, and it didn't boost his support among Hispanics.

[pstokely]

28. who could have the Dems put on there?

?

[dolstein]

32. Diane Feinstein

NT

[jiacinto]

34. But I really think

that even if she had been on there she would have had to fight very, very hard.

I wonder why she didn't run at all.

[dolstein]

36. A few reasons

First, I think Feinstein would have won on the second ballot, especially if Arnold had decided not to run, but it wouldn't have been an overwhelming victory. Some of Davis' unpopularity would have rubbed off on her.

Second, taking over the reins of what is arguably the least governable state in the union isn't a particularly attractive prospect. I really can't blame Feinstein for not wanting the job. You'd either have to be insane or incredibly arrogant to want to be governor of California right now. As for Arnold, your guess is as good as mine.

[AP]

40. Because they would have made an issue of her not dropping senate seat

she would have crazy to drop the seat. She never would have won if she didn't.

And the Dems would have been losing and important senators.

And Dems could have kissed the latino vote goodbye. It would go from 60% to 40%, and that's a pretty large group of CA voters.

[jiacinto]

30. Feinstein would have stopped it

But I do think even Satan would have won on the second ballot.

As for Davis not resigning you do have a point somewhat. But think of NJ. When it was clear that Torricelli was not going to make it he dropped his bid for re-election.

[dolstein]

33. Not running again and resiging from office are qualitatively different

NT

[jiacinto]

38. I see your point

But I still think Davis should have resigned if Dianne Feinstein was not going to run.

[mitchtv]

74. what absolute nonsense

just do what the pukes Demand?next they would mount a recall on Cruz, what then run and hide? this argument was debunked. Davis ran a stupid campaign, that's all- I never heard him defend himself.

[Clete]

37. I really tried to answer this in form but I couldn't.

The fact is, this doesn't make sense. I don't know who won or lost, probably the person with the most aces. The fact is, California or America is not a movie set,a stage or a card game but it is becoming apparently so. So the guy who holds the good cards has a better chance of winning.

[Eloriel]

39. Hey, Carlos. Look at this.

http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/
Long-shot candidates do startlingly well in Tulare County

Eloriel

[jiacinto]

41. So now are you screaming election theft?

Eloriel, Arnold won quite comfortably. Are you really arguing that he stole this election?

You all have no proof except your biases. And I really think I know what your intent is by joining the BBV wagon.

You are a Green--or at least you've said you were. You will probably not vote for the Democratic ticket next year. Then, should Bush win in a very close, you will use "BBV" as a rationalization to justify your Green vote.

[noiretextatique]

43. i am "green" and i voted for davis/against the recall

and for bustamante in alameda county, on a Diebold touchscreen. i am totally UNIMPRESSED with the way these machines process and tally votes. as an accountant, i see some very obvious audit trail problems with the way these machines count votes...not as discrete numbers assigned to each vote, but as vote totals per machine. it seems to me a very obvious flaw and flagrant flaw, one that could be easily manipulated. i have absolutely no assurance, and no audit trail (i.e., a vote receipt) to VERIFY that my vote was properly recorded. this is no 'conspiracy'...these machines are not to be trusted.

[jiacinto]

44. You sound reasonable

But see there are all too many DUers who jump from your point (being suspcious) to the conclusion that the election was "stolen" without the "smoking gun". It's like those DUers who claim that the 2002 elections were "stolen" without anything remotely showing any malfeasance.

I do think I have a point, though, that the ones who are the most "concerned" about BBV are the ones who vote third party or have shown sympathy to third parties. Why do I have a feeling that if 2004 is close, as it was in 2004, and Bush wins in the same fashion, they will also say:

Not our fault at all. The BBV Diebold machines "stole" the election for Bush. Even though the Green votes were crucial it's not our fault

But nothing ever is if you are a Green.

[noiretextatique]

47. as i mentioned, there are serious concerns with Diebold

machines, e.g., the absence of a verifiable audit trail. this has nothing to do with the green party.

[jiacinto]

48. I just find it interesting, though, that the ones who are the

most adamant about the BBV aren't the ones who are the most Green leaning.

[noiretextatique]

49. perhaps democrats need to get a clue? nt

[bpilgrim]

52. and i find it interesting how those who defend the perps

are mostly from the 'center'

hmmmmmm....

peace

[bpilgrim]

50. its called advocacy...

it's how things get done... and hear i though you were a PS major ;->

peace

[Classical_Liberal]

62. Eloriel can't say that because there is no evidence the election

was stolen that this is in of itself evidence, but I fail to see what it has to do with being green. I don't believe Eloriel is green. Also we did lose Florida because of election theft more than because of Greens, so cut it out.

[Iverson]

75. She wasn't "screaming."

She provided a link, for crissakes.

You're a fine one to refer to her biases while you do that to her!
You as much as reveal your own bias: you don't engage with her decently because you think she's one of us Greens.
(cue scary music)

A response to the substance of the point is what most normal people would expect.

[Eloriel]

76. Why don't you address the issues instead of attacking me?

Or trying to. Did you bother reading the thread, or any of the others about this election? Are you totally unmoved by -- and so intent on standing up for and protecting TPTB that you're not even curious about -- some rather strange goings on, numbers-wise?

Interesting that I was just away from the computer for a bit and I was remembering your taunt the other day about my Green/Dem status. I told you that I am a registered Democrat and I sent $25 to the GA Green Party so I am a "member."

You told me I can't have it both ways. LOL. I'm sorry, Carlos, I can. I have friends who are GA Greens, and I support Green policies, and I joined the club for $25. I am a Green-leaning Dem, whether YOU freakin' like it or approve of it or not.

Proof, you want proof. Well, here's a clue for you. There is NO WAY TO PROVE COMPUTERIZED VOTE FRAUD on touchscreens, and maybe not on optical scan either (depending on whether or not the ballots can legally be used in a vote count). And there's CERTAINLY no way to detect it as a possibility if people aren't even looking.

Shame on you for your personal attacks, your ugly and slanderous treatment of Greens at DU, your general close-mindedness, your penchant for attacking people not ideas, and your unwillingness to hear people who actually know what they're talking about -- unless you've read it in some book somewhere.

Well, guess what. Here's a DEM with no nasty Green connections who's written a book, and you don't even have to part with one red cent to read it. I freakin' DARE you:

http://www.blackboxvoting.com

You may have to scroll down to find the links.

For others who may be interested in a dose of reality amongst the handwringing, here are some more threads about the CA Recall election results:

The case of the missing California Election Reports
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=496859#497517

Dr. Dill's webmaster confirms: Diebold used CELL PHONE data transfer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=501527

California going Voter Verified Audit Trail voluntarily?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=501424

Vote lawsuit continues (Palm Desert CA - BBV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=156532

BBV Reports
http://whitestarwebsitedesign.com/bbvreport/index.php

Were Busta's Diebold Cty votes sprinkled around like Gore's in Volusia?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=501657

About those California numbers...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=495211

CA numbers changed *dramatically* toward end of precincts reporting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=503009

Mark Crispin Miller: Irregularities in California Race!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=501139#501212

Eloriel

[CMT]

42. I don't think Davis should have resigned

He was just re-elected last year and had committed no high crimes and misdeamenors which warrant being recalled. Yes, voters were upset with him and he was uninspiring but he had every right to try and keep the job he was elected to. In retrospect, the wishes of the state and national party should have been followed. Democrats should not have run a replacement candidate and we should have encouraged our supporters not to vote on the second ballot. Would it have changed the results? maybe not, but it would have kept two high profile democrats in the state (Davis and Bustamante) from losing on Tuesday. For I think had it been only Davis on the ballot and he lost the recall it would be interpeted more as a personal defeat rather than a Democratic party defeat, but with Bustamante in it--and losing so badly to Arnold on the second ballot (running far worse than NO on the recall) it makes it seem more like a Democratic party defeat and gives more bragging rights to the GOP.

I agree that Davis could have done a better job of explaining the Enron connection in the state which caused many of his problems and how the national economy under George W. Bush--a Republican--has hurt state econonomies and budgets all across the country. Sometimes it seems that Democrats just don't pick the right issues to run on in these elections or articulate them well.

[jiacinto]

46. Face it

Even if Davis was running against Satan he still would have lost.

[Must_B_Free]

60. It was not your typical contest

instead of being a choice between candidates, it was a choice between progress (i.e. new ideas) and a leader riding stormy seas.

Then beyond that was a secondary election.

But Davis didn't really get to run against candidates, really he was just running agains himself. Why he didn't have a happier constitutiency is debateable.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. The Constitution of California doesn't stipulate high crimes

and misdeameanners either.

[Demsupporter]

84. I think he should have.

Had he resigned, a Democrat would be Governor today and there would not have been an election. Then we would have "business as usual". As it is the Republicans now have a temporary foothold which I'm sure they will lose at the next election. They can't help themselves from shooting themselves in the foot in California. Their conservatives drive people away in droves and they will be back to their usual rhetoric by the time Arnold is up for reelection. Look at McClintock: he couldn't win a Statewide election ever and yet he continues to talk as though the people should vote for him. Like some of our Presidential candidates he hasn't figured out that he will never win.

[Bushknew]

51. Does this mean youÕre a Green now?

Just kidding.

I agree with a lot of what you said.

Gore, Cruz and Davis were horrible in communicating the Democratic message, and the media are no help either with 24/7 coverage of Arnold.

We need people like Art Torres and Al Sharpton communicating the Democratic message.

All this wouldnÕt of happened if Davis would have stepped down.

He was truly clueless.

[jiacinto]

53. Torres, yes; Sharpton, No

nt

[Wapsie B]

54. Agreed.

However, the one problem I have with all this is that the repugs were able to overtun a legitimate election, precisely what they wanted to do with Clinton. When does it stop?

[jiacinto]

56. That's a good question

And I guess the answer that I have right now is that I don't know.

[inthecorneroverhere]

57. from a distance -

Thanx for the detailed post.

Yes, I noticed how Davis failed to come out swinging against the Republicans about energy deregulation and Enron/Williams. He should have fought that issue hard.

Also noticed that he wasn't very supportive or close with Bustamante.

From the distance of not having lived in Calif. since 1986, it looks like Davis has a 'pretty face' (he's honestly, a good-looking guy, and his wife ain't bad either) who is waaaaaaaay to reserved or just-not-proactive. It takes a proactive person to 'reach out' to folks. I'm awre that Davis was also disliked for failure to hold town halls with the people of California.

[Lexingtonian]

58. good analysis

1) Davis's unpopularity: The man was horribly unpopular. Rightly or wrongly people blamed him for the multitude of the problems facing the state.

California and OR/WA are peculiar in the American West for having a society that is relatively collectivist (which is unlike the remaining states between themselves and the Mississippi) but at the same time remains irresponsible/opportunist/'individualist' (which is Western).

The present political polarization has broken down the local compromises between the two. Neither side saw in Davis the person to do the necessary thing: enable them over the other side. In that sense he didn't understand California's political dynamics properly.

Frankly, given how unpopular he was, Satan could have beaten Davis if his name had been on the second part of the ballot.

Provided he promised sufficient distractions from responsible sobriety and productivity.

Davis lost this race back in the spring of 2002 when he undercut Riordan as overtly and brutishly as he did. Getting 55% against the utterly third tier Bill Simon, even in an offyear election with 10% greater Republican turnout, was only slightly more of an accomplishment than losing.

2) Internal Bickering Among Democrats: It was obvious that the Democratic Party didn't have a unified strategy. People say that Bustamente should never have run or there shouldn't have been a second person on the ballot.

3) Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamente: They should not have fought. They should have put their differences aside. Both of their petty attitudes cost the race. Granted it was clear neither man liked each other. But both men, in refusing to work together, doomed the other.

5) The Media: The Media campaigned for Arnold at the outset. This point, although fifth, is the most important to mention here.

The California Recall debacle shows us clearly that the Democrats need a media presence. <....> It may be too late to do something for the 2004 election, but this media infrastructure must be in place by the 2005-2006 election cycle .

6) Following point #5 the Democrats couldn't stick to a message. There was no clear strategy. At the outset they should have developed one and stuck to it. They didn't and are playing the price.

7) Polling Stations: While I remain skeptical of the BBV claims about this election the fact that they "consolidated" polling stations helped Arnold inevitably. Democrats still haven't learned enough from election 2000 to ensure that the process runs fairly.

These are all in fact aspects of a single problem. It would be too simple to call it "party unity", but party unity is the sign that the fundamental problem- the right policies worked out and the right people to implement them- is dealt with and fixed. Then all the practical problems turn to be a matter of doing sufficient amounts of work.

4) Not Mentioning Enron: From what I saw here on the East Coast, which means that I may be off base here, Davis never mentioned how Bush et al ripped off California. Nothing at all. He didn't do that at all or say anything. I don't know why Davis didn't bring this up.

Chances are it had zero effect in focus groups. Even the most successful outcome is unlikely to persuade: getting anywhere near $9 billion from Enron doesn't seem terribly likely to anyone who knows much, whether getting $9 billion some day does anything about the present problems is highly doubtful, and probably few people saw Davis as effectual at turning even this subproblem around. Whatever the solution to that problem, Davis was not seen as a part of it by the apathetic and swing voters- who didn't turn out.

8) Life: It just isn't fair. And sometimes you lose. This of course is the most trite explanations. But it is the truth. Sometimes you just aren't meant to win or the dynamics may simply be too much against you. Ultimately that was the case here.

It's a peculiar moment in this transitional time within a transitional time. Nationally we have a slight majority of voters with us- a plurality since 1998, a majority (though unproven) since 2002. The problem in the present- and Davis/Bustamente/California illustrates it perfectly- is that the leadership to do what this majority wants and needs and hopes for, that captures its imagination, has not yet made much of an appearance.

[Awsi Dooger]

59. Arnold is not getting enough credit

He won this election much more than Davis or Bustamante lost it. If Dems do not fully grasp this we are doomed short term.

Understand I am not praising Arnold's positions or qualifications in the slightest. But I have scrutinized the results and exit polls all day, in relation to past CA cycles. Arnold and McClintock drew a bizarre number of total Republican votes, over 60% and shocking in every sector and category. I am convinced Gray Davis had an excellent chance of surviving without Arnold on the ballot. An extraordinary number of voters went to vote FOR Arnold, and they cast for the recall simply because that was necessary to elevate Arnold.

This is the most dangerous type of Republican, by far the most difficult to thwart. Your #8 is far more appropos than you suggest: Arnold was indeed unfairly recognizeable and popular and wealthy and unscrutinized, especially without the scars of a primary. He ran a simplistic but positive ("Join Arnold!", "Pump Up California") outsider campaign, kind of a Hollywood version of Bush 2000.

And upbeat is exactly what the masses want to hear in stark economic times. Negativism and policy specifics are embraced by masochistic idiots. I am very much worried that Howard Dean does not understand this, although Wesley Clark seems to. We will not defeat George Bush by attacking him. Bush will never be perceived as lacking by the American public. Our candidate needs to stamp and shout himself as superior, a better choice to a swing constituency looking to vote FOR him, not AGAINST George Bush.

Jiacinto, you focus entirely on Dem failures, without any credit to Republican upswing. They have taken a cue from our union groundwork to get their base out in scarry numbers, also evidenced by 2002. It will only get more advanced. Unless we imploy a breakthrough reply to get blacks and women and hispanics registered and to the polls our minority role will be semi-permanent.

And Davis stepping aside would have been a never-forgotten symbol of Democrats as world class wimps, and encouraged Republicans to attempt cave in coups whenever possible. Our only CA success was avoiding that retreat.

[Classical_Liberal]

65. Attacks aren't the problem

The type of attacks are. When they are personal attacks everyone will ignore you. When they are attacks related to the people as a whole they will listen. People vote in their interests. WE should have attacked Arnold on his relationship to the deregulators, and attacked relentlessly. Davis didn't do that, because he unwisely bailed out PG&E when he could have bought them out, and because he voted for deregulation when he was a Cal rep.

[jiacinto]

69. One thing

I think the election was more a repudiation of Davis than a ringing voice of support for Arnold. But it is undeniable that the media all but campaigned for Arnold 24/7.

[Awsi Dooger]

95. The recall idea itself was a repudiation of Davis

The Reps grasped an opportunity based on Davis' unpopularity. But it took Arnold's presence to make it work, especially 55-45. Check out post #77 for some numbers, akin to what I am theorizing.

When the recall was certified, support was only 53%. Even Rep pollsters like Frank Luntz were warning CA Republicans that measures that start in that range rarely succeed.

It took major star power to reverse the trend and actually increase the percentage of support. Without Arnold, I think the recall numbers would have been extremely close, possibly with Davis surviving.

[demdogg]

64. Dump Terry Mcauliff

Yeah that's what I said.Dump Terry!! His record of loseing elections is dismal. We need to put the money up and start fighting back in the media.Go after talk radio,even if we can't get on the air we can flood their screeners and after a while they would have to take our calls or get no calls at all.Talk Radio/Faux News/The RNC/ is driving this and we are getting run over. When are we going to wake up and fight dirty like they are??:mad: WAKE UP George Soros,Babs,and all the other big money and let's get it together. I will contribute,how bout you??

[robbedvoter]

67. Or, could it be....Diebold? 70% vote for Adolf in paperless counties?

Did anyone stop and think that Adolf, Cruz polled in the 30's and then, some damaging stories later, a bizarre jump of about 15 points which matched the final results? W "ready to work with Adolf" 2 days before the "election"?
Remember Mondale, Cleland? Same poll upside down last minute...WHY?
You can now resume shooting the Democratic party...

[noiretextatique]

68. thanks, robbedvoter

:bounce: i don't buy it either.

[jiacinto]

70. You don't have any proof

And sticking to conspiracy theories is not going to convince people.

[noiretextatique]

85. you don't have any "proof" either...but there is the "proof" from 2000

in florida...we know republicans have no problems with vote and voter manipulation.

[Demsupporter]

91. Democrats controlled all "bad" precincts in Florida.

We have to stop kidding ourselves and blaming Repukes for our own mistakes. The truth is that our party (Democrats) were in charge in the Florida Precincts where there were "ballot problems". Also the ballots were written by us. Being in denial will not help us to stop making mistakes in the future. We have a great party and pretending like all our problems are caused by our political opponents will not help us to continually improve.

[goobergunch]

81. I personally doubt that this election was stolen

While limited fraud may have occured, I don't think that 426,897 NO votes were transformed into YES votes.

[jiacinto]

88. I agree with you

nt

[Capn Sunshine]

73. my report to the state committee:

in a nutshell, we fell into the same trap. I can't belive I was right there at ground zero and didn't see it.

once again, we offered no clear choice or unified message
except "status quo". Vote NO, status quo.

To refuse to see the great emotion in this issue was just forest for the trees blind!

First, we didn't take it seriously.

Then, we articulated a cold, thoughtful message that had NO emotive power.

Finally, we refused to unify our message to a media buzz phrase.

This is all typical of the party machinery in CA; they are mostly older folks who don't recognize the new realities of media. Most of them are about as hip as 1992. And I'm in my fifties, they think of ME as a kid. So imagine if you will.

Next, we all knew coming in Gray was a terrible campaigner , not a media force. We discussed a celebrity spokesman.That would have made it , oh , say , Martin Sheen vs. Arnold in the public's eye. Didn't happen. Great idea in hindsight.

Gray recognized too late what his winning strategy was: go after Arnold. It was working, but didn't happen in a timely enough manner.

Then add the irregularities with the electronic voting, and what we polled as a cliffhanger race was not close at all.

Stay tuned for Total Recall II : revenge of the victims

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RecallArnold/

[haymaker]

77. The Pukes won because 18% of Dems voted Arnold.

And that is because they liked the Arnold/Terminator/action hero/celebrity govenor thingy.

18% of 9 million is @ 1.6 million. That swings it. Do you think that 18% would have voted for McClintock? Or Simon? Or Riordan?

The Repukes won on a gimmick. They ran a super star, action hero, cartoon character and it worked. The guy didn't even say anything but bullshit and he still won. He didn't get specific about anything. He just said bullshit like "I'm going to clean up Sacramento".

They would do ANYTHING to get control of the Govenor's office in Cal if only to help Bush win. You see, that way they can steal a couple more trillion dollars. Duh! They don't care that he's a serial groper and philanderer. They don't care that he doesn't know shit about shit. They just want to parade him around with Boy George.

The Dems lost becasue 18% of them are fuckin stupid.

[RoonShark]

79. The Devil You Know

Davis didn't offer Democrats anything but more of the same. Finally enough of them said "We know what's behind Door Number One, let's try Door Number Two".

Californians are risk-takers; it's part of their Gold Rush heritage. Given a choice between the devil they know and the devil they don't, it's not surprising that nearly one in five will take their chances on the one they don't.

[haymaker]

80. Davis was scapegoated by hate-radio and other media.

I don't know how often I heard how terrible Davis was only to ask, "oh yeah, what is it again that he did?" The answers were all, and I do mean all, just idiot propaganda. No one had any facts on their side. He was brought down by a well funded, well organized, mean spirited, unfair witch hunt. And don't think that Rove wasn't involved.

I'm sure you're right about the risk taking thing. Many probably didn't care and just wanted the whole thing to go away and the right-wing to shut the fuck up. Which is ok by me. Too bad it won't take them long to start screaming about something else. I wonder what it will be.

[Demsupporter]

87. Did he give the CHP a 38 percent raise?

And did they then give him a nice fat campaign contribution? I heard this statement on one of those hate-radio stations you are referring to. I understand why they would make up stuff like this as it makes Davis look bad.

[haymaker]

92. Did Bush take money from Enron, Dynegy, Duke,

and then turn his back as they raped California? Hell, Cheney was meeting with them on an "energy plan" while they were sticking it to us.

As for the 38% increase, I doubt it. 38% across the board? 38% over a period of years? Check these:
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/07/28/daily56.html

http://www.psych-health.com/contr63.htm

It seems that the increase is 34% to 37% over five years. And to put things more in perspective, the CHP had gone the previous two years without a raise at all. So, when you do the math, that is roughly 35% over 7 years which comes to 5% per annum. Is that too much? But you wouldn't get that rundown on hate radio, just hysterical "38% raise" screetching.

Did he take contributions from them, sure he did. You must always check the facts and figures before believing a thing on those shows. They are not in the truth business, they are in the propaganda/entertainment business.

[Demsupporter]

82. Why we lost......

You posted 8 reasons. Some I agree with. Others - not so
sure....

1: Agree

2: Davis should have resigned. Had he done so even at the last
minute,Bustamonte would be Governor today. Only Davis knows
why he didn't and he apparently is not going to tell us his
reasoning.

3: Agree totally.

4: ENRON????? I believe Davis must have been in bed with the
energy companies. Why else did he sign a sweetheart contract
for them? I   suspect there will be a huge payoff down the
road for him.

5: I believe  most of the Media is pro-Democrat but they are
too   transparent vis-a-vis LA TIMES patented attack methods
which have   been used too often and now people won't believe
them even when they  are true.

6: Too many outsiders showed up trying to run the campaign and
the   press, as usual, gets too wrapped up in the
personalities involved.   I often think as the press as a
"pack of wolves", yet at times they become
hysterical Lemmings.

7: Polling Station problems????? As in Florida Democrats were
in   charge of both the stations and the ballots, so have only
themselves to blame. Our party has gotten too used to blaming
Repukes for every thing and so no one takes responsibility any
more. You are right: when will we learn?

[NashVegas]

83. Sweetheart Contract

Given how Californians behaved two days ago, do you think they'd have been willing to go without power in 2000/2001 so Davis could prove it was all a scam?

[Demsupporter]

86. I don't understand.

I have never criticized the voters for anything. Did you think they did something wrong? I always tell school boards that if you are going to ask people to increase their taxes so you can have money: "You need to sell your bond issue to the voters just as any common salesman would sell whatever product he is pushing". People do not easily part with their money unless they are a sucker. If you are running for an elected office you need to sell people on the idea that you are the best candidate for the job if you want that job, and you have to do it with the conditions given. I didn't think Davis tried very hard as he was relying on the press to do the "Politics of Personal Destruction" thing for him. Democrats need to learn not to rely on their friends in the media. Every Democrat needs to take charge of his own campaign or find a very competent person to do it. Relying on others in the hope that they will get you elected doesn't always work.

[Nottingham]

89. The reason we Lost the Recall Davis& Bustimonte & Democratic

Party! Its just that simple! I was on these Boards when the recall first came out

And I said watch this He is gonna get the signatures for the petition

But everybody here said NO WAY.....Democrats sat and watched

He then got them and Democrats just sat and watched

then when Arnold jumped in the race it was OH !@#$%^&

WHY! Because he was a liberal Republican and Popular

Davis & Bustamonte were PATHETIC in DEBATES and PATHETIC in
doing ANYTHING!

I understand the frustartion of Californians and thats why the High
turnout! They want their politicians to DO SOMETHING not sit on their BUTTS

Arnold got off his BUTT and did SOMETHIN!

Meanwhile Democrats just sat and Watched!

until it was too late

In many ways this country is truly a one party system! This is a prime example! Democrats have to put CANDIDATES out there that are
GOOD> and in California they just didn't DO IT!!

Plus I do believe the computers are stealing votes! But this is a Democratic controlled state??? So How could this BE!

:bounce:

[David__77]

90. We could have won, IF...

The auto registration fees should have been shifted through a majority-vote "revenue neureal" measure into higher taxes on the incomes of the wealthy. Then we could rail against the GOP lawsuit against this, since they would be fighting to restore the fees in a de facto sense.

We should have insisted that Sen. Cedillo NOT push the driver license issue right now. But unfortunately there are competing priorities here. Davis had promised before to sign a bill on this in 2002 and then proceeded to veto it. This was a weakness, not developing cordial relations with constituency groups.

There should have been a frank inner-party discussion--on a united plane--over whether a replacement should be fielded. And if one was chosen, then ALL Democratic resources should have promoted a NO/YES strategy. As it stood, Feinstein's "just say no" and mailings declaring YES! with a picture of Bustamante made it appear that Democrats were running against each other.

We could have won. We didn't--it's not the end of the world. With all the odds and the media against us, we made a very respectable showing for an election with a low Democratic turnout. We will learn and sharpen our swords for new battles ahead. People don't like the Republican right. Nothing on Tuesday changed that--they voted for the "moderate" guy married to a Kennedy who says he won't cut education. We will see...

[fizzana]

93. Arnold only entered the race because he saw it was there for

the taking.

If the Democrats had had their act together from the get go and had not diddled around it's doubtful that he would have even entered the race.

[agincourt]

94. my synopsis

Davis would not have been recalled if the California economy had not tanked. If the economy would have stayed like it was in 2000, he'd still be governor. The bad economy came mostly from the policies of the Bush administration. If not for kilowatt gouging, unrestricted outsourcing of high tech jobs and the problems caused by the national budget deficit in regards to investments, California wouldn't be in too bad of shape right now. I know it's fun to slam Davis, but I believe if you graft his weaknesses on a Republican governor, that Republican governor wouldn't get recalled. Our guys must get As or Bs,or they get kicked out of school. Their guys get Ds and Fs and people say they are a good student. Even if Bill Clinton took the US economy down as far as Bush did, he would have been lucky to serve his term until '96, and if he did he would have been resoundingly voted out. The question democrats must ask is ,why is the accountability in government so distorted in our current political systhem? Why can Republicans get away with so much and why must Democrats perform so well all the time?