October 24, 2003

Cali-spin

Fresh off his win in California and a moving day scheduled for next month, Schwarzenegger’s victory is furiously being played down by prominent Democrats. And while his win may not mean Bush can take California in 2004, as some Republican strategists hope, its magnitude should not be overlooked.

But that’s not how California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres sees it. He even went so far as to call the Republican mandate “an aberration,” USA Today reported last night.

A quick look at the facts shows that the Golden State may may be shifting:

  • "Schwarzenegger and McClintock got 41% of Latino votes. Bush got 29% in 2000."
  • "The two Republican gubernatorial candidates got two-thirds of the votes of people who consider themselves moderates. Bush was supported by 38% of moderates."
  • "59% of women voted for Schwarzenegger or McClintock. In 2000, Bush got 37%."

In spite of this, Democratic spinsters see the election as having been, as USA Today put it, "driven by fury at Davis, not the appeal of the Republican Party."

But not only did Republicans receive five points more than the entire Davis recall vote, Democrats pulled a meager 30+ percent, compared with 60+ for Republicans. If that doesn't scream appeal, I don't know what does.

Posted by Deleted Author at October 24, 2003 05:21 AM
Comments
Comment #3495

Perhaps some of the appeal came in the form of a highly popular actor and the glamor surrounding him. From what I have heard about Schwarzenegger his is more moderate than most of his conservative peers. This *may* benefit California in the long run, but I doubt it will do much to help the right-leaning conservatives’ cause.

Posted by: Ravyne at October 24, 2003 03:44 PM
Comment #3502

In spite of this, Democratic spinsters see the election as having been, as USA Today put it, “driven by fury at Davis, not the appeal of the Republican Party.”

The above spin, may prove to be a fact, only time and another election will tell. In the meantime, you are correct to call it spin, since, any explanation for Arnold’s win calls for reading the minds of the voters, and political mind readers have been notoriously wrong upon many an occasion.

Posted by: David R Remer at October 25, 2003 03:03 PM
Comment #3505

I’m surprised the Democratic spin-meisters haven’t been painting California as an example of voters who were unhappy with an incumbent flexing their muscle and turfing them out, just as will happen to Bush next year. I suspect that that line would resonate better than simply arguing it was an isolated, one off aberration. There might even me a bit of truth to it!

Posted by: Ari at October 26, 2003 10:43 AM
Comment #3521

I think it may just be. No, seriously. Don’t look at me like that.

I wouldn’t be agreeing with the guy who this fellow’s painted as the bullseye of this blog entry otherwise.

Mandate. What mandate? You guys saw a mandate in an election decided by bare thousands of votes. Now you see it in a guy who would have never been elected if he hadn’t the face and the name of a popular actor.

This isn’t isn’t a mandate, this is reactionism on the part of the voters. They elected a guy who didn’t participate in the debates, who didn’t offer any good, off-the-cuff explanation of his values and agenda. Any other guy, and people would have been quick to ignore and discount him. But this is a film actor who’s been out in the public eye for longer than some California voters have been alive. Of course he’s going to score well with the voters, even with the Clintonesque behavior.

Lets see, friends and neighbors, how Arnold really deals with the problems of that state. Then we can talk about mandates.

Posted by: Steve Daugherty at October 27, 2003 11:05 PM
Comment #3532

But not only did Republicans receive five points more than the entire Davis recall vote, Democrats pulled a meager 30+ percent, compared with 60+ for Republicans. …

I agree that it was a remarkable showing for the Republicans, but this particular sentence is terribly misleading. Republicans had two candidates that split that 60% of the vote. The traditional Republican wing was still motivated to vote for their candidate, while AS pulled in moderates or those who “previously leaned Democratic”. If you restricted the Republicans to a single candidate, either the base would have been less enthusiastic or some moderates might have been turned off.

Posted by: Victor at October 28, 2003 03:10 PM