California voting Republican?

[Moskie]

Recalling Gray Davis and voting in a Republican (albeit Schwarzenegger) has got me thinking.... Are the Democrats in danger of losing California's electoral votes for the '04 election? The Republican party has been getting more and more power around the country in recent times, is this just another example of it?

Then again, it's hard for me to think that a vote for Ahhh-nold represents a prospective vote for Bush, even if they are members of the same party.

[HarmlessRabbit]

If you look at the voting record, the bay area is solidly democratic, the rest of california is not.

For example. here are the 2000 presidential election results:

http://www.polidata.org/en2000/ca00pcy.pdf

People like to think of the whole state as being full of granola-eaters, but in truth there are huge cities like Sacramento that are not very liberal at all.

That said, I think the recall vote was more against Gray Davis than for Arnold. We've had republicans in charge before (remember that guy named Reagan?) and I don't think this recall election is a real sign one way or another.

My sense is that California is the same as it has been. Arnold isn't much of a traditional republican, he's positively liberal in a lot of his views, so even if he creates a moderate republican vote in the state, I'm not sure how much of that rubs off on Bush.

[Ustwo]

I'd be surprised if California went Republican in the next presidential election. They arn't that smart

[seretogis]

Schwarezenneger also is not that much of a Republican, heh.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
I'd be surprised if California went Republican in the next presidential election. They arn't that smart

Thanks for the productive contribution to the discussion.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Ustwo
I'd be surprised if California went Republican in the next presidential election. They arn't that smart

Funny you should mention that:

Wall Street Journal Online/OpinionJournal

BY JAMES TARANTO
Friday, October 10, 2003 4:15 p.m. EDT

The Cognitive Elite
It's been nine years since Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein published "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life," in which they argued that American society has become stratified along lines of intelligence, so that a "cognitive elite" consisting of people with high IQs who enjoy levels of wealth and power far disproportionate to their numbers. (The book was hugely controversial because of its section on the radioactive subject of racial disparities in IQ scores, but the cognitive-elite argument did not depend on the race section.)

The emergence of a cognitive elite may be inevitable in a knowledge-based economy, but it is a development Murray and Herrnstein viewed with considerable concern. What's fascinating is that liberals, who denounced Murray and Herrnstein over the racial aspect of their book, seem to view rule by the cognitive elite as the natural order of things. And of course they think they are the cognitive elite. We saw this in Jonathan Chait's Bush-hating cover story last month in The New Republic (which was, but is no longer, available online), in which Chait opined that the "striving, educated elite" views the president, because of his success despite his "dullness," as "an affront to the values of the liberal meritocracy." (In 1994 TNR devoted an entire issue to a series of essays on "The Bell Curve"; views ranged from harsh criticism to furious denunciation.)

The same phenomenon is evident in the reaction to Arnold Schwarzenegger's election as governor of California. The Oakland Tribune reports that state Sen. John Vasconcellos, a San Jose Democrat, has called the governor-elect "a boob" and is threatening to leave office on the grounds that he's too good for Californians: "If people want this actor to govern . . . they don't need or deserve me."

Sacramento Bee blogger Dan Weintraub has an interview with another Democratic state senator, Sheila Kuehl of Santa Monica, who opines that it's up to the Senate "to save the state." When Weintraub asks "from what?" Kuehl replies: "From ignorance. This guy has no idea how to run a state." She tells Weintraub she may skip the governor's State of the State speech, "because frankly I don't think there is going to be a lot of content that anyone's interested in. What's this guy got to say to us about the state of the state? Nothing."

And it's not just elected officials. The San Francisco Chronicle hits the streets of the Bay Area, where voters favored keeping Gray Davis in office, and manages to find one Sydney Webster of Oakland, a self-described "hair-color diva," who opines that Bay Area residents are simply "smarter" than people elsewhere in the state.

There's no reason to think that liberals actually are smarter than conservatives; there is plenty of brainpower on the political right. And surely Bush's and Schwarzenegger's detractors are mistaken when they characterize them as dull. The president, after all, is a graduate of both Yale and Harvard, and the governor-elect is a self-made immigrant businessman. It is possible for very intelligent people not to be snobs about it, not to adopt the pose of an "intellectual," and that would seem to describe both Bush and Schwarzenegger.

Some liberals also tend to overestimate their own intelligence. Consider this post from the Angry Left Web site DemocraticUnderground.com:

I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

If it comes as a revelation to the Democratic Undergrounders that 20% is less than a majority, they're not exactly rocket scientists, are they?

This is a disturbing trend I've seen lately on both the left and the right: If the majority decides something, they are are brushed off as intellectually inferior.

Now to be fair, I've done this myself and majority rule is not always a good thing (e.g. slavery), but when it is used blindly to dismiss something like the California election, it becomes a crutch where the intellectually snobish do not have to deal with the issues at hand, i.e. Gray Davis was a terrible governor and a career politician whereas Arnold was percieved as a no nonsense get-something-done solution.

[seretogis]

Jesse Ventura was also seen as an alternative, but while he said some gutsy (and stupid) things now and then, he did nothing to help Minnesota but invest millions of our dollars into a failure of a light-rail system.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Lebell
Gray Davis was a terrible governor and a career politician whereas Arnold was percieved as a no nonsense get-something-done solution.

I don't think Arnold was percieved as anything other than "not Gray Davis". His only position was that he was against the car tax. I think the voters would have elected a Bucket of Chicken if they thought it would would win against Gray Davis.

[DukeLeto]

Bucket of Chicken...mmmmmm.....

Seriously, though, I don't believe for a second that California will turn out for Bush. The only thing that could cause that state to support a reactionary, anti-environmental, oil industry tart like Bush is Chuck Hagel's rigged Diebold voting machines.

And though Gray Davis sucked, Enron sucked harder--and for more money. Who was buddy-buddy with Kenny Boy Lay? Oh yeah...W! That will make him popular in Calif. for certain.

[Food Eater Lad]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I don't think Arnold was percieved as anything other than "not Gray Davis". His only position was that he was against the car tax. I think the voters would have elected a Bucket of Chicken if they thought it would would win against Gray Davis.

Then why didnt they vote for the other 133 canidates?

[lordjeebus]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Then why didnt they vote for the other 133 canidates?

Because he was considered the "not Gray Davis" with the greatest chance of winning.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by lordjeebus
Because he was considered the "not Gray Davis" with the greatest chance of winning.

Exactly. I talked to several republicans at work who liked McClintock *much* better, but voted for Arnie because they didn't think McClintock could win.

I think the election was definitely a mandate that Californians wanted Gray Davis out of office. I'm not convinced that it was a mandate that people liked Arnold or his political platform.

The rubber meets the road now. I'm curious to see how Arnold will repeal the car tax AND balance the budget. He does have some smart people on his team, but he will have to either cut government programs deeply OR raise revenues somehow to balance the CA budget.

And remember, fixing things that he talked about, like corruption in the worker's comp system, actually cost you more in the short run. You have to hire consultants and extra staff to restructure the system to eliminate corruption, then slowly the corruption goes away. In the short run, the corruption is still there and you have the added expense of trying to fix it. It's a good goal in the long run, but in the short run it doesn't help him balance the budget.

[Food Eater Lad]

Well they liked Mclintlock better, so all this shows is that they chose rebublican over democrat. THey could have voted Bustamante but the fact is, the most people chose rebublican.

[lordjeebus]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Well they liked Mclintlock better, so all this shows is that they chose rebublican over democrat. THey could have voted Bustamante but the fact is, the most people chose rebublican.

Part of the problem was that Bustamante was Davis's Lieutenant Governor, and hence, not a very good "not Gray Davis."

Had a more popular democrat not so closely aligned with Davis run -- such as Dianne Feinstein -- the vote may have been much closer.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Well they liked Mclintlock better, so all this shows is that they chose rebublican over democrat. THey could have voted Bustamante but the fact is, the most people chose rebublican.

And your point is? I said people weren't voting for Arnold, they were voting against Gray Davis. Bustamante was working for Gray Davis, so of course some of the dislike rubbed off on him. I don't think you can conclude at all that people were voting "republican", I think, at best, you can conclude that people were voting "against Gray Davis and anyone associated with him."

[Food Eater Lad]

O ok if that makes you feel better. I mean not voting "Gray Davis and anyone assoiciated with him" means the same thing as voting Republican in my book.

[Ustwo]

While I think CA got a nice wakeup call with Grey Davis, I don't see the state swinging to the republican side anytime soon. It would be nice, but to many fringe left wing interests out there.

Lets take NJ for an example, they had a horrible corrupt senator and were going to vote for a republican. The democratic party at the last second put up a new canidate, violated state law, got the state supreme court to support the illegal action and they voted in a new senator who is quite possibly senile, but definately a democrat.

If the dems in CA would have had a canidate better then Davis and Bustamonte, the state may not have swiched sides.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
O ok if that makes you feel better. I mean not voting "Gray Davis and anyone assoiciated with him" means the same thing as voting Republican in my book.

Given that there was a Green party candidate who did pretty well in the results, your statement is incorrect. You are, of course, entitled to have factually incorrect opinions.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
If the dems in CA would have had a canidate better then Davis and Bustamonte, the state may not have swiched sides.

Yep, I agree. Had Davis had the balls to resign, the dems could have potentially put forward a good candidate.

[Food Eater Lad]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Given that there was a Green party candidate who did pretty well in the results, your statement is incorrect. You are, of course, entitled to have factually incorrect opinions.

And the Green won? You can spin this any way you want but the fact remains that a Democratic govenor was booted out and replaced with a republican, one that won by over a million votes. So what is incorrect about this?

[Food Eater Lad]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Yep, I agree. Had Davis had the balls to resign, the dems could have potentially put forward a good candidate.

Really and what hat would they pull him out of? Why didnt this good canidate run for office like 134 people did?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Really and what hat would they pull him out of? Why didnt this good canidate run for office like 134 people did?

Well it IS quite possible they didn't have any good canidates, it may have been party politics that kept anyone else from running. You have a sitting gov and the leut gov up in an election. You have Bill Clinton out there pushing for Davis (kiss of death btw heh), you don't want to stick your neck out lest it get chopped off.

Now odds are Arnold would still have won, (though possibly not), but he wouldn't have had such an overwhelming vote in favor.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
And the Green won? You can spin this any way you want but the fact remains that a Democratic govenor was booted out and replaced with a republican, one that won by over a million votes. So what is incorrect about this?

Your "won by over a million votes" point is misleading. The vote for the recall was 55% for the recall, 45% against. Hardly a mandate or a landslide.

You said:

I mean not voting "Gray Davis and anyone assoiciated with him" means the same thing as voting Republican in my book.

I was just pointed out that you are factually incorrect with this statement. Perhaps you meant somethign different. If you would like to learn why, please look here:

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/summary.html

It would be interesting to see how many registered democrats voted against the recall and for Arnie.

[alkaloid]

As a democrat looking at this from the other coast, I have no problem with Arnold winning this. I don't see Arnie as a wacko right winger or moron puppet to the christian right conspiracy.

If his new budget proposal comes up flat, we can call another recall, right?

[Food Eater Lad]

So Arnold didnt win the election by over a million votes? Hmmm I guess all the newspapers and TVstations got it wrong.

[Sledge]

My god, one million is not that big for CA. Going by percentage is a much better way to look at the statistics.

I'm a roaring liberal who's pissed as anyone that the Terminator won, but people did not vote for him because "they were dumb." They were pissed off at Davis, they knew who Schwarzenegger was, they liked the sound of his moderate stance on everything more than those of his extremist rivals.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So Arnold didnt win the election by over a million votes? Hmmm I guess all the newspapers and TVstations got it wrong.

That's not what I said. I said that the recall won by 55% to 45%. Do you even know the population of California?

You, however, did say that not voting for Gray Davis equalled voting republican. I was pointing out that your statement was incorrect.

[Ustwo]

The REAL question my friends is does voting for Arnold = voting Republican.

[Food Eater Lad]

No HR, voting for Republicans, when there was a democrate, and a green avaliable is called voting for Republicans. Again, you can spin it all you want, but a democrate was kicked out and replaced with a Republican.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
No HR, voting for Republicans, when there was a democrate, and a green avaliable is called voting for Republicans. Again, you can spin it all you want, but a democrate was kicked out and replaced with a Republican.

Thank you for stating the obvious. That's an obviously true point, but you said that any vote against Gray Davis was a vote for a republican, which is obviously not true.

The point of this thread was whether arnold winning was a sign of voter sympathies in California changing. Given a 55 to 45 split over the recall, I don't see that being the case. Nearly as many people voted against the recall (3.8 million) as voted for Arnold (4 million).

I've said all I have to say on this thread.

[Food Eater Lad]

No I said a vote against Davis and those associated with him, ei the Democratic Party was a vote for the Rebublican Party. If it wasnt, than a third party would have one. Why are you so determined to not see that a democrat was so lousy in his job that the state kicked him out and placed a republican to fix his errors?

[Ustwo]

But the number who voted for Arnold AND McClintoc was something like 60%. Thats the number that scares the crap out of the DNC, not Arnolds number by itself.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Ustwo
But the number who voted for Arnold AND McClintoc was something like 60%. Thats the number that scares the crap out of the DNC, not Arnolds number by itself.

As if there is even a difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. Schwarzenegger getting into office was not nearly as much of a suprise as when Ventura (an Independent) became Governor in MN.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by seretogis
As if there is even a difference between Republicans and Democrats these days.

Saddly true, though as many republicans move to center the democrats move to the left trying to show how they are different (such as Howard Dean). Either way we are going to be socialist, I would guess in about 15 years, and the revolution against it will come in 50.

Mmmmm I think I got off topic

[nanofever]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Saddly true, though as many republicans move to center the democrats move to the left trying to show how they are different (such as Howard Dean). Either way we are going to be socialist, I would guess in about 15 years, and the revolution against it will come in 50.

Mmmmm I think I got off topic

Or the entire scale has shifted right, causing right to look moderate and left to look radical...

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by nanofever
Or the entire scale has shifted right, causing right to look moderate and left to look radical...

I could only hope, but when our president is trying to get free drug care for everyone in the country, I don't think thats the case.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by Ustwo
I could only hope, but when our president is trying to get free drug care for everyone in the country, I don't think thats the case.

Can you name a modern president who hasn't "tried" to get free drug care? When Bush creates a system for free drug care you have a point but until then you don't.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
I could only hope, but when our president is trying to get free drug care for everyone in the country, I don't think thats the case.

Except veterans:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...oc_amos26.html

[takrupp]

Ill echo that I don't think the success of the Californian recall is a vote for the Republican mandate, especially not the the Bush flavor of Republican. As successful as the Republican party is there seems to be some party fragmentation: You have your Neo-cons (Bush style big gov, "moral," interventionalist), Socially liberal / fiscally consvervative (Ah-hold) and then the Old school that still lurk somewhere (Nixon/Eisenhower types). While potentially I think California could vote republican if the reps ran a social liberal; however, there is NO WAY the south will allow that kind of hijacking of the good ol' Repbulican party. I still see California voting dems, pretty much no matter what (Everyone remember that Diane Feinstein, like the most ardently liberal member of congress, is still the most popular politician in Cali).

As for this comment:
"The president, after all, is a graduate of both Yale and Harvard, and the governor-elect is a self-made immigrant businessman. It is possible for very intelligent people not to be snobs about it, not to adopt the pose of an "intellectual," and that would seem to describe both Bush and Schwarzenegger."

While I dont want to sound like the "liberal intelligencia" I know Im going to: Bush didnt exactly earn those Ivy degrees like most of us would have liked him to have. Not only did his aristocratic background get him into Andover (a feeder high school for Ivys), but furthermore, his lineage basically openned the door for him to Yale (I believe the previous two generations of Bushes also went to Yale...and Andover). The fact he pulled C's is also a little disheartening. As for Harvard Business school, it admits pretty much on a "how powerful is your name basis" while not entirely, it definitely helps to bring that to the table for, as they describe, "to give a class of future business leaders with a diverse background of experience."

Not to say that Bush is stupid though, he is an incredibly brilliant politician with excellent person to person people skills, but my opinion is that he represents the old money feeding candidates into the poilitical system. (To be fair, The Gore's are another family with this trait). If you guys need me to rebuke the Arnold characterization, I will, but I think that one is pretty easy to figure out.

T

PS Arnie is also married to a Kennedy...Strange bedfellows?