Why Arnold may be tough to beat in California

[The Vagabond]

I wonder if 90% of the Hispanics are going to vote for Bustamante.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Illinois... I saw 3... Nader, Gore, Bush... and box for write-in.

Damn you people!

No Libertarians? CPUSA? Socialist Workers? Constitution Party? etc

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I wonder if 90% of the Hispanics are going to vote for Bustamante.

It's not near that monolithic a vote, but he can probably pull 65% of that voting bloc.

[Sava]

No Libertarians? CPUSA? Socialist Workers? Constitution Party? etc

no, they take all the fun out of throwing your vote away in Illinois...

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's because it doesn't matter... they'll end up voting for you anyway in Illinois .

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The RNC isn't stupid. They didn't screw it up last time.

After Reagan, they view the governship as a steppingstone to the Presidency. So (a) Arnie is tits on a bull since he's ineligible,

Nah, that's your absolute rule, not theirs. So you think they are just going to give up the governor of the most prosperous area in the world just because he can't be President? In favor of some candidate who "might", "someday" appear and acsend to the Presidency? Someone who would rival Bush himself?

(b) they picked Simon,

No, DAVIS picked Simon who was the weaker of the two. Bush couldn't STAND Simon and his campaigning for him was weak because of all the scandals that Simon didn't disclose to him.

It would also be the only statewide elected office in the state they hold, the Dems have a rock solid lock on both houses of the legislature, so the governorship here would be meaningless in the large picture.

Come on, you've lived here long enough to know how important image is.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's not near that monolithic a vote, but he can probably pull 65% of that voting bloc.

Yeah, you are probably right. That' because he is not considered a viable candidate in the present circumstances. If he were a real candidate (say, the only one from dems), I am pretty sure more than 95% of the Hispanics would end up voting for him. Ethnically determined vote would be a nasty thing for California.

[Sava]

That's because it doesn't matter... they'll end up voting for you anyway in Illinois

Maybe in the city (cook county) but not out in rich, conservative, Dupage county.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Nah, that's your absolute rule, not theirs. So you think they are just going to give up the governor of the most prosperous area in the world just because he can't be President? In favor of some candidate who "might", "someday" appear and acsend to the Presidency? Someone who would rival Bush himself?

Hey, pocket rocket scientist, if they're so damned interested in the state, how come the state party is nearly broke and begging for help, and the RNC left all the statewide candidates more or less flapping in the breeze, as well as a twit like Boxer's last opponent.

If the RNC has made such a priority out of California lately, why is it so solidly Democrat, and why did Bush lose to friggin' Gore?

The only thing the RNC can't do, is admit they've practically written off the state, except for OC, because they can still raise good money there. To put in other state's elections and the Presidential election.

No, DAVIS picked Simon who was the weaker of the two. Bush couldn't STAND Simon and his campaigning for him was weak because of all the scandals that Simon didn't disclose to him.

Gee, Davis got to pick his opponents?

Bush's campaigning for Simon was weak because Simon was a dead duck from the beginning. George Washington, FDR, Jim Morrison and Ronald Reagan could have all appeared to campaign for Simon and it wouldn't have done any more good than if they'd been trying to levitate the ****ing Titanic.

Come on, you've lived here long enough to know how important image is.

Yeah, I do. Trouble for you is, the RNC leadership don't live here.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Yeah, you are probably right. That' because he is not considered a viable candidate in the present circumstances. If he were a real candidate (say, the only one from dems), I am pretty sure more than 95% of the Hispanics would end up voting for him. Ethnically determined vote would be a nasty thing for California.

The Hispanic vote in California is not monolithic at all. They have the same economic and social issues differences between north and south, coastal urban, coastal suburban and central and Imperial valleys as everyone else. A compounding factor is the generally more socially conservative views of the many who are practicing Catholics. Nobody can really try to run on a statewide Hispanic base, but Bustamante will capture far more of that vote than anyone else.

[Ted Striker]

.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Hispanic vote in California is not monolithic at all. They have the same economic and social issues differences between north and south, coastal urban, coastal suburban and central and Imperial valleys as everyone else. A compounding factor is the generally more socially conservative views of the many who are practicing Catholics. Nobody can really try to run on a statewide Hispanic base, ...

If so, good for California.

[Berzerker]

First, what would happen if Davis resigned and the Lt Gov took over? Would the recall be invalidated?

MtG -

(a) State officials can be criminally charged with contempt and obstruction of justice for refusing to enforce Federal laws.

Can or will? I understand there are localities refusing to uphold the "Patriot Act" and cities like San Fran and Oakland have endorsed medical pot and licensed suppliers, so they've gone even further than refusing to enforce federal laws.

(b) the Feds have huge purse-string leverage over any state.

Yup, a very unfortunate reality. If a locality doesn't do as told, Washington threatens to with hold funds even when the funds are for unconstitutional policies, but California has political clout. There's no way it's congressional delegation will with hold those funds, that tactic only works with small states and effectively powerless localities. But like you said, this is all moot. Arnie and the voters won't take on the feds over drug laws, but I'm not sure what would happen with medical pot enforcement. I doubt Arnie has much "rebel" in him...

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The Hispanic vote in California is not monolithic at all. They have the same economic and social issues differences between north and south, coastal urban, coastal suburban and central and Imperial valleys as everyone else. A compounding factor is the generally more socially conservative views of the many who are practicing Catholics. Nobody can really try to run on a statewide Hispanic base, but Bustamante will capture far more of that vote than anyone else.

Generally speaking, the national Democratic Party is socially liberal and the national Republican Party is socially conservative. I would not be surprised if Bustamante was a social conservative given is Hispanic background. I understand that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a social liberal. Which means we have a conservative Democrat running against a liberal Republican. Huh? I wonder how the national press is going to spin this?

[Ted Striker]

.