Remember all the pre-election hysteria from Democrats about how the recall election was unfair? They gave many reasons:
- The whole state elected Davis in 2002, while a handful of radicals were hijacking the state by pushing a recall which would be supported by only a few people.
- There would be hundreds of candidates and someone could get elected with only a small percentage of the vote.
- Davis could get more votes than the guy who replaced him and still "lose" to that guy.
Surprise! None of those things came to pass.
In fact,
- More votes were cast in the recall election -- 7.9 million so far -- than were cast in the November 2002 general election that let Gray Davis remain as governor (about 7.5 million).
- There were a large number of candidates, but not "hundreds," and the winner got 48.5% of the vote. Which was, in fact, a higher percentage than Gray Davis got in 2002, when he received 47.3% of the vote.
- Schwarzenegger got more votes in this election to win the job (3.7 million) than Davis did in the recall portion of the election to retain the job (3.5 million).
So adding up Arnold and McClintock, plus dropouts like Ueberroth and lesser known people, more than 62% of the vote went to Republican candidates. What does that say about the state of politics in California? (I have no idea. It wasn't a rhetorical question.)
By the way, the award for quirkiest vote total: in ninth place was "George Schwartzman." Who? I hate to be cynical about voters, but given that he got almost as many votes as more prominent candidates like Gary Coleman, Mary Carey, and Larry Flynt, it's hard not to conclude that there are a substantial number of retardsCalifornians who thought they were voting for Schwarzenegger, not Schwartzman.
Comments (1)
So adding up Arnold and McClintock, plus dropouts like Ueberroth and lesser known people, more than 62% of the vote went to Republican candidates. What does that say about the state of politics in California? (I have no idea. It wasn't a rhetorical question.)
I don't think it says a whole lot. Determined to actually defeat the recall, the Democrats put a complete stiff on the second portion of the ballot (Bustamante) and then didn't even campaign for him, calling him a backstabber and things like that. What would have happened if a less sleazy Dem had broken ranks, or if people like Feinstein, Clinton, Gore, Clark, etc. had spent their time campaigning for Cruz instead of (or even simply in addition to) Davis? I don't know, but I suspect the outcome would have been closer (in fact, if someone else had run Arnold might have stayed out entirely).
Both propositions on the ballot failed by huge margins, demonstrating that people in California are still pretty liberal even if they didn't like the choice of liberals to vote for in this particular election.
Posted by Blogician | October 8, 2003 10:25 PM
Posted on October 8, 2003 22:25