Democrats Cannot Win Without California

I think many of us cannot already see part of the setup for the 2004 election in tonight's CA results.

Namely, the Bush team feels that California is in play in 2004. They know full well that there is virtually no chance of a Democratic electoral victory unless the Democrats take CA. If we lose it, we lose the election... quite simple really.

Remember in 2000 Rove tried this strategy (by pumping millions into CA) and it did not work.

However, I think we can take some VERY unsettling things for Republicans out of this election:

1. There seems to be growing dissatisfaction for incumbents. This bodes well for the Presidential and Congressional elections.

2. The economic crisis and the issue of jobs are looming in everyone's minds at the moment.

3. Californians voted for a social moderate outsider. That doesn't sound like * to me.

All in all though a very bad evening.

I do not know the dump Davis vote??? do you??? the groupinator can get 100% but unless Davis is recalled it means NOTHING!

It's still very unlikely Bushie Boy/Chimp/Charlie McCarthy will carry California. The Dem's have a 7-point registration edge, and the Legislature is solidly Dem in both houses.

And Bush is WAY too Texan ever to be very popular here. Californians can sense his contempt for us.

Just like it has been propping up FL's economy...

The Ahhhnulll economic miracle will wash * to victory in CA...

At least I think that's the plan...

Just like it has been propping up FL's economy...

The Ahhhnulll economic miracle will wash * to victory in CA...

At least I think that's the plan...

Bush won't win Cali, but now it's in play. That's all he and Rove wanted.

Terry McCaulif, who I generally think is an idiot, made a good point tonight. He said the same Californians that were angry and voted for the recall are the same types of people that will be voting against W in 2004 as the issues nationally are similar to those people in California were pissed about.

those that are unhappy now for the lose of jobs, etc, will be just as unhappy, if not more, by the time Shrub comes up for his FIRST election.

.

:)

...they voted against the horrible economy. Who else has that working against 'em? Oh yeah. Plus, don't discount the 18-to-25 "huh huh, voting for the Terminator is COOL!" vote. W isn't a movie star.

Later.

RJS

The DLC likes to right off states like mine becase we are repug taritory. But they also like to ignore states like CA, becase they take them for granted.

But I agree. I bet you Aronold will right up a deal with Diebold, and rig the next vote for Bush.

These Repugnant Repubs know what they are doing. What a turncoat she is. Just shows to go ya that some women are stupid, stupid, stupid.

I would never sleep with a Republican, much less marry him, and I'm just an ordinary person, not someone related to the Kennedys. I guess that makes me a better person than she is.

Bill Clinton -- the DLC President -- courted California like a fickle mistress. After eight years of constant attention from Clinton, California became a safe Democratic state in 2000, despite the fact that Gore had nowhere near the charisma of Clinton.

Man, something tells me you blame the DLC every time it rains.

What does the DLC have to do with my opinion of Maria Shriver?????

Dolstein was talking to Code_Name_D, not you. Look for the "response to" links on the top right side of each post box.

but I don't think Bush wins Cali, in any case.

i'm from california also. bill clinton visited california many times and helped out whenever we needed it like during the earthquake and floods. bush had to pump so much money into the state because he has no accomplishments of his own that would appeal to other so he had to sell himself as some "leader" through those ads. what one does throughout the years rather than just the ads run during election time is what is important to me.

... though I'm pissed off right now, and I'm nowhere near California. Yeah, the state would really have to go hard right from it's current position to go for Bush.

Though I'm sure the corporate media is going to give it's best try. They're going to be shilling for Bush through Schwarzenegger as hard as they can.

I agree that this should be McAuliffe's swansong.

HE MAY last until the convention, but I think he is replaced by the choice of the nominee after that-- if not sooner.

McAuliffe has become a lightning rod for the RNC and hate radio. He can barely show his face on a talk show. We can't have that in the head of a national party attempting to reach out nationally. We need someone front and center with a high media profile who can start making bridges with those who can be the swing voters in the next election.

California is a wake-up that we got skunked 6 ways from Sunday...and the more I've been reading this morning, the worse it look. I hate it.

Brushing this loss off as anything other than our failure to rise above the Repugnican noise and get a message and our base out is sad.

BTW...whatever happened to that wave of Union support that was supposed to ride to the rescue?

The evidence points to the opposite, in fact.

Will it work? I don't know???


However, I also thought Californians would have enough of a sense of self-preservation not to elect a MORAN...
I was wrong, apparently, on that count.

Bush didn't need California to "win" in 2000. We don't need it to win in 2004. It'll be a big help, but not a necessity. Plenty of scenarios out there allow us to win without them.

Not realistically...

The Democratic nominee MUST take CA. That's why we can't take tonight's result for granted.

As I pointed out though, the result isn't all good for the 'Pugs.

Alabama, Mississippi, S Carolina, Utah and Idaho, then he wouldn't even need California. ;)

Look at the big elector states, and there's a pattern developing.

Florida -- corrupt as all hell, nepotism and pandering by the GOP aren't even discrete anymore. Democrats won't win it again for 20 years, I bet. 27 electoral votes.

Texas -- Hahahahaha. With the redistricting tweaks, Tom DeLay has made that state his bitch for the foreseeable future. 34 electoral votes.

New York -- The Schizoid State. It elects Republican Mayors and Governors, and Democratic Senators and Governors. Dems seem to think it's safe, but it could turn at any time. The GOP convention is going to be a 100% full-on exploit of the 9-11 catastrophe, aimed to put New York in play. 31 electoral votes.

and now, California -- The Ahnold move, at the very least, puts the DNC on notice that the state could be turned back into a Reagan Wonderland, breeding ground for celebrity figurehead candidates to be propped up by the RNCC's immense campaign funds. 55 electoral votes.

These four states combine for 147 electoral votes.

Dismiss California at your peril.

like some previously suggested.

Putting Cali in play forces the DNC to spend time, resources, and money there. Those could be better spent elsewhere.

Bush can win without Cali, the dem nominee likely can not.

I don't think Bush will win Cali, but it's 'in play,' which takes resorurces away that could better be used elsewhere.

As for your three unsettling things,:

Remember in 2000 Rove tried this strategy (by pumping millions into CA) and it did not work.

1. Growing Dissatisfaction: See what happens election night 2003 for some insights into that.

2. The economy isn't getting any worse, so it it stays the same or just gets better a bit, that issue is off the table.

3. Californians did vote for a social moderate outsider, but Bush won't win California. He just wants the DNC to fight for it. Now, they have to. Bush already won.

It was a very bad evening.

conservativism" than they remember that he went to Bob Jones Univeristy to prove his RW bona fides.

As an insider who specializes in economic modeling and forecasting, let me tell you this. Virtually every model shows that 2004 will be a very decent year economically. If the Democratic Party is counting on a bad economy come November 2004, they are hopelessly hosed because it isn't going to happen.

The party needs to stop giving us retread candidates and start putting up candidates people can really believe in. I'll be frank; both in the California and national scene, a lot of the Democratic candidates simply suck. Yeah, they may have done their time in the Party, but what does that have to do with the voter. The Republicans are reinventing themselves with wild abandon (and to little good), but the Democratic Party looks like it is sitting on its ass trying to milk the past and a lot of the middle ground voters aren't buying into it.

"As an insider who specializes in economic modeling and forecasting, let me tell you this. Virtually every model shows that 2004 will be a very decent year economically. If the Democratic Party is counting on a bad economy come November 2004, they are hopelessly hosed because it isn't going to happen."

I'd love to see some specifics on this.

Is this the same "economic forecasting" that has been promising a second half recovery for three years in a row that never materialized?

Show us where the economy is getting better.

Models and forecasts do not and have not created jobs to replace the 3 million that have been lost. Show me how this is going to take place in the next year.

The Stock Market has become nothing more than a Casino manipulated desperately on a daily basis.

The economy sir, is NOT getting better.

Show me results and evidence where it is HAPPENING. I thinl we've all had just about enough of Models and "forecasts" that paint a bright picture that never seems to become reality.

They want Cal. I can picture it now, AAAAUUUUNNNOOOLLLDDD with his ig ass arm around Chimpy, every chance they get.

If AAAAAHHHHNNNNOOOOLLLLDDDDD can win the Guvenorship, then Schimpy can win the pwesidency.