 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
MtG: About possible efforts to gun for Boxer in 2004.. You said you doubt the GOP would want to make a big effort to go after her, but didn't you make the same argument doubting Arnold's chances in this election saying that the GOP would feel no need to back Schwarzenegger in this election?
|
It seems to me, on a materiality scale, that GOP support for Schwarzenegger was pretty lukewarm. I haven't looked in detail at his campaign fund financing, but while some people here were predicting Bush would come out and campaign for him, and the RNC would shell out a lot of money, IIRC, neither happened. The state party endorsed Schwarzenegger late, saying the party needed to get behind one candidate (and suggesting McClintock fall on his sword) but that doesn't strike me as a major move either.
The state party is fairly cash poor, and has a lot of state and local races to try and support in 2004, plus the announced priority is delivering Calfornia to Bush's reelection effort. That doesn't give me any reason to make me think that the RNC is going to pop 15-20 mill here (which is about the scale it takes to move a race for Senate) that could go to several other states with vulnerable Democrat Senate seats or to Bush's reelection. A Senate vote is a Senate vote, it doesn't matter what state it's from. Boxer has a big liberal frootloop base in northern Cal, she has the advantage of the incumbency, and all she really needs to do in the south is almost break even everywhere except Orange County and write off Orange County entirely. Look what the state Republicans have run against her the last two times?
quote:
You make a good point though about California elections being more expensive, but the same would have go for the DNC in that it would cost money to defend Boxer.
|
Boxer has the incumbency advantage, and a strong base of voter and financial support in the liberal bay area. Boxer also has a decent amount of unspent money from her last outing.
As I understand, Boxer is considered to be evil personified by Republicans in California, and with this victory under their belt they should be particularly encouraged to keep up their attack.
The Califronia Republican State Party and Gov. Schwarzenegger should be able to raise a fair amount of cash, and if they manage to nominate a moderate candidate, I'd think Boxer could face a challenge..
The problem is simple: They have minorities in both houses of the legislature, and only one in eight statewide offices - and they'd love to get the Secretary of State, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner offices. Strategically, replacing Boxer is the least strategically appealing in terms of state or national politics. If they had stronger positions in those other offices, or more cash by far, or if this wasn't a presidential reelection coming up, then you would likely have a different equation, but Boxer gets more of a pass simply because there are much higher priorities.
quote:
As far as the national party and it's position on abortion, it doesn't really make sense to "moderate" just because of California. Like Ben said, pro-lifers are the most consistent Republican voters, and the Abortion issue is the key to Republican dominance in the South and Midwest, who together far outweigh California in electoral votes. |
Agreed - the national party will not move to the center. The current strategy has worked in their view. (Although I blame the ineptness of the Democratic Party in getting their message in tune with the electorate more)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
That was part of it but there was also the little thing about Enron manipulating the market and forming a cartile with other power producers to restrict supply. They figured by removing 1/3 of the available power they could make a killing selling the remaining 2/3s.  |
Too bad there's never been any evidence of collusion, and that the other parties never had a third of the power supply period, let alone a third they could manipulate out of the market.
And too bad that people forget that 30% of the state never "deregulated" because they're not under CPUC jurisdiction (i.e. the munis, inluding Los Angeles, Anaheim, Sacramento, Riverside, Burbank, Glendale, Imperial Irrigation District, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Redding, Modesto, DWR, etc.) and the vast majority of them had the same problems. The one main exception, Los Angeles DWP, actually gouged the market more on a price basis than any private sector participant.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pchang
where did the 53% come from? Was this percentage of eligible voters? 70% is the percentage of registered voters. Comparing registered voters to registered voters, only a little more than 50% of the registered voters in CA voted in the last statewide election. |
This is from the sectary of state website. They have all the stats. Some counties did get around 60% turn out, the average for the entire state is 53.3%. Only about 8,000,000 votes were casted in a state with 15,000,000 voters. That is correct. Were did you get your information????
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Well now with 100% Precincts reporting the final turout is 54.3% of all voters. So it went up one percent.
Also Arnold has 3,744,132 votes, and this is 48.7% of all the votes casted in the second question.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2003 01:29
|