Bush got more votes in California than Kerry did!!

http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/00.htm ^

[No Dems 2004]

Just an interesting tidbit I noticed while perusing the results of the CA primary.

GW Bush received 1,949,746 votes, while Kerry received only 1,764,436. Sure, I know the President was unchallenged while Kerry had competition, but even all the Dem voters combined didn't tally that far ahead of President Bush. I though California was unwinnable for the President and that they were turning out in droves to 'send him a message'.

LOL

[tcuoohjohn]

Perhaps a bit of realism is necessary here. If you total up all the Democrat votes cast it comes to,

2,390,810 Dem votes cast
-1,949,746 Rep. votes cast
_________
441,064

Even the most wildly optimistic folks don't foresee Bush taking California. While it is nice to dream and be optimistic it is also necessary to be focused and realistic.

[No Dems 2004]

Just another interesting fact to chew on:

Senator Barbara Boxer (one of my least favourite sinators) who was also unopposed and received 100% of the Dem vote only faired slightly better than the President.

She got 2,246,373 votes. That's a fair number more than the President, but not enormous considering that CA is 'solidly Democratic' according to most(Democratic) strategists. And, all the Republican Senate candidates combined received fewer votes than she did.

[OldFriend]

On the contrary. By running unopposed it was less likely that folks would be voting in the republican primary.

This is a good sign, which will be ignored by the lamestream commies.

[Lily4Jesus]

some of mine Republicans friends didn't vote yesterday but they are voting in November and I'm going to convince some Democrats to vote for G W Bush. The question will be, "Who would you trust your life with? Bush of Kerry?....

[Jewels1091]

Actually, with Bush running unopposed, LESS people would come out to vote, knowing he would win no matter what.

[Jewels1091]

Actually, with Bush running unopposed, LESS people would come out to vote, knowing he would win no matter what.

[bpjam]

Most people are overlooking how good this is. Kerry is as exciting as Bob Dole. I remember Bob Dole, in California. Dem voters don't think Kerry agrees with them on the issues, they just think he can win. As soon as the polls start showing Kerry badly trailing Bush, what is going to happen to their moral?? Since they aren't inspired by him and they don't think he agrees with them, their last hope of him being a possible winner starts going down the drain and they will just stay home. Its Bob Dole all over again, but French(er) and more liberal.

I don't care if Kerry appoints a black person as VP, its going to be a loser ticket anyways.

Remember one key fact. For a Dem to win the White House, he has to be able to convincingly lie to the public about being a 'centrist' and not a liberal. Only Clintoon has been able to pull that off because of his unstable mental condition. Kerry is deranged but not pathalogical like Clintoon. Kerry may be prouder about being a liberal than Dukakis but he still has to admit being a liberal. And if Democrat fantasies are granted and McCain would run with him as VP, we could get rid of two wackjobs at the same time and still win Arizona in November.

This is just getting better and better. Dems think they have some kind of silver bullet going into this election because of the 'outrage' in their base and 'unity' behind removing Bush. Yeah, I remember that in 1996 and we lost by 10. This is just the first time in 12 years that the Dem base has been pissed off. But anybody with an ability to read a newspaper from any previous election year will be able to tell you that not only to you have to get YOUR base excited but you also have to get 12%+ of independents. And being pissed about Bush ain't gonna cut it. And if Osama ends up on a stretcher, you can just put a fork in Kerry by June.

[heleny]

Senator Barbara Boxer (one of my least favourite sinators) who was also unopposed and received 100% of the Dem vote only faired slightly better than the President. She got 2,246,373 votes.

No, she only got up to 82.1% of the Democrat vote, since more people voted for the 10 Democrat candidates for President than voted for her (2,736,198 vs. 2,246,373, or a difference of almost 500,000 voters who voted for a Dem candidate for President but did not vote for Boxer).

She got 2,246,373 votes. That's a fair number more than the President, but not enormous considering that CA is 'solidly Democratic' according to most(Democratic) strategists. And, all the Republican Senate candidates combined received fewer votes than she did.

The total for the 10 Republican candidates for US Senate was 2,002,211. It's less than Boxer's vote, but more than what Bush got (1,949,746).

I voted for a Republican US Senate candidate, but I could not vote for Bush because the nonpartisan voting Republican ballot didn't include President. That's one contribution to the 50,000 vote difference; another is that some Republican voters didn't vote for Bush.

[No Dems 2004]

"No, she only got up to 82.1% of the Democrat vote, since more people voted for the 10 Democrat candidates for President than voted for her (2,736,198 vs. 2,246,373, or a difference of almost 500,000 voters who voted for a Dem candidate for President but did not vote for Boxer)."

Don't worry ... I know she didn't get as many votes as the Dim presidential field combined, but my point is that she and the President were running very close in vote tally, considering they were both shoe-ins. I don't think that the GOP Senate primary generated nearly as much interest as the Dim presidential primary. Anybody following polling could tell that Bill Jones was going to win (I'm glad he won, btw).

All I'm saying, my friend, is that the case that Californians are ranting angry and looking for an opportunity to assault President Bush is just not true. His performance in California, as a shoe-in, was solid for Dim-leaning state. And, btw, if he'd been really unpopular he would have lost more GOP voters from the Senate primary. It's clear that even California Republicans are pretty firmly behind their President.

I don't know if President Bush will win California come November, but, with Arnold's help and numerous other factors, he at very least can try to keep in competitive. These primary results are positive in that regard.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Of course, all the votes for Edwards, plus the "principled" votes for Kucinich or whoever, will end up being knee-jerk Kerry votes by the time November rolls around.

On the other hand, Bush's numbers may also actually be somewhat suppressed (compared to what they will be in November) due precisely to the fact that he was unopposed.

For example, I cast no vote for President on my (R) primary ballot. Since Bush was the only name listed, it didn't matter, so why bother? Yet in November my vote will almost certainly be for Bush.

Just worth keeping in mind.

[Dan from Michigan]

Doesn't mean a thing. The dems got a lot more votes in the 2002 primary. The GOP got a lot more in 2000.

The GOP did much better in 02 here, than 00.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Yeah, but why did Republicans show up in such large numbers to vote for Bush when there was no competition? I can see why Democrats show up because they are looking for a candidate. Were there some other issues on the ballots?

I don't know why so many filled in the "Bush" circle when he was unopposed. But it's true that there were various other issues on the ballots. For example (here in CA) I cast a ballot (to vote "No" on a bunch of propositions), but left the Presidential spot blank. FWIW

[Prime Choice]

Yeah, but why did Republicans show up in such large numbers to vote for Bush when there was no competition?

There were other issues on the ballot. Namely, Prop 55 (multi-billion dollar education bond), Prop 56 (Democrats seeking to lower majority required to raise taxes), Prop 57 (multi-billion dollar debt bailout bond) and Prop 58 (balanced budget), as well as selecting a Republican challenger to Barbara Boxer (D).

That's why we saw the Republican turnout. And I think I read somewhere that only 39% of all registered voters even bothered to vote.

[Prime Choice]

Considering that the GOP nomination is unopposed, that would depress turnout in GOP primary.

I would agree with that if there weren't Propositions 55 through 58 on the ballot as well as selection of the Republican contender to challenge Barbara Boxer.

[Prime Choice]

Actually, with Bush running unopposed, LESS people would come out to vote, knowing he would win no matter what.

That would be true only if there weren't Propostions on the ballot that Republicans rallied for and against (Props 55-58) and selection of the challenger to run against Democrat Barbara Boxer.

With that in mind, I do not concur with your assessment.

[newzjunkey]

But 2.5 million cast a vote for Boxer in the Senate race while only 2 million votes went to *all* the GOP Senate challengers with the top vote getter Bill "Tax 'em, Judas" Jones got around 800,000.

The GOP is TOAST in California this fall. Bush should ignore it and concentrate elsewhere.

[atomicpossum]

There is an opportunity in California:

If Bush is only close enough that the Dems can't consider it safe, he can use his greater resources to force them to pour some of their scarcer resources into protecting their lead. He can make them go on the defense, wasting money that they then can't spend in the rest of the country.

[BigWaveBetty]

Ping!

[Common Tator]

What is the total DEM vote versus Bush? If that is close, then maybe CA is in play. Remember, many Bush supporters did not case ballots since his nomination is a "given".

The ratio of registered Dems to Registered Republicans in CA is 4 to 3. Bush will have to win over 2/3 of the independents to win in California. That has been the case in California for decades.

Just as in South Carolina the Democrats have to win over 2/3 of the independents to win.

The primary vote in California was 4 democrats voted for every 3 Republicans. That is just SOP.

[blanknoone]

If California is in play, it is already a Bush landslide. But I don't think California, or any of the north east (other than NH), is in play.

There will not be another 49 state win for many, many, many years. Both parties have locks on big chunks of the country, and there are very few places that will tip the decision one way or the other.