Posted on 11/09/2006 5:54:32 PM PST by calcowgirl
BEVERLY HILLS--Sometime before midnight on election night, it was clear that despite the governor's easy re-election, the Democratic wave was sweeping over California. Early returns showed conservative darling Tom McClintock ahead of Democrat John Garamendi, results that drew enthusiastic cheers from Republican delegates still rummaging amid the orange, green and white balloons that had dropped after Schwarzenegger's victory speech.
But as the vote totals filtered in from around the state, it became clear that California was in the midst of another big Democratic year.
By Wednesday morning, Republicans woke up to find themselves in familiar territory. So what is to be made of the results? The two Republican winners were both moderates, and conservatives Tony Strickland and Chuck Poochigian lost by wide margins. But GOP moderate Bruce McPherson lost his race by about the same number of votes as the conservative McClintock. There did not seem to be a clear ideological rhyme or reason to the election results.
So while some Republicans grumble that the governor did not do enough to help fellow Republicans this election year, the party was left to wonder once again what the implications are for their future.
The governor shared his version of what the election results meant with his supporters: "The people have given us a mandate, not for any particular party, but to build a new future, to work together to get things done," he said in his Tuesday remarks.
But as he spoke, surrounded by Democrats like his wife, Maria Shriver, and his family, it was notable who was not on stage. As Schwarzenegger spoke, McClintock was up in his hotel suite watching election returns. State controller candidate Strickland was not on the stage. And Schwarzenegger did not mention, or even allude, to any other Republicans on the ballot with him.
While Schwarzenegger may not have been arm-in-arm with others on the GOP ticket, state party chairman Duf Sundheim said Schwarzenegger helped the party immensely. "From my perspective, based on what other people told me, this was the best coordinated campaign between the governor and the down-ticket that they had ever seen.
"The governor raised more money than any other candidate for GOTV and other party activities," he said. Sundheim estimated that "50 to 70 percent of the money we raised came from the governor."
Sundheim said that in this Democratic year, it just didn't make sense for Schwarzenegger to embrace other Republicans. "What we saw and felt is that this is not the year you get a bunch of Republicans holding hands on the stage saying, vote for us, we're Republicans, we're a team. Part of Gov. Schwarzenegger's appeal is that he's not part of that team."
Some Republicans said Tuesday's results reflect something more fundamental about how to get elected in California--and it had nothing at all to do with ideology.
"Obviously, the lesson from this election is it pays to have a horrible Democratic opponent and lots of money in the bank," said Mike Spence, president of the conservative California Republican Assembly.
For Republicans, Tuesday represented their worst fears: Schwarzenegger's success has not rebuilt the image or the bench of the state Republican Party. With no statewide races in 2008, California Republicans have four years to pick a titular leader.
That has many, by default, looking to Poizner, a man who has a vast personal fortune, but has not yet served a day in elected office. And in his two campaigns--one for Assembly and the other for insurance commissioner--Poizner has done everything possible to distance himself from partisan labels.
So while Republicans are left to lick their wounds, they must ask themselves once again whether they can choose a moderate to lead their party. But for Poizner, those concerns are far, far off.
"I've heard all the speculation, of course, but right now, I'm completely focused on being the best insurance commissioner this state has ever had," he said Wednesday.
In fact, one of Poizner's first goals is to make the office he just won as a Republican nonpartisan. Poizner said he will sponsor legislation next year that makes the insurance commissioner a nonpartisan office, just like the state superintendent of public instruction. That change can be made with a two-thirds vote by the Legislature, and may not even require voter approval, Poizner said.
Spence said there's no reason why Poizner couldn't win another GOP primary in 2010, if he decides to run for governor. "He already won a closed Republican primary. I think conservatives are going to find there's more common ground there than many people think," Spence said. "He made a lot of effort in reaching out to conservatives, and that's more than I can say for the governor."
GOP strategist Kevin Spillane, who briefly was involved in Gary Mendoza's aborted campaign against Poizner in the Republican primary, says that, by default, Poizner is now the Republican to watch.
"Steve Poizner is the de facto nominee for governor in 2010 by virtue of being a moderate, his vast personal wealth and the fact that he is a statewide office holder." But that could have its drawbacks, said Spillane.
"It puts a giant target on his back. The day he's sworn in, the Democrats will be looking for ways to target and attack him."
Poizner or any other moderate--such as HP CEO Carly Fiorina or San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who are also mentioned as potential statewide candidates--potentially could face problems in a closed GOP primary. But Spillane said that in the current political climate, Republican centrists are likely to have better success, not only at the polls, but also among the party's donors.
"I think our donor community has more confidence in moderate candidates to win," he said. "It's hard, at this point, to see an obvious conservative candidate for governor who's credible. There just aren't any people out there like that."
Defacto nominee? We have to do better folks! Who the heck is touting this? He ran against a totally unlikeable racial separatist (Cruz Bustamante) and outspent him by a factor of EIGHT, throwing almost $9 million of his own money into a campaign and running an $11 million advertising campaign. Cruz kept cruisin' with his $1 million debut of his personal weight loss endeavor.
During Poizner's 2004 candidacy for the Assembly, he refused to say whether he was supporting Kerry or Bush. At the same time, he touted his endorsement by his ex-box National Security guy Richard Clarke (who was busy attacking Sec. Rice and President Bush).
www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=CA&last=poizner
Poizner, Stephen Gore, Al (D) Gore 2000 Inc $1,000.00 02/22/00 Poizner, Stephen L Democratic National Committee (D) $10,000.00 10/02/00 Poizner, Steve Kerry, John F (D) Kerry Committee $1,000.00 02/15/01 Poizner, Steve Kerry, John F (D) Kerry Committee $1,000.00 02/15/01 Poizner, Steve Mr. Bush, George W (R) Bush-Cheney '04 (Primary) Inc $2,000.00 06/30/03 Poizner, Steve Kobach, Kris (R) Kobach For Congress $2,000.00 07/31/03 Poizner, Steve Mr. The Wish List $1,000.00 04/08/04 Poizner, Steve California Republican Party/Victory 2006 (R) $9,952.00 06/07/05 Poizner, Steve Santa Clara County Republican Party(Fed) (R) $1,000.00 02/03/06
Feelings are the only acceptable expression of political dialog on FR.
I feel that Steve Poizner is not representative of Republicans in California
instead of:
In 2000, Steve Poizner donated $10,000 to the DNC and $1,000 to Al Gore.
Where's the party??? and where are the election stats? You would think from MSM that the demoncraps got ALL the votes. It took forever to find out the actual results in the races. I like it better in presidential race years, it is easy to find out ALL the numbers! LOL Tuesday night out here in California, I went to bed early. I didn't have a very good feeling about the election and didn't need to watch it. Kinda like when Klintoon won, TWICE! Depressing.
I also need to work on my typing. It should read:
During Poizner's 2004 candidacy for the Assembly, he refused to say whether he was supporting Kerry or Bush. At the same time, he touted his endorsement by his ex-boss National Security guy Richard Clarke (who was busy attacking Sec. Rice and President Bush).
Candidate Votes Percent Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Rep) 3,813,059 55.80% Phil Angelides (Dem) 2,674,919 39.20% Edward C. Noonan (AI) 48,672 0.70% Peter Camejo (Grn) 155,520 2.30% Art Olivier (Lib) 89,795 1.30% Janice Jordan (PF) 53,727 0.70% Lt. Governor John Garamendi (Dem) 3,320,186 49.50% Tom McClintock (Rep) 3,013,480 44.90% James D. King (AI) 54,874 0.80% Donna J. Warren (Grn) 183,497 2.70% Lynnette Marie Shaw (Lib) 111,391 1.60% Stewart A. Alexander (PF) 34,464 0.50% Attorney General Jerry Brown (Dem) 3,770,932 56.70% Chuck Poochigian (Rep) 2,522,068 37.90% Michael Sutton Wyman (Grn) 147,949 2.20% Kenneth A. Weissman (Lib) 140,281 2.10% Jack Harrison (PF) 78,463 1.10% Secretary of State Debra Bowen (Dem) 3,203,212 48.50% Bruce McPherson (Rep) 2,950,765 44.70% Glenn McMillon, Jr. (AI) 107,816 1.60% Forrest Hill (Grn) 140,505 2.20% Gail Lightfoot (Lib) 136,537 2.00% Margie Akin (PF) 71,014 1.00% Controller John Chiang (Dem) 3,350,464 50.90% Tony Strickland (Rep) 2,636,766 40.10% Warren M. Campbell (AI) 84,724 1.20% Laura Wells (Grn) 200,973 3.10% Donna Tello (Lib) 149,685 2.20% Elizabeth C. Barron (PF) 168,522 2.50% Insurance Commissioner Cruz Bustamante (Dem) 2,549,110 38.90% Steve Poizner (Rep) 3,323,880 50.70% Jay Earl Burden (AI) 101,237 1.50% Larry Cafiero (Grn) 209,478 3.10% Dale F. Ogden (Lib) 239,707 3.60% Tom Condit (PF) 145,464 2.20% Treasurer Bill Lockyer (Dem) 3,590,666 54.80% Claude Parrish (Rep) 2,426,093 37.00% E. Justin Noonan (AI) 74,544 1.10% Mehul M. Thakker (Grn) 152,396 2.30% Marian Smithson (Lib) 261,056 4.00% Gerald Sanders (PF) 57,066 0.80% United States Senate Dianne Feinstein (Dem) 4,013,929 59.70% Richard "Dick" Mountjoy (Rep) 2,346,935 34.90% Don Grundmann (AI) 59,865 0.80% Todd Chretien (Grn) 111,468 1.70% Michael S. Metti (Lib) 105,411 1.60% Marsha Feinland (PF) 91,571 1.30%
What a RINO.
The education system certainly does not help. But the biggest problem is in migration of people whose views are not of the Western US and the out migration of those who are either of settler stock or who, like me, grew up with enough of them to take on those sorts of views. As the demographics have changed from being those of the Western US state to being more like the NE US, this is the inevitable result. The sorts of educated liberal Eastern US professionals who used to make the NE the standard solid bloc of lib Dems have moved here. Their kids have adopted the same mentality and are now hitting voting age. Add to that the immigrants turned citizens (not to mention those voting illegally) who have been duped into believing that if they don't vote D they'll be discriminated against, and there you have it. Of course the blacks, most of whom were born here, vote like most blacks do nation wide. As do unionistas.
This map is getting old.
Split the state East and West, right down the Mount Diablo meridian. Torture the Hollywierdos by turning them into an instant minority faction.
Exactly. Old Arnie is the west coast version of mAsshole Mitt. Mitt is all face and no depth. The state Republican party is in as miserable shape as ever while Mitt is being touted as the next Republican hero because the majority of mASS dimwits tripped over his lever while voting for a drunken Kennedy. The Republican party in mASS. gets sucker punched by these country club heros every time. His Lt. Governor lost big time running a campaign based on the facts and issues. Mitt's a pretty face with lots of money but no principles Arnie and Mitt are heavy on the 'compassionate' but take a pass on the conservative. Neither has put any effort into helping anyone but themselves to stay in office.
Although the way he operates and his policy objectives differ, Arnold, in my view, is going to prove as disasterous for the GOP in California as Pataki was for the GOP in New York - (where the NY State Senate is about the only place you can find many Republicans in state government). Bloomberg is a new form of RINO, but a RINO none the less and provides no "Republican" coat tails, even in the city.
So are the comments that California is a liberal state. (see above). To those who don't know the state, the map is quite telling. One need only look at history to know that there are a great many conservatives in California.
From a Sac Bee liberal journalist:
California is neither as permanently Democratic nor as liberal as political folklore sometimes has it. In our presumably immutable Democratic era, California voters have recalled a Democratic governor; passed a ballot measure prohibiting same-sex marriage; overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to reduce the two-thirds legislative margin necessary to pass the budget or raise taxes; rejected an initiative to require that the third strike in the state's "three-strikes" sentencing law be a serious felony; and passed an initiative designed to eliminate bilingual education. Proposition 13, of course, remains sacrosanct. (source)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Sorry, but this list does not take away that California is liberal as all heck. I've been here since 54, and my recollection is it is liberal as he!!.
No doubt there are many liberals in California, but there are also many conservatives. What the list shows is that when push comes to shove, the voters showed up and a majority voted to reject those liberal ideas and opt for the more conservative approach. Take a look at that map again, it clearly shows that geographically, the majority of the state is not liberal, but conservative. You can travel from one city to the next and find completely opposing ideologies. The fact is, there are more than 5.4 million registered Republicans in California. The State is not liberal overall.
John Garamendi (Dem) 3,320,186 49.50% Tom McClintock (Rep) 3,013,480 44.90%
As of Nov 9, 2006 at 8:17 P.M., the Lieutenant Governor results are:
John Garamendi (Dem) 3,346,455 49.4 % Tom McClintock (Rep) 3,041,316 44.9 % James D. King (AI) 55,229 0.8 % Donna J. Warren (Grn) 185,009 2.8 % Lynnette Marie Shaw (Lib) 112,312 1.6 % Stewart A. Alexander (PF) 34,682 0.5 %
Garamendi so far has 4.5% points higher and over 300,000 votes more than McClintock. That margin is insurmountable.
In 2002, Westly (Dem) beat McClintock for CA state Controller by a tiny margin, only 0.3% points and under 23,000 votes.
Steve Westly Dem 3,228,908 45.4 Tom McClintock Rep 3,206,178 45.1 Ernest F. Vance AmI 94,088 1.3 Laura Wells Grn 409,172 5.8 J. Carlos Aguirre Nat 176,791 2.4
Not only did Arnold have essentially no coattails for the downticket Republicans (compare to Bill Simon in 2002) except for Insurance Commissioner, Tom McClintock got fewer votes in 2006 for Lieutenant Governor than he did in 2002 for Controller. Maybe Schwarzenegger should have asked people to vote for McClintock instead of highlighting their different opinions on the bonds.
Perhaps the decline in McClintock votes is because McClintock tried to work with and to avoid criticizing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whereas in 2002 McClintock could let loose on Gray Davis' and the Democrats' fiscal liberalism (the worst of which, in hindsight, wasn't nearly as expensive as Schwarzenegger's most recent $131 Billion budget). Or, maybe the GOP's GOTV efforts were ineffective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.