Posted on 09/27/2003 12:40:33 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Ma'am, the only thing we know is that A VOTER REFERENDUM WOULD GET RID OF THIS ILLEGALS' DRIVERS LICENSE LAW ---- BUT ARNOLD WON'T JOIN THAT REFERENDUM DRIVE. Why not? Why not? Why not? Is it cowardice, political correctness, timidiy, do the Kennedys have somethign on him, does he want the illegal votes, is he a phoney? - - - what's the reason -- PLLLEEEEAS help me understand!
Please let me know why Arnold WON'T SUPPORT THE REFERENDUM TO REPEAL THE ILLEGALS' DRIVERS LICENSE LAW? This is the biggest issue in California now. The only sure way to get rid of it is with a voter referendum Arnold won't support that effort. Why? And since he won't, why is he any better than Busta or Gray? in my book, they're peas in a pod.
This goes back to the question of the "turnout model" used by polling agencies when reporting results. In this election, it is very clear, and pre-election polling bears out, that "conservative" and "moderate" voters are more motivated to vote than "liberal" voters. In a normal election, the pollsters would look at voter registration and past voting trends, and predict what percentages of each class of voter would be likely to vote.
Typically, Republicans votes in greater percentages relative to registration, compared to Democrats. That is why, as you observe, Republicans in California, who are at a registration disadvantage, do better when the turnout is lower. This reasoning is also why Davis and the ACLU tried so hard to get the election delayed until March, when the Democrat presidential primary election would have occurred.
But this recall is an anomaly. Certain groups of voters are highly motivated to vote against Davis. The total percentage of votes cast by "conservative" voters, regardless of party, will be higher than in a normal election.
I believe the indications are that whoever wins the replacement vote will achieve more than 35% of the total vote cast. Therefore, the statement you made that "there are not enough conservative votes to elect anyone" is much more likely to be wrong than right. In fact, if Schwarzenegger or McClintock wins, it will be because of the conservative affirmative votes cast, not in spite of them.
"Self-described conservatives" is terminology used in polling. It is not unlike "probable voter" or "likely voter," where the pollster takes for fact the data reported by the respondant.
You are right if you look at recall elections on a state level. The closest we come in recent California voting history was when there was a popular revolt against the antics of the Rose Bird California Supreme court in 1986. Although in that election, the the Supreme Court justices were essentially presented with a "vote of confidence" mandated by the California Constitution, three of the most liberal justices (Bird, Reynosa, and Grodin) failed to receive a majority vote and lost theire positions.
It is fair, however, to look at the dynamics of smaller recall elections (school board, county supervisors, etc.). Typically in those elections, an official or officials has run afoul of the law or some community sensibility. A small group of activists works to qualify the recall for the ballot. Once qualified, the activists generally turn out to vote in very high percentages. However, the activist percentage of the total vote is usually much smaller than that of the general voting population, particularly if the recall is not a special election (i.e. held in conjuction with a primary or other regularly scheduled election). The object(s) of the recall, also tend to rally their own activists and interests, but the vast majority of the voters end up in the "so what?" column and usually don't support the recall. that's why most recalls either fail to get onto the ballot or fail once on the ballot.
I think you would agree that this recall has caught the popular imagination. But I think the mechanics of the turnout are going to follow those of a smaller recall, in that the activists are motivated - but there are many, many more of them. Also, the "so what?" population is greatly diminished because most people realize that this election will effect them directly in the pocketbook. It doesn't matter what poll you might be looking at, the trends in the past week must be seen as bad for Davis and Bustamante in particular, disheartening for McClintock, and good for Schwarzenegger.
In years past, I have worked on a few campaigns and been involved with "what happened" analysis. This is where I have developed a healthy skepticism concerning polling data. Rarely does the polling input model accurately reflect the parameters of the election day voter profile. Complicating this is the increasing reliance on absentee voting. In 1992, when Bruce Herschensohn was running against Barbara Boxer, he was trailing by more than 20 percentage points in mid-September. The top of the ticket (George H.W. Bush) was doing poorly against the eventual winner Clinton, and Dianne Feinstein was trouncing incumbent John Seymour in the other, special election, for US Senate. But we were able to close hard on Boxer, by about 4% per week, and were within the statistical margin of error by the week before the election. Several polls confirmed this, putting Bruce down between 2-%; internal polls showed the race to be a dead heat. Then, on the Thursday before the election, Democrat leader Bob Mulholland conspired with the LA Times and other liberal media and dropped the "strip club" bombshell, which derailed Herschensohn's momentum and eroded into his overall support. As it was, Bruce lost on election day by about 7%, but won the absentee tally by an equal margin - those votes had already been cast before the dirty trick.
The post election analysis showed that Bruce had been badly hurt by the poor Republican election day turnout and the motivated Democrat turnout. Also, women turned out in record numbers and sided with the Democrats (particularly the two female senate candidates). The was "The Year of the Woman" - remember? Boxer did poorer with women than did Feinstein or Clinton, but well enough to win. The dirty trick did figure in the exit polling data, with women much more than with men. And, as I recall, Bruce did well with voters who were focused on "issues" rather than on gender or party identification. If the 1992 election had been held 1 week earlier, I believe Herscensohn would have won.
In 1992, only 37% of the voters identified as Republicans in the California contests. But only 41% identified as Democrats. The relative differences today have not changed greatly. This shows that it is possible for a conservative candidate to win in California.
I found some of the post-mortem statistical data. Keep in mind, this was for the 1992 California electorate:
Party Identification
Democrat 41%
Republican 37%
Independent and 3rd party 22%
Political Ideology
Conservative 29%
Moderate 49%
Liberal 22%
I wonder if I can find the 2000 demographics on the internet.
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.