Replies

Damn. Look at this, if Simon would have gotten the votes that Lundgren did, he would have won. Bottom line. And no, Bush should not have abandoned this race so early, although he won the Senate for us, this was his only mistake.

Some interesting thoughts...

1. Look at the vote drop for Davis since the last election. Huge.

2. Between Simon, Lautenberg, and Hillary, I can't decide who ran a more stealth campaign. Probably have to say Simon. I never heard from him, about him, unless it was something bad in the general media. Is he still sitting on his warchest waiting to get in the 'last minute ads'?? Despite that, it was very close

3. OTOH, CA took one for the rest of the country. The amount of money the D's sunk here was staggering. They sure could have used that money elsewhere, probably, but they couldn't afford to.

4. Best line from last night, forget who said it...'if CA supposedly trends ahead of the rest of the country and the best the Democrats can do is Davis, what does that say about the future of the Democrats nationwide?'...says it all.

2006 will be our year, after 4 more years of Davis it will get worse. I just hope the state has enough inertia, economically, to hold out until then. Fortunately, Bush can counteract some of the local damage and that will help.

The amount of money the D's sunk here was staggering. They sure could have used that money elsewhere, probably, but they couldn't afford to.

I've been thinking the same thing. These guys poured money into Davis' campaign to rescue their control in California.

So, does that mean that the national DNC felt control in California was more critical to maintain than even control in the US Senate? If so, the cash flow suggests that a federal investigation may be needed to sort out the messy accounting processes.

Maybe we should evaluate the funding that went to the various Senate races and compare to Davis' fundraising.