California...is it really conceded as a

After voting Arnold in as Governor...you would think California would be ripe for the picking as an Automatic win for the GOP? Yet the polls seem to indicate that it is overwhelmingly likely to go Democrat...strange?

Then the highly industrialized Great lakes and eastern states which are expected to vote solidly Republican are still suffering from present policy fallout. You might think they would defect to the other party at some point. It is a puzzlement how things are not what they should be when the human nature factor is brought into play.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Beoweolf on 10/26/04 9:09am ]</font>

I think it's more an issue of Urban vs Rural ...

If a State has large Urban concentrations and not enough Rural population of over-power the Urban vote ...

It's likely to go Democratic ...

I'd say it's just about that simple, in most instances.

_________________
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAHAx4XCm*K9I!SL0pJUnLkQYNtipgRhoOVVECK07Ggr6UCf PKaTXQFXCP9wN1RVIZilO2B6c9osZl2HgC5kDN45qoEfamc5ii bZ40m3VIHCzeuvrbabQ/montsr.bmp[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MonsterMach on 10/26/04 10:11am ]</font>

Just like anything else, its starting to be a "fly by nite" kinda thing. I mean, the things you thought were set in stone are no longer that way. Take politics for example, many people who were die hard faithfuls to a certain party suddenly finding themselves voting for the opposite candidate and vise versa. Now it seems like most politicians are kinda like salesmen....whoever makes the juicy deal will 'make the sale' regardless of what party they belong to, and the general public dont care if they are GOP or Dems, as long as they do what they promised (or at least 50% of it), they are a "good" politician.
Its kinda like a "Rubic's Cube"....eventually you'll end up with a solid color, but all the different combo's you gotta go thru to get it will boggle the mind[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-10-25 21:45, MonsterMach wrote:
I think it's more an issue of Urban vs Rural ...

If a State has large Urban concentrations and not enough Rural population of over-power the Urban vote ...

It's likely to go Democratic ...

I'd say it's just about that simple, in most instances.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I remember seeing a "majority of voting" map from the last elections. It was almost exactly identical to a population concentration map. Pretty interesting to see how closely they matched.

Kill all the Democrat Nazi

It's always good to hear from the voice of moderation. Especially one so....ah, eloquent? Welcome to the discussion. I'msure you will add a lot to the conversation.

Arnold's hardly a member of the GOP IMHO. He does seem to be doing decent for business, but his socially policies are a joke--in terms with the GOP platform. He is Pro Choice, signed into law that any druggie can buy syringes w/o prescription, to use a negative homosexual word will soon be considered a hate crime.....

So...to say that because of him the state would vote Bush is pretty far fetched IMHO. However, I read yesterday that he is going to start campaigning with Bush....if he did that in California weeks ago and again this week...California might be a different story.

Other than that...I think CA is going Democrat again...but on a closer margain.

Jeff Given--Member of "Click 1"

If you recall the recall election, the only guy to come close to Arnold was Bustamante, and people just didn't respect him. A lot of people who had voted for Davis just wanted to throw the bum out. Bustamante was just as unprincipled and self-serving as Davis, but stupid. Not a good combination.

Another guy in the running, but he was still behind, was Tom McClintock who I voted for because I thought he was the most serious in terms of finances (and that was what the issue was about), although he was too far right on social issues for me.

So, Arnold just had to show up. He had the name, charisma, charm, and said all the right things: fiscal and law and order conservatism, social libertarianism. That is where most of the voters probably in the country stand.

two things on the last post: Things must be bad when an incumbent President is using a state Governor to help bring out the vote...isn't it supposed to be the other way?

second; Those were some emotionaly charged months during the recall. Even admitting I'm seeing this from a biased point of view, I voted to keep Davis...more out of repect for how I interpreted the law and legitimate use of recall process...-I still think that was bogus, but doesn't it seem most of the things people were "dinging" Grey Davis for...haven't been helped by the recall? New player, same issues. License for illegals, still an issue. Defict spending, still an issue. Business base erosion, still ongoing. Job loss to cheaper countries, states, area, still an issue. Education standards too low, still an issue. Energy costs, still an issue...also, as suspected then and proven since, there was collusion among the energy companies to illegally run up the price of energy to California.

Other than the fact that Grey Davis was not very charismic..he was doing a decent job, maybe not a stellar job-but not enough to cause a recall, with the hand he was dealt. Like sharks, when voters smell blood in the water...everyone slides in for a bite. Logic didn't stand a chance. But we moved on. Can't get to involved with these candidates...ultimately its all about who gets to write his name in the snow. And the voters are unfortunately...the snow.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Beoweolf on 10/27/04 4:29am ]</font>

As much as I disliked Davis I was ready to vote no on the recall on principle like you, but when he decided suddenly he was for giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after having voted no on that proposal two times before, I just HAD to vote that guy out. (He was trying of course to appeal to the Latino vote; what he doesn't realize is that most Latino-Americans are against giving illegals a license too.) That was indicative of what Davis was about: he would do anything for political gain, damn the consequences for California. In bed with the unions, etc., etc.

Nobody blamed him for all of California's faults, or expected them to be cleaned up over night. I think they saw him as an opportunistic, stand for nothing guy who was fiddling while California burned.