Supercharts
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,182
I just read 'somewhere' that more women voted for 'Ahnold' than voted against him.reprise said:
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
reprise said:
I heard quite a few folks say that they voted against the recall and did not vote for any replacement.
It sounds correct. Arnie beat out Bustamante by a larger percentage than the yes beat out the no on the recall. You have a choice of yes and no for the recall, so every who voted picked one of those two choices, but with the candidates, let's see, how many of them were there?
http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/summary.html
Arnold Schwarzenegger = 3,744,132
No Votes = 3,562,487
Arnold Schwarzenegger = 3,744,132
No Votes = 3,562,487
reprise said:
Yes,it it likely correct that you read that. What? Oh.
No, that's not correct. Since the Secretary of State for the State of CA link isn't working for you (that's weird), here's data from the race, from the SecState web site, 100% of precincts reported (I think that means that all the votes have been counted):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Votes Percent
Yes 4,416,280 55.4
No 3,562,487 44.6
Leading Candidates to succeed GRAY DAVIS as Governor if he is recalled:
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Candidate Party Votes Percent
Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,744,132 48.7
Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,434,484 31.7
Tom McClintock Rep 1,026,704 13.4
The numbers fall off very quickly after that.
So no, about 200,000 more people voted for Arnold than voted against the recall (which, I suppose, could be argued 'voted for Joe Davis').
'Zat hepp?
edited to add:
The only thing I can see here that's about 600,000 votes delta concerning both Arnold and the recall of Davis is that a little over 600,000 more people voted for the recall than did for Arnold.
shecky
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,192
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I think this points to the very notion of electability. Let's face it. Elections often have all the sophistication of a 7th grade popularity contest. We often like to think politicians should have some education or experience or civic accomplishment or any combination of those things. But when it comes down to it, we vote for someone we like for no rational reasons.
On the face of it, I can understand the feeling that Arnold has no qualification to be goveror. Why? Because he's never exhibited any kind of stunning insights or wisdom. He's a mediocre actor rich boorish West LA elite.
Then again, he often comes across as a likeable guy, and that counts for quite a bit. I tend to think that if Davis had a hint of personality, the recall would never have gotten steam.
The only thing that really irked me about the election is the free ride Arnold got from the "liberal" media. He launched his campaign on the Tonight Show and did nationally broadcast talk shows. And Arnold just got a victory slap-on-the-back on the Tonight Show. No other candidate could ever hope to buy that kind of publicity. Not only is the media circle jerk over Arnold annoying, but I also find it annoying how incestuous Hollywood can be. Living in L.A. can skew one's perspective, but this whole story has got to be a yawn in many parts of the country. If I didn't live in the state, I doubt I'd give two ◊◊◊◊◊ about the whole thing.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
reprise said:
Unfortunately, he wasn't "Terminated".
shecky said:
#ifdef snaggletooth
"Three ◊◊◊◊◊, even."
#endif
Excellent point...anybody wanna answer why it is that non-CA residents seem to care so much about who our governor is?* I don't think I give a rip about who Montana's governor, anymore than I give a rip about whether the Baptists or Episcopalians or Bahai, or which ever cult it is that's about ready to split...why do you care?
* Especially if the person in question cannot be President, in which case, I can perhaps see why you'd care.
kerfer said:
Yes,it it likely correct that you read that. What? Oh.
No, that's not correct. Since the Secretary of State for the State of CA link isn't working for you (that's weird), here's data from the race, from the SecState web site, 100% of precincts reported (I think that means that all the votes have been counted):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Votes Percent
Yes 4,416,280 55.4
No 3,562,487 44.6
Leading Candidates to succeed GRAY DAVIS as Governor if he is recalled:
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Candidate Party Votes Percent
Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,744,132 48.7
Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,434,484 31.7
Tom McClintock Rep 1,026,704 13.4
The numbers fall off very quickly after that.
So no, about 200,000 more people voted for Arnold than voted against the recall (which, I suppose, could be argued 'voted for Joe Davis').
'Zat hepp?
edited to add:
The only thing I can see here that's about 600,000 votes delta concerning both Arnold and the recall of Davis is that a little over 600,000 more people voted for the recall than did for Arnold.
Yep, that helps.
The second link to the SecState website doesn't work for me either - I get I "could not locate remote server" error message on both. Maybe it doesn't like foreigners.
Is their anything on the website about what percentage of people eligible to vote did so?peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
shecky said:
... And if he hadn't grossly mismanaged the state and hadn't gone back on all his campaign promises and hadn't made more sleazy back room deals than Mary Carey and if he had done anything to improve the sad state of the California education system and if he had done anything about improving the roads and infrastructure and if he hadn't run the dirtiest campaigns the state has ever seen and ...
kerfer said:
The sheer size of the Californian economy is why people elsewhere care about who your Governor is and what the heck he's going to do about California's economic woes. California's economy doesn't exist in isolation from the rest of the US or the rest of the world.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
kerfer said:
Yes,it it likely correct that you read that. What? Oh.
No, that's not correct. Since the Secretary of State for the State of CA link isn't working for you (that's weird), here's data from the race, from the SecState web site, 100% of precincts reported (I think that means that all the votes have been counted):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Votes Percent
Yes 4,416,280 55.4
No 3,562,487 44.6
Leading Candidates to succeed GRAY DAVIS as Governor if he is recalled:
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Candidate Party Votes Percent
Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,744,132 48.7
Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,434,484 31.7
Tom McClintock Rep 1,026,704 13.4
The numbers fall off very quickly after that.
So no, about 200,000 more people voted for Arnold than voted against the recall (which, I suppose, could be argued 'voted for Joe Davis').
'Zat hepp?
edited to add:
The only thing I can see here that's about 600,000 votes delta concerning both Arnold and the recall of Davis is that a little over 600,000 more people voted for the recall than did for Arnold.
Wow, Ahnold kicked some serious political @SS!
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
reprise said:
It couldn't be just because Arnold is a movie star?
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
kerfer said:
Hmmm.... Try recompiling that with the sensitivity option turned on in the pre compiler.
#pragma sensitivity ON
peptoabysmal said:
There's nothing about being a movie star which makes one inherently unsuitable for political office. I think voting for someone BECAUSE they're a movie star is stupid if they haven't demonstrated an understanding of the issues involved and committed to practical policies to address those issues, but then voting for ANYONE who hasn't outlined precisely how they are going to address important political issues is stupid.
As I stated earlier, I haven't seen any mention of the specific policies Arnold plans to implement in order to solve California's financial problems. Nor have I seen the specific plans other candidates had for addressing that issue. Then again, we had limited media coverage of the campaign for the office of Governor of California and it may be that our networks simply didn't choose to show discussion of the policies but rather concentrated on the personalities.
AmateurScientist
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 5,268
Like Scrut, I find it amazing how many people seem to have a gut-level negative reaction to Arnold's being elected governor. So many people sneer that he is not qualified.
What's amazing about that is that our countries founders envisoned citizen statesmen running our country. They didn't figure on a professional political class. They intended the average Joe (at least among the white male merchants and landed gentry) to be able to vote and to run for office and govern. Our national culture champions the underdog, the little guy.
Why is it that when the little guy achieves enormous success we feel so compelled to tear him down again?
AS
What's amazing about that is that our countries founders envisoned citizen statesmen running our country. They didn't figure on a professional political class. They intended the average Joe (at least among the white male merchants and landed gentry) to be able to vote and to run for office and govern. Our national culture champions the underdog, the little guy.
Why is it that when the little guy achieves enormous success we feel so compelled to tear him down again?
AS
shecky
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,192
AmateurScientist said:
Similarly, I think it's amazing how many think Arnold is qualified to be governor.
AmateurScientist said:
I'd argue Arnold hardly represented the underdog, and it's been a long time since he's been a "little guy". Sure, he's not a career politician, but he is a rich internationally known icon. And he's been groomed by the Republican party for several years as a attractive candidate.
AmateurScientist said:
Again, I'd hardly think of Arnold as the underdog. And he certainly lost what little underdog status he had when he was elected.
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
I saw Ahnuld making some remarks on the budget:
"Ve've gott to target da vaste. Da vaste is too big, dere's chust too much fat. Ve've got to pump up da local economy...."
All right, I made some of this up... but I did not make up his comments about targeting "the waste," and when I first heard this remark, I honestly thought that he was giving a fitness pep-talk about reducing "the waist."
"Ve've gott to target da vaste. Da vaste is too big, dere's chust too much fat. Ve've got to pump up da local economy...."
All right, I made some of this up... but I did not make up his comments about targeting "the waste," and when I first heard this remark, I honestly thought that he was giving a fitness pep-talk about reducing "the waist."
shecky
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,192
peptoabysmal said:
I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Calif economy has little to do with any direct performance by Davis and much more to do with the overall poor economy. If the natl economy were booming like it was in 1998, CA would not be running a deficit. And If Davis could evoke a little human sympathy, I think most folks would cut him some slack. But he's such a distant, wooden, performer, nobody has ever had any warm feelings about him.
peptoabysmal said:
C'mon, CA has seen some incredibly nasty campaigns well before Davis. This last one was actually pretty mild in comparison. in fact, I was kinda surprised how little Davis actually participated in the campaign to retain his own job. I tend to think he must have pretty much baced himself to give up the office a few months ago.
AmateurScientist
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 5,268
shecky said:
OK, just what exactly does make one qualified to be governor?
Using the experience argument, it would be easy to craft an argument that only incumbent or former governors are qualified.
Do you understand the citizen-statesman idea? Don't you agree that the notions of citizen-statesman, citizen-soldier, and citizen-voter are fundamental concepts of a democratic republic? That they set our young nation apart from former European monarchies and aristocracies?
AS