San Francisco Blooze

[Guest]

I am stunned, but take a little solace in the voting results for my city.
Speechless, Perdita

p.s. please let this become a silly thread.
-----------------------------

SUMMARY REPORT - CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
STATEWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION - OCTOBER 7, 2003

VOTES - PERCENT

PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 563). . . . . 563 - 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 454,929
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . 236,868
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . 52.07%

RECALL QUESTION
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 187,450 80.37%
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,783 19.63%

CANDIDATES
CRUZ M. BUSTAMANTE . . . . . . . 132,123 63.23%
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER . . . 39,330 18.82%

STATEWIDE:
on RECALL:
Yes 4,273,259 55.0%
No 3,507,933 45.0%

on GOVERNOR:
Arnold Schwarzenegger . . . . Rep 3,624,154 48.3%
Cruz M. Bustamante . . . . . . . Dem 2,400,264 32.0%
Tom McClintock . . . . . . . . . . . Rep 996,968 13.3%

 

[raphy]

Well y'know, I was kinda hoping he wouldn't get in just so we could hear him say "I'll be back..."

 

[SexyChele]

I would be more concerned that 63% felt Bustamante was truly a candidate worth voting for. Wow. That really is frightening.

 

[gauchecritic]

What you talkin' about California?

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Chele, as with most elections for some time now, one votes for the lesser of two evils. I would not presume the majority thought Bustamente worth any more than a vote against Arnold.

Perdita

 

[Icingsugar]

I really don't understand.
Was there two questions?

#1 Sould Gray go?
#2 If Gray goes, who do you want instead?

Is Arnie's 53% 53 of the 54% that voted against Davis? Or is it 98% of the 54? And then how the hell could Bustamante get another 34%. That doesn't add up!

Because if there was only one question (who do you want for govenor), then mr Davis actually got 46% of the sympathies state-wide.

Now many of the votes for Arnold were actually on who the second best candidate would be, if the ones voting to keep Davis would lose. Right?



This is too complicated. One election at the time, please.

 

[RenzaJones]

For a moment I thought the title of this thread was california booze. In light of the news maybe it should be

Mrs. J

Who might just knock a couple back.

 

[Seattle Zack]

You have to admit, Perdita, the Bay Area is hardly representative of the rest of California. In Orange County you don't see too many green-haired men wearing leather chaps and nothing else being led around on a chain.

I'm not that surprised by the Bay Area results, although it looks like The Govenator may actually end up with a majority of the votes, rather than a mere plurality.

On the other hand, King George got into office without even a plurality, so nothing in politics really surprises me anymore.

--Zack

Ice, the second question on the ballot had about 130 candidates listed, that's why the percentages seem a little skewed.

 

[SexyChele]

Chele, as with most elections for some time now, one votes for the lesser of two evils. I would not presume the majority thought Bustamente worth any more than a vote against Arnold.

Perdita

Unfortunately, this is all too true and something that doesn't work for me personally. If I can't back a candidate, I simply do not vote that category. I only vote for candidates I can back, even if I know they do not stand a chance of winning. I'm funny that way.

 

[OldnotDead]

Trying to get back the sillies

It is obvious to me that the Citizens of San Francisco that are the contingent of the Democratic Party need to work out a trade with the Windy City. They sent Chicago Mr. Baker. Maybe a trade for Richard Daly would have been in order.

How can they possibly expect to make a significant impact on an election with such a meager turnout? 55%!!!! Why I remember the 1960 Presidential election where some precincts had 110% voter turnout. Now THAT's dedication!!

Vote EARLY! Vote OFTEN!

OnD

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[SexyChele]

Chele,

Many think as you do. I once did. However a non-vote is a vote for the winner. Had two hundred Floridians not thought the same in 2000, the results of that election could have been very different.

There is a favorite quote that I hold onto during elections:


"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

John Quincy Adams


Seems people had that silly notion of "throwing their vote away" even more than 150 years ago and side-stepping their basic principles. Can't do it. Just isn't in me. But then, I don't subscribe to any of the major political parties, either.

 

[gauchecritic]

There again, you have to bear in mind that it matters not for whom you vote, the goverment always gets elected.

Gauche

 

[MathGirl]

Dedication?

Originally posted by OldnotDead Why I remember the 1960 Presidential election where some precincts had 110% voter turnout. Now THAT's dedication!!

Dear OnD,
No, that's Chicago.
MG

 

[Madame Manga]

I'm still waiting to hear the whole state of "Cal-ee-fohrn-ya" yell "April Fool! Hadja going, didn't we?"

Can I wake up now?

MM

 

[Jenny _S]

Right up to the end I personally was all for Mary Cary, the porn queen. That would have SO put the icing on this fiasco.

 

[Guest]

There again, you have to bear in mind that it matters not for whom you vote, the goverment always gets elected.

Gauche, I think I know what you are saying, based on past posts by you on this subject. I thought this way for a long time until the last presidential election when it seemed to me my and a few other votes might have counted. Then of course your statement proved true for it was our supreme court that betrayed us, a court appointed by, Ta DA! the government. I realize yesterday's election was simply another after-shock. I am quit-claiming my so-called rights as a voter.

with utter cynicism, Purr

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think the people of California took out their anger and resentment on Davis. They don't seem to remember that they overwhelmingly have supported the very measures that got them into the pickle they are in now. Davis was not responsible for the results, in the same way a president is very rearely responsible for the economic success of his term in office. He merely gets the credit or blame and things are so bad Davis got the blame.

As for handsy Schwartzenegger he rode the simple feeling among many people that all thier problems were the fault of politicians. His biggest selling point was not his pecs, his movies, his wife or his platform. His biggest selling point was that he wasn't a career politician.

California's problems are deep seated and complex, the state has a larger budget than many small countries! Nothing the Governator does is going to fix those problems, and they will likely get worse no matter what he does.

Personally I think Gallager should have won. At least he would have found a way to make the whole mess funny

-Colly

 

[Jenny _S]

I think the people of California took out their anger and resentment on Davis. They don't seem to remember that they overwhelmingly have supported the very measures that got them into the pickle they are in now. Davis was not responsible for the results, in the same way a president is very rearely responsible for the economic success of his term in office. He merely gets the credit or blame and things are so bad Davis got the blame.

This is nothing new, Colly. How do you think Jimmy Carter got elected after the Nixon mess? Voters in California are reacting to something neither they nor the Governor understand. So you end up with a complet outsider with no skills what-so-ever.

 

[Linbido]

All I can say is...

...good for Arnold. It'll keep him off the big screen for at least a couple of years.

If it's good for California, sans Tinseltown, now that is an entirely different matter. And what do I know? I've seen stranger things happen.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Mongol Leader: Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Mongol Leader: That is good.

--Conan the Barbarian, 1982

 

[Belegon]

Hope

I am really hoping that all my misgivings about Arnie turn out to be false and that he does a good job.

The truth of all this is that it is all about emotion and not about intelligence, but then that is true of most politics. I started to write " most politics nowadays" but I honestly can't say that things now are any different then they ever were.

Most of what is going wrong in my fair state is beyond the control of any governor. As to the question of voting at all, I have always felt that if I did not vote I did not have any grounds on which to complain about/praise an administration. After all, when my opinion was being sought, I did not give it. I never feel my vote is "wasted" even when my candidate is defeated.

 

[Guest]

Conan

Thank you, Zack. That gives me a fresh perspective and big grin.

Ever cynical, Perdita

 

[raphy]

Voting assumes you care who wins the election.

Raph, never voted, never will.