Western Dopers: Factual analysis of election results for California Senate & Gov races?

[No Wikipedia Cites]

Explain, it was pretty one sided, over 10% difference for Senate;

What is the da straight dope on these two crazy races?

[Colibri]

Moving from GQ to the US election forum.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[mhendo]

I wasn't especially surprised at the Senate result. Despite the swing against Democrats across the country, California is still quite a heavily Democratic state, especially in terms of registered Democrats versus Republicans. Any Republican who wants to win statewide office here really needs to grab a considerable portion of the large (20%+) independent voter group.

And Carly Fiorina was never going to be that person, i don't think. At least Meg Whitman could point at her own corporate career and say that it was a success; Fiorina, on the other hand, was well known for sending HP into the toilet and dramatically cutting its workforce. If you want to appeal to pro-business-type independent voters, it helps if you are actually a competent business executive.

I was more surprised at how easily Jerry Brown won. Polls had been suggesting that he would win, but i was expecting the voting to be closer than it was, especially given the amount of money that Whitman spent, and the importance of spending as a determinant of elections in America. Still, Whitman was hurt by the whole illegal housekeeper thing, and a lot of people thought it rather puzzling that someone running for political office had barely set foot inside a voting booth for almost three decades.

What really turned some people off, too, was Whitman's campaign ads. Everyone in America has become accustomed to negative campaigning, but Whitman's ads against Brown were just relentless in their ridicule and negativity. A few weeks ago, Matt Lauer challenged both Brown and Whitman to stop airing their attack ads; Brown said he would do it if Whitman would, but she declined. That really pissed off quite a few people, including a bunch of women voters.

I think that Meg Whitman lost this race more than anything else. Brown didn't do anything spectacular to win it; he just didn't fuck up too badly. His willingness to openly support Prop 13 certainly helped him with conservative voters.

[Dewey Finn]

Meg Whitman's big claim to success was the rapid growth of Ebay, from 35 employees when she was hired to some thousands when she left. But how much is due to her management skills and how much is due to the fact that Ebay was in the right place at the right time?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

Meg Whitman's big claim to success was the rapid growth of Ebay, from 35 employees when she was hired to some thousands when she left. But how much is due to her management skills and how much is due to the fact that Ebay was in the right place at the right time?

To be honest, i don't know. But, much as i dislike Whitman, even if you're in the right place at the right time, it still takes a certain amount of ability, i think, to lead a company through that sort of sustained growth.

I wonder, though, whether the success of eBay might not also have cost her some support. Sure, the company's rise was great for shareholders, but it seems to me that, as the company got bigger, in began to alienate many of the people who actually used it. The purchase of PayPal, and the lack of responsiveness (real or perceived) to customer problems have contributed to considerable disenchantment with the company, and even many people who use it on a regular basis (because there are few other options) appear to dislike it intensely.

[suranyi]

I believe a theory expounded by many others that the Latino vote in California has become decisive, and that vote makes the election of Republicans to statewide office very difficult. Latinos haven't trusted Republicans in general since the days of Pete Wilson and Proposition 187. An individual Republican might get past this problem with a lot of effort, but most don't bother.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I was more surprised at how easily Jerry Brown won. Polls had been suggesting that he would win, but i was expecting the voting to be closer than it was, especially given the amount of money that Whitman spent, and the importance of spending as a determinant of elections in America. Still, Whitman was hurt by the whole illegal housekeeper thing, and a lot of people thought it rather puzzling that someone running for political office had barely set foot inside a voting booth for almost three decades.

Money helps in getting name recognition, but it can't increase the popularity of your message. Californians have been stuck with a dysfunctional divided government for a long time. A message consisting mostly of attacking your opponent doesn't give voters much confidence that you can get anything done.

I agree that Whitman lost the race rather than Brown won it.

Originally Posted by suranyi

I believe a theory expounded by many others that the Latino vote in California has become decisive, and that vote makes the election of Republicans to statewide office very difficult. Latinos haven't trusted Republicans in general since the days of Pete Wilson and Proposition 187. An individual Republican might get past this problem with a lot of effort, but most don't bother.

None of the Republicans who had reasonable views on immigration made it past the primaries. (Except Abel Maldonado.) Whitman tried to walk away from her anti-immigrant rhetoric used during the primary season, but voters have long memories about issues that are important to them. If California Republicans ever want to hold statewide office again, they'll have rethink their approach to immigration.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by suranyi

I believe a theory expounded by many others that the Latino vote in California has become decisive, and that vote makes the election of Republicans to statewide office very difficult. Latinos haven't trusted Republicans in general since the days of Pete Wilson and Proposition 187. An individual Republican might get past this problem with a lot of effort, but most don't bother.

Right, and Meg's treatment of her Maid made it worse. Us here in Silicon Valley know there's a "Evil Meg" and a "Good Meg", the Evil Meg being one who tramples on the "little people".

Her maid was one of the "Little People", so Meg dumped her when she became inconveient. If Meg had been a caring person, she could have used a tiny portion of her billions to give her maid a nice severance package and a referal to a good Immigration Lawyer. Then, Meg would have had it both ways- she could have said she fired her maid as soon as she found out her maid was a "Illegal" but then shown that as someone who was "like a member of her family" she then did right by her and tried to get her maid into the system legally.

It also became very clear Meg was trying to buy the election with her own billions.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

It also became very clear Meg was trying to buy the election with her own billions.

And what a horrible return on her money it was. She essentially spent $140 million of her own fortune to forever throw away her anonymity and privacy, plus alienated millions of Californians who now at least mildly dislike her.

It was actually a pretty tone-deaf and inept campaign from the word go, if you ask me. Jerry Brown is about as exciting as watching a stone grow ( ref: Shogun ), but I pretty much always thought he was going to pull this one out.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Pleonast

None of the Republicans who had reasonable views on immigration made it past the primaries. (Except Abel Maldonado.) Whitman tried to walk away from her anti-immigrant rhetoric used during the primary season, but voters have long memories about issues that are important to them. If California Republicans ever want to hold statewide office again, they'll have rethink their approach to immigration.

Yes, that's why the Latino vote is such a big problem for Republicans in this state. They can't win the primary without appearing to be tough on illegal immigrants, yet that almost always costs them dearly in the general election.

Actually, was Schwarzeneggar ever opposed in a Republican primary? I think not. The first election was that mess of a recall, and the second he was unopposed if I remember correctly. So he never had to pander to the right wing. I'm sure that helped.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by suranyi

Actually, was Schwarzeneggar ever opposed in a Republican primary? I think not. The first election was that mess of a recall, and the second he was unopposed if I remember correctly. So he never had to pander to the right wing. I'm sure that helped.

I don't think he was. He pandered to the right wing during his first term and it cost him most of his bipartisan support. He tossed out his conservative advisers and replaced them with moderates, but it was too late for him to recover his political capital.

His appointment of Maldonado (who was instrumental in getting a budget compromise in the legislature last year) was his attempt to help out another moderate Republican. I was hoping Maldonado would win the lieutenant governorship, but Newsom has too much mojo to beat (that was the rare race where I like both candidates). Hopefully the new primary system will give Maldonado and other moderates a chance.

By the way, I expect Brown will serve one term and then defer to Newsom for governor in 2014. You heard it here first.

[Icarus]

Another factor I think contributed to Meg's loss - the pester factor.

I live in a house with a registered Republican - we got at least 3 flyers a day in the mail from her or the party, and we got at least one robo-call a day from her or the party. Add that to the 30 commercials an hour on TV - it went way past campaigning into desperate starkerish pestering.

It had to turn some number of likely voters off from voting for her.

[silenus]

The Senate race was never really in doubt. Boxer isn't the best Senator in the country by far, but she screamingly liberal, and that's enough to get her the win in this state. Fiorina was an incompetent boob and everybody knew it.

I agree with the above posters who said Whitman lost the race rather than Brown winning it. Governor Moonbeam 2.0 isn't my first choice for running this state, but Whitman would be damn near my last!

Maybe with the new budget system in place and some decent re-districting, we can finally get an Assembly that actually...you know...governs.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by suranyi

I believe a theory expounded by many others that the Latino vote in California has become decisive, and that vote makes the election of Republicans to statewide office very difficult. Latinos haven't trusted Republicans in general since the days of Pete Wilson and Proposition 187. An individual Republican might get past this problem with a lot of effort, but most don't bother.

Sorry for responding to my own message, but I just found this article in today's Los Angeles Times that says pretty much what I just said, but in more detail:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1915403.story

[Suburban Plankton]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

And what a horrible return on her money it was. She essentially spent $140 million of her own fortune to forever throw away her anonymity and privacy, plus alienated millions of Californians who now at least mildly dislike her.

Someone pointed out during the parade for the San Francisco Giants yesterday that Meg Whitman spent more money this year than the Giants did (140M vs 99M)...

but I notice she spent 80 million bucks less than the Yankees, so she should feel good about that

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Suburban Plankton

Someone pointed out during the parade for the San Francisco Giants yesterday that Meg Whitman spent more money this year than the Giants did (140M vs 99M)...

but I notice she spent 80 million bucks less than the Yankees, so she should feel good about that

She spent just about as much as the Mets, and showed a similar level of incompetence.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by silenus

The Senate race was never really in doubt. Boxer isn't the best Senator in the country by far, but she screamingly liberal, and that's enough to get her the win in this state. Fiorina was an incompetent boob and everybody knew it.

I think it was your final sentence more than the one before it. SF is screamingly liberal, but CA isn't the Bay Area. I think Californians generally are more comfortable overall with moderate Democrats like Feinstein as opposed to liberal ones like Boxer.

But when it comes right down to it any Republican candidate running for a major statewide office is swimming upstream at the moment, given the edge in Democrat registration. Fiorina ran a better campaign that Whitman, but in the end was probably just a little too conservative to snag enough of the independent vote that she desperately needed. Whitman is on paper probably the more California-friendly candidate. Unfortunately "on paper" isn't nearly good enough.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

I think it was your final sentence more than the one before it. SF is screamingly liberal, but CA isn't the Bay Area. I think Californians generally are more comfortable overall with moderate Democrats like Feinstein as opposed to liberal ones like Boxer.

No, but California IS SF and LA. It doesn't matter what the rubes in 909 do. If the Bay area and LA go strongly Dem (as they do) then it takes a true phenom to get elected as a Repub.

As for Feinstein...as much as I hate her for writing the legislation that took away my favorite campsite in the Mojave, I think she is one of the best Senators I've ever seen. She doesn't grandstand, she has the interests of America as her mantra, and her staff is freaking efficient.