Will Arnold deliver CA to Bush in 2004? Will he last long enough to do so?

Great Debates
#1

So, CNN, at least, is projecting that Gray Davis is out, and that Arnold will be presiding over the state of California.

One of the big reasons such a victory was desired by Republicans was the chance that a well-known, relatively popular Republican in power could swing California’s electoral votes for Bush next year. Such an event would be remarkable and undeniably a huge advantage for the President.

The question I’m wondering about now is, will that happen? Will he be able to turn the economy around in time to please the voters and energize potential Bush supporters? And will he be able to do so before ANOTHER recall effort gains steam (as unlikely as it is to me that’ll actually occur)?

Thoughts?

#2

Hopefully Arnie will not kiss ass to the repubs, many of whom wont give him support anyway, especially the religous freaks. But we’ll see.

I dont care if its repub or dem, one thing that needs to be done is any Cal gov needs to start throwing the weight of Cals economy and power around nationally, being far more assertive than they have been, and not just standing there letting the feds dictate crap without at least something of a fight or heated disagreement. Push the envelope.

#3

Don’t know if he’ll deliver Bush or not, but he’d have to eat little babies on live TV for Californians to want to go thru another recall.

#4

The only way Arnie - Yay! - can “deliver” the state will be if the economy picks up. That’ll pretty much make him the golden child. If the economy continues tanking, he’ll pretty much be a pariah, and that would DEFINITELY keep Cal out of Repub hands in 2004.

Minor hijack: How long, d’ya think, 'fore Arnie’s opponents start calling him “illegitimate”?

#5

He may not deliver the state, but the analysts are saying that all he has to do is put the state into play, and it’s a big win for Bush because it forces Democrats to commit resources to California that they would rather have spent in the swing states.

#6

What makes you think the national Republican party was behind this? You didn’t see any national leaders out in CA except Democrats trying to prop up Davis. I would argue that the Republicans would be better off with Davis in office. He’s hated so much out here, Bush might gain the backlash vote.

Davis did a poor job running the government, but I think that had little to no effect on the economy. And if Arnold cleans up the gov’t, it’ll have little to no effect on the economy. Bush might get lucky and be running for president when the business cycle is on the upswing. If that happens, it’ll happen more or less independently of what the gov’t does.

#7

Bush is unpopular in Ca. Arnold won’t change that.

Arnold is going to be a disaster. I had to put up with four years of an ignorant celebrity running my state and it was a constant joke. Yet Arnold is no Ventura. Hell, he makes Ventura look like a policy wonk. The man has no clue.

If Arnold gets fewer votes than Davis, it will take no time at all for people to label him illegitimate.

#8

Three points:

  1. Arnold’s politics are VASTLY different than the Shrub’s. That made Arnold acceptable to California voters regardless of party. Bush’s support base would be more comparable to McClintock than to Arnold.

  2. Arnold is an established member of the Californa community. He is heavily involved in business and social programs there. He is seen as someone who has made the state a better place. Bush is not seen that way, and to boot he headed Texas during the energy collapse and corporate looting.

  3. Davis was outed largely for perceived dishonesty and gross fiscal mismanagement. That doesn’t bode well for Bush taking the state.

#9

I’m a Democrat…more or less…but if Arnold gets more votes than anyone else, how can anyone say he is “illegitimate” with a straight face? I was thinking very likely Davis would be recalled with a mere 51% of the vote and Arnold would win with 35% or so. But a Schwarzenegger landslide will shut everyone up for the time being.

Has a governor ever really pulled an election for a president in that way in recent times? New York has had a relatively moderate Republican governor while voting in both Clintons on national tickets. A lot of people are “state Republicans” and “national Democrats”, especially in California or the Northeast - likewise a lot of Southerners vote Democrat locally and Republican nationally, so I don’t see Arnold alone helpng Bush that much.

#10

Well, let’s play some numbers, since somebody brought the matter up:

http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/1/081428-9011-092.html

The same article says the following:

So far, precinct reports give Schwarzenegger 51.8% of the votes.

Thus, Schwarzenegger got a greater percentage of votes than did Davis AND more people voted in this than voted altogether in the last election. Thus, Schwarzenegger’s share is better than Davis could claim by any reasonable measure.

#11

Well, it looks like a pretty good polling result for Arnold. I guess Californians are just stupid, right?

Arnolds politics may be different from Bush’s but you can bet your last dollar that he will campaign hard for Bush in '04. I’m not sure he’ll be able to “deliver” CA, but he will deliver more votes than Bush would get on his own.

#12

And Davis didn’t have to run against another Democrat in the same the election. Imagine how Arnold would’ve done against Bustamante alone.

#13

A governor who smoked pot back in the day, and who continued to grab ass every chance he got right up until, like, a couple of years ago, despite being married to a politically connected wife?

Now that’s my kind of Republican. Damn, when did you guys ditch the Jesus freaks and move into the 20th century?

#14

I also don’t recall Ahnold ever saying (somehow, with a straight face), “It depends on what your definintion of ‘grope’ is”.

Seeing things like this almost makes me think that the future belongs to the centrists. Maybe someday we’ll be really lucky and “left” and “right” will be completely archaic terms.

-Joe, Mid-west-ist

#15

A couple of points.

First, Arnold received more votes in total than the number of votes for the “No Recall” position (i.e., votes to keep Davis). If, as was possible, 49% of the people had voted “No Recall”, and a much smaller number had voted for Arnold, we would have been in the somewhat uncomfortable position of having Arnold elected when, arguably, he had received less votes than Davis. That critisicm is now moot, at least with respect to this particular election (it is still a problem if this ever happens again, and I think we should fix the process because of that).

Second, the national press and pundits that see Arnold’s victory as a referendum on Democrats generally, and as a sign that California is now “in play” for the Republicans in ‘04, are, in my opinon, greatly misreading this result. This election was an angry reaction against one person’s policies and tactics. It was anger at the bad economic situation, anger that Davis had won the election only by default, and anger at Davis’ history of negative campaigning. At the time he was re-elected, Davis had extremely high negative numbers, and by the time he was recalled, his negatives were in the 70 percent range. Above all, it was a desire for a change at the top, in the hope that a fresh face could make a change. All of those factors can also work against Bush – a negative feeling about the Florida debacle, anger about the national economy, anger about the policies and tactics coming out of the White House, a desire for change at the top. I would be shocked if California went for Bush in '04.

Finally, along the lines of what laigle said, Bush has not been a friend to California. He has seen it as a sure loser for him since day one and has governed accordingly – the White House’s indifference to California in the recent water wars, the favoritism to the Texas energy industry during the power outtages, the issues regarding off-shore oil drilling – he has not endeared himself to California.

#16

What the people of California said in the voting booths yesterday was this:

  1. We’re sick and tired of the current administration.

  2. We want somebody new.

  3. We don’t care if he’s a political novice.

None of these things bode well for Bush.

#17

The traditional wisdom is that a governor brings 2 points to his party in the Presidential election. That probably won’t be enough to make California competitive let alone a win for Bush unless he is doing really well in general which is highly unlikely.

Is Arnold going to be an exception and deliver a much larger percentage for Bush? I very much doubt it. I suspect he won’t be very popular a year from now once the novelty factor has worn off and he has to grapple with the problems of governing California. I think the groping scandal will continue to hurt him (remember that he has promised to give more details after the election). I think Bush is personally too out of tune with California for Arnold to make much of a difference.

#18

I think the best thing about Arnold for Bush will be his fund-raising potential, esp. for the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee. Bush’s war chest just got a lot bigger.

#19

The message I heard from the voters last night was:

"Lynch the incumbents! Throw the bums out!!"

…which certainly doesn’t sound like good news for GWB. Or any other career politician.

#20

Well some of the folks in new york state have plans for arnold. Rudy is gonna be making a run at either the gov or the senate seat for new york , effectively taking a run at hillary.

Losing California itself may be concidered a fluke for the democrats concidering that the main opponent came with a built in name regcogniton and what not , add New York to that , and it should be interesting.

One question for all

There is no kennedy up for concideration in the next 5 years , is there ? for a presidential run. Since chappaquidick ted is not in contention seriously , one wonders if the kennedy clan is secretly amassing an army.

Declan