No, I dont think it helps Bush either way. Most people are mature enough to not vote based on the letter after someones name.
You’re…kidding, right?
I remember when I first voted, I was shocked (and disgusted) to see that there was a “Democrat” and a “Republican” lever.
Spares you the thinking and just let’s you vote by party.
And who says that voting is inconvenient?
-Joe, hates 'em both
Here’s a story that supports the “throw the bums out” thesis, and why this may not be good news for GWB or any incumbent.
Since one of the biggest issues in California was the car tax and that will be Schwarzenegger’s first issue to tackle, I doubt that his handling of it will much affect GWB in November.
Californians don’t like GWB all that much. Californians disliked Gray Davis. GWB didn’t factor in to the equation.
True. Arianna tried to make the recall election about Bush and look at where that got her.
There’s also a huge novelty factor here that won’t last. “Dude, there’s gonna be a recall! Wait a sec… check it out, dude! … now the Terminator’s running!”
It’ll wear off and most of the kids will stay home next election. (And by “kids” I don’t necessarily mean younger voters.)
Ace, post-election statistics I saw about the recall were that, a) the turnout was lower than the 2002 election, about %49-ish percent, and b) >95% of the voters were registered in the 2002 election. (I’m googling furiously, and not finding a cite, my apologies. I’ll see if I can dig something up.) This doesn’t fit with the “new, young voters” speculation from before the election that you may be thinking of.
I don’t believe that Arnold will have the slightest impact in terms of delivering the state for Bush. I am skeptical as to whether any governor has any impact at all in this way. I think people may be getting confused with primary elections, when the governor, as local party bigwig, can use his control of the party apparatus to help out his preferred candidate. In a general election there are comparable teams on both sides of the fence, and it makes no difference who happens to be the governor.
Besides all this, CA has not even been competitive for the GOP in recent elections. Even if the governor has some minimal impact, there is no way he could make up the margin.
And as others have alluded, Arnold was not elected in the guise of GOP standard bearer, but rather in the guise of Charismatic Celebrity Who Is Not Gray Davis. Unless the GOP intends to change their image to the party of Charismatic Celebrities Who Are Not Gray Davis, I don’t see any connection.
The more serious question is the impact on CA politics. The GOP has become increasingly uncompetitive on a statewide level in recent years. Much of this appears to result from the fact that despite the state as a whole being pretty left wing (as states go) the CA GOP seems to align with the right wing of the GOP, which puts them too far off center in terms of the political spectrum. This stands in contrast with the northeast region, which is also liberal, but in which the GOP has remained more competitive on a statewide level, by virtue of putting forth a more moderate brand of conservatism.
So if Arnold decides to use his leadership position to impose a more centrist lean to the local party, it might just make the GOP more competitive in CA as well. But this does not imply the state would then be in play for genuine conservatives such as Bush.
Someone suggested earlier that if Arnold only succeeds in making the margin smaller it helps the Repubs, by forcing the Dems to put more energy into defending the state. I don’t think I agree with it. I agree that if by some fluke or happenstance Bush’s poll numbers should happen to close the gap in CA this would help the GOP in the manner described. But the scenario being discussed is one in which the GOP itself (in the form of Arnold) is putting in effort to make the gap closer. So essentially you would be spending resources and energy for the sole purpose of forcing the other side to also spend resources and energy. Seems pretty pointless to me - the best you can hope for is a wasteful draw.
This strategy was actually tried by Bush at the tail end of the previous campaign. In addition to the motive above, I think he was also trying to project an aura of inevitable victory. Didn’t work, in any event.
The first bit appears to be wrong; all the local news outlets here report voter turnout was around 75%+. All accounts I heard (news and anecdotal) say the polling places were swamped.
George Will of all people makes some sense here re 2004:
The current estimate for voter turnout is about 60%. Not bad, but hardly a record.
Arnold got 48.6% of the total votes for Gov. Not bad at all, but hardly a landslide.
Arnold’s win won’t help Bush much- unless Bush is going to become Pro-Choice & Pro-Gay rights. :dubious:
Izzy- good point. That IS what Arnold was “Charismatic Celebrity who is not Davis”- but add “Centrist”. Arnold took a solid centrist postition- Liberal Social, Conservative Economic.
Any numbers on how many of the, um, let’s call them “casual voters” in Minnesota who came out for Ventura voted again 4 years later? One might apply those margin numbers to Cali in 2004.
The 70% (not 75%) number was from a taken poll on election day, before the votes were counted. The later 49% number was widely reported on Wednesday as the votes were about 99% counted; I had a link to such a story on MSNBC, but the site’s been updated.
here is the current speculation about turnout numbers:
There are 15.3 million registered voters in California, so a turnout of 7.9 million votes is about 52%. If there were indeed, say, exactly 1 million absentee ballots, then the turnout would be about 58%. But nobody knows the actual number of absentee votes yet.
(Hmm, I don’t see any place on the CA Secretary of State’s site where voter turnout % is documented at all, but maybe it’s hiding in plain sight. )
Interestingly, if there really are one million absentee votes not yet counted, then the No side of the recall theoretically could still win. Seems darned unlikely, though. 
From The SJ Merc:
Note the last sentence, for anyone who still thinks the 2002 gubernatorial election had higher voter turnout.
From the CA Sec of State web site:
Total who voted on recall question: 7.99M
Total who voted for new governor: Anyone have the patience to add them all up?