The one and only California recall thread

[Guest MikeSC]

just before we entered WW2, the US was "the Great Arsenal for Democracy" as FDR called us. We sent just about everything to allies in the USSR and UK.  This meant contracts by the ton for just about everything needed which skyrockted after Pearl Harbor because the entire nation was mobalized to fight abroad.  For our war in Afghanistan & Iraq, there is no enormous effort to increase the military anywhere close to the extent in 1942, just money needed to keep them abroad.  Basically, we're not mobalizeing the ENTIRE nation to war, just a few specialized areas at best.

For example, the auto industry was hit really hard in the Depression because nobody could afford cars and this led to even more layoffs. Once these plants opened up again to make tanks, it created loads of jobs, which meant that people now had money to spend in the economy.

 

Two things you need to keep in mind. The Great Depression was 1000x worse than the current recession and WW2 was 1000x bigger than the current wars. That's why it made such an impact. WW1 had a similar affect on Canada. WW2 wasn't as important since we were pretty much out of the Depression by around 1936 or so (things had been improving since the lowpoint in 1931). It took the Americans longer to recover, and would have certainly taken longer if not for the war.

There was also NOTHING that people could spend money on back home as domestic industrial production slowed to a trickle.

 

So, we had employed people with nothing to spend money on for several years in addition to having to arm (and then rebuild) the world.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

3) He ran for office in 1944 when he knew he shouldn't. He also killed off the unspoken 2-term rule that people like Washington, who could've been President PERMANENTLY had he wished, followed.

So? He was under no obligation to NOT run again. None whatsoever.

 

The stupid thing is that the Republicans were so scared about this that they implemented the 2 term rule into law. Every President we've had since then that we like so much we'd probably keep them around for more than 2 terms has been Republican.

Clinton is the one exception. He would have been re-elected in 2000.

I, honestly, don't think Clinton would have been re-elected.

 

He NEVER got huge numbers against weak candidates.

 

Bush was not a weak candidate.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

I, honestly, don't think Clinton would have been re-elected.

 

He NEVER got huge numbers against weak candidates.

 

Bush was not a weak candidate.

-=Mike

Of course not. Well, unless you overlook the fact that he and Gore were nearly split 50/50 when it came to public support - and Gore wasn't exactly the most popular guy on the block. Not to mention Ralph Nader, an independent party candidate, getting more support than nearly any other independent candidate in presidential election history.

 

I don't think there was a shot of Bush beating Clinton, had Clinton been able to run for president in 2000. In many people's eyes, Bush was just the lesser of two evils when it came to he and Gore. I don't think they would really feel that same way towards Clinton, who did a good job running the country for 8 years already.

[Guest MikeSC]

I, honestly, don't think Clinton would have been re-elected.

 

He NEVER got huge numbers against weak candidates.

 

Bush was not a weak candidate.

                                          -=Mike

Of course not. Well, unless you overlook the fact that he and Gore were nearly split 50/50 when it came to public support - and Gore wasn't exactly the most popular guy on the block. Not to mention Ralph Nader, an independent party candidate, getting more support than nearly any other independent candidate in presidential election history.

 

I don't think there was a shot of Bush beating Clinton, had Clinton been able to run for president in 2000. In many people's eyes, Bush was just the lesser of two evils when it came to he and Gore. I don't think they would really feel that same way towards Clinton, who did a good job running the country for 8 years already.

Gore had the benefit of the Clinton economy (in full collapse at the time, mind you) but none of the baggage of Clinton's problems.

 

Clinton had a MAJOR problem with sleaze factor.

 

He couldn't pull down a majority against Bob Dole, as unelectable a man as the GOP could have run. He could only get 43% of the vote against the senior Bush who didn't much want to run again as it was.

 

G.W Bush would've beaten him. Not by a landslide, but he would've beaten him.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

There was also NOTHING that people could spend money on back home as domestic industrial production slowed to a trickle.

 

So, we had employed people with nothing to spend money on for several years in addition to having to arm (and then rebuild) the world.

 

I'm referring to the actual war, not the post-war period that led to the world we have today.

[Guest MikeSC]

There was also NOTHING that people could spend money on back home as domestic industrial production slowed to a trickle.

 

So, we had employed people with nothing to spend money on for several years in addition to having to arm (and then rebuild) the world.

 

I'm referring to the actual war, not the post-war period that led to the world we have today.

The inability to spend money domestically did help power the economy, as people had money waiting to be spent when the war ended and the usual post-war depression was avoided as the Great Depression came to an end.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It probably wouldn't have swung the election either way, but the ACLU was right: punch cards suck.

 

From DHinMI on dailykos.com:

 

Six counties used punch card voting yesterday—Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano. In those counties there were 3,547,744 ballots cast, but only 3,272,956 votes counted on the question of whether or not Gray Davis should be recalled—an undervote of 7.74%. For the rest of the state, the undervote was only 2.28%.

 

Some of these numbers will change. For instance, two counties—Plumas and Siskiyou—reported the exact same number of ballots cast and votes counted in the recall election. It’s possible the clerks in these counties may have erroneously ruled that a ballot was spoiled if it didn’t contain a vote in the recall election. Orange and El Dorado counties are still counting votes. Some other counties seem to already be correcting clerical errors. And the overall result would not have been different had new voting technology been employed—the recall still passed in those six counties, albeit by a lower margin (53/47) than the rest of the state.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Not to mention Ralph Nader, an independent party candidate, getting more support than nearly any other independent candidate in presidential election history.

"Oh come on"

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If 2 terms was enough for George Freakin' Washington, it should've been enough for FDR.

 

And I don't like term limits whatsoever.

-=Mike

And again, there's no corelation betwen what a man can do and what a man should do.

 

If people were like you and didn't approve of him running for a third term, they would have voted for another guy. Nobody should HAVE to do anything because of what George Washington did or didn't do, as long as the law permits it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It probably wouldn't have swung the election either way, but the ACLU was right: punch cards suck.

Well, Kevin Shelley sent teams of people specializing in detecting voter fraud to all counties using punch card machines, as well as people to several more. Something like 50 guys in all.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Not to mention Ralph Nader, an independent party candidate, getting more support than nearly any other independent candidate in presidential election history.

"Oh come on"

 

You're both wrong, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose Party beat the Republican Party in the election Wilson won.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Not to mention Ralph Nader, an independent party candidate, getting more support than nearly any other independent candidate in presidential election history.

"Oh come on"

 

You're both wrong, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose Party beat the Republican Party in the election Wilson won.

Teddy was helped out alot by being the former President of the USA

[Guest MD2020]

Not to mention Ralph Nader, an independent party candidate, getting more support than nearly any other independent candidate in presidential election history.

"Oh come on"

 

You're both wrong, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose Party beat the Republican Party in the election Wilson won.

Teddy was helped out alot by being the former President of the USA

Christ--I can't believe you using the "Former President" card.

[NoCalMike 0]

I thought Bush was a weak canidate besides carrying the "bush legacy" with him. Gore just fucked up all by himself. He distanced himself from Clinton thinking it would help, but all it did was confuse his own voters as to why Clinton was never seen. Clinton's support would have got Gore into office alone. Gore ran one of the worst campaigns ever. If Gore would have taken a different approach then his, "look I don't cheat on my wife" campaign, he would have easily beaten Bush.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The Arnold negative parody site is thrilled that he won of course:

 

http://www.joinarnie.com/

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Anyone want to put odds on the ACLU and Jackson sueing.

 

I'm going to say 4 to 1.

[Guest I'm That Damn Zzzzz]

Anyone want to put odds on the ACLU and Jackson sueing.

 

I'm going to say 4 to 1.

Depends whether if any NAMBLA members were turned away from a voting place.

[Guest Cerebus]

Anyone want to put odds on the ACLU and Jackson sueing.

 

I'm going to say 4 to 1.

Depends whether if any NAMBLA members were turned away from a voting place.

Zing!

 

Actually, I doubt it...the election was far from close and any "disenfranchised" votes probably wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference.

[Guest MikeSC]

It probably wouldn't have swung the election either way, but the ACLU was right: punch cards suck.

 

From DHinMI on dailykos.com:

 

Six counties used punch card voting yesterday—Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano. In those counties there were 3,547,744 ballots cast, but only 3,272,956 votes counted on the question of whether or not Gray Davis should be recalled—an undervote of 7.74%. For the rest of the state, the undervote was only 2.28%.

 

Some of these numbers will change. For instance, two counties—Plumas and Siskiyou—reported the exact same number of ballots cast and votes counted in the recall election. It’s possible the clerks in these counties may have erroneously ruled that a ballot was spoiled if it didn’t contain a vote in the recall election. Orange and El Dorado counties are still counting votes. Some other counties seem to already be correcting clerical errors. And the overall result would not have been different had new voting technology been employed—the recall still passed in those six counties, albeit by a lower margin (53/47) than the rest of the state.

And that's different fron usual how?

 

Shouldn't they wait to see what the problems with the ballots were?

 

Perhaps the voters in those districts were just idiots?

 

Like the elderly in Palm Beach.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Not to mention Ralph Nader, an independent party candidate, getting more support than nearly any other independent candidate in presidential election history.

"Oh come on"

 

Wow, totally missed that line.

 

Did Nader even get 5% of the vote?

-=Mike

...Heck, John Anderson, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Eugene V. Debs, Perot, and Teddy Roosevelt ALL did better

[Guest MikeSC]

If 2 terms was enough for George Freakin' Washington, it should've been enough for FDR.

 

And I don't like term limits whatsoever.

                                -=Mike

And again, there's no corelation betwen what a man can do and what a man should do.

 

If people were like you and didn't approve of him running for a third term, they would have voted for another guy. Nobody should HAVE to do anything because of what George Washington did or didn't do, as long as the law permits it.

It was unbelievably arrogant. But, since I don't like term limits, he's not a total prick because he did it.

 

He was wrong to run in 1944, though, because Stalin OWNED him in the later negotiations towards the end of WW II.

-=Mike

...Then again, having traitors like Alger Hiss working you won't help.

...Yes, I expect some carping from the left on that

...Yes, he was a traitor

[Guest MikeSC]

I thought Bush was a weak canidate besides carrying the "bush legacy" with him. Gore just fucked up all by himself. He distanced himself from Clinton thinking it would help, but all it did was confuse his own voters as to why Clinton was never seen. Clinton's support would have got Gore into office alone. Gore ran one of the worst campaigns ever. If Gore would have taken a different approach then his, "look I don't cheat on my wife" campaign, he would have easily beaten Bush.

Clinton interjected himself in the Congressional races in 2002 and in the California recall on behalf of Davis.

 

His support is hardly a victory guarantee.

 

Bush did what he had to do. If Gore ran a less inept campaign, Bush would've done much more.

 

Bush has tons of money, lots of time, and no opposition to just pick apart whomever he faces --- and the campaign finance reforms hurts the Dems FAR more than the GOP.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It probably wouldn't have swung the election either way, but the ACLU was right: punch cards suck.

Only if you are an idiot and dvoid of basic, rational thought. I have used punch cards to vote in the past and there's NO way someone can screw them up unless they are not paying attention to what they are doing, and they are not capable of following instructions that are less complicated than constructing a square make out of eight Tinker Toys.

 

The only groups punch-card ballots are biased against are toward the stupid…

[NoCalMike 0]

I thought Bush was a weak canidate besides carrying the "bush legacy" with him.  Gore just fucked up all by himself.  He distanced himself from Clinton thinking it would help, but all it did was confuse his own voters as to why Clinton was never seen.  Clinton's support would have got Gore into office alone.  Gore ran one of the worst campaigns ever.  If Gore would have taken a different approach then his, "look I don't cheat on my wife" campaign, he would have easily beaten Bush.

Clinton interjected himself in the Congressional races in 2002 and in the California recall on behalf of Davis.

 

His support is hardly a victory guarantee.

 

Bush did what he had to do. If Gore ran a less inept campaign, Bush would've done much more.

 

Bush has tons of money, lots of time, and no opposition to just pick apart whomever he faces --- and the campaign finance reforms hurts the Dems FAR more than the GOP.

-=Mike

Ok those are fine points, but I am not talking about Clinton's "magic" in 2002 or 2004. I am talking about fresh after his 8 years of being president. Going into the Gore campaign, Clinton was still a popular guy. Clinton has been out of the limelight for awhile now, so I would doubt he would have the same mass appeal as he used to. People just don't care about him ANYMORE, but they used to, and in 2000 they still did.

[NoCalMike 0]

I pose a question: Does the strong defeat of prop. 54 suggest that CA voters are still primarily more liberal by a large amount, yet came out of the recall thinking Arnold was different from republicans and/or democrats and would be a fresh direction for CA politics? I mean a lot of conservatives on the tv and the radio were touting that Arnold's victory is proof CA voters are more conservative now, but the landslide defeat of prop. 54 suggests otherwise, add to that Arnold was not running as a hardline conservative.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I just think they were that sick of Davis and Bustawhateverthehellhisnameis was seen as being the exact same.

[Guest MikeSC]

I thought Bush was a weak canidate besides carrying the "bush legacy" with him.  Gore just fucked up all by himself.  He distanced himself from Clinton thinking it would help, but all it did was confuse his own voters as to why Clinton was never seen.  Clinton's support would have got Gore into office alone.  Gore ran one of the worst campaigns ever.  If Gore would have taken a different approach then his, "look I don't cheat on my wife" campaign, he would have easily beaten Bush.

Clinton interjected himself in the Congressional races in 2002 and in the California recall on behalf of Davis.

 

His support is hardly a victory guarantee.

 

Bush did what he had to do. If Gore ran a less inept campaign, Bush would've done much more.

 

Bush has tons of money, lots of time, and no opposition to just pick apart whomever he faces --- and the campaign finance reforms hurts the Dems FAR more than the GOP.

-=Mike

Ok those are fine points, but I am not talking about Clinton's "magic" in 2002 or 2004. I am talking about fresh after his 8 years of being president. Going into the Gore campaign, Clinton was still a popular guy. Clinton has been out of the limelight for awhile now, so I would doubt he would have the same mass appeal as he used to. People just don't care about him ANYMORE, but they used to, and in 2000 they still did.

He would not have won in 2000. The country was sick of him and Gore, in spite of having (fading) prosperity and (even more fading) peace, couldn't win as the incumbent V.P.

 

Clinton got out when the getting was good.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I thought Bush was a weak canidate besides carrying the "bush legacy" with him.  Gore just fucked up all by himself.  He distanced himself from Clinton thinking it would help, but all it did was confuse his own voters as to why Clinton was never seen.  Clinton's support would have got Gore into office alone.  Gore ran one of the worst campaigns ever.  If Gore would have taken a different approach then his, "look I don't cheat on my wife" campaign, he would have easily beaten Bush.

Clinton interjected himself in the Congressional races in 2002 and in the California recall on behalf of Davis.

 

His support is hardly a victory guarantee.

 

Bush did what he had to do. If Gore ran a less inept campaign, Bush would've done much more.

 

Bush has tons of money, lots of time, and no opposition to just pick apart whomever he faces --- and the campaign finance reforms hurts the Dems FAR more than the GOP.

-=Mike

Ok those are fine points, but I am not talking about Clinton's "magic" in 2002 or 2004. I am talking about fresh after his 8 years of being president. Going into the Gore campaign, Clinton was still a popular guy. Clinton has been out of the limelight for awhile now, so I would doubt he would have the same mass appeal as he used to. People just don't care about him ANYMORE, but they used to, and in 2000 they still did.

He would not have won in 2000. The country was sick of him and Gore, in spite of having (fading) prosperity and (even more fading) peace, couldn't win as the incumbent V.P.

 

Clinton got out when the getting was good.

-=Mike

I wasn't talking about whether Clinton would win or not, rather what he could have done to help the campaign. Gore basically didn't want Clinton's endorsement because he was scared to death that fence-riders would view him as the same mold of character. And certainly you can't say Gore "couldn't" win in 2000, the race was the closest in a long time.

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

A few points I would like to make.

 

It is a bit of a myth that Issa was responsible for the recall. He jumped on board after it got rolling. Also, the signature collectors he paid for did not even account for half of the 2+ million signatures that were collected, when less than 1 million were needed to put the recall on the ballot. Issa's money may have brought MORE mainstream media attention, but it was beginning to draw eyes on its own.

 

Yes, you do need to be a registered voter to sign a recall petition.

 

The idea that Davis should have resigned and left Bustamonte the reigns was no longer an option after the recall was certified. That would have either led to Cruz facing the recall, or the election would have just been for who was to replace Davis. I don't recall which offhand, but that's the moral of the story.

 

A recall against Arnold won't be successful because there hasn't been enough time for voters to build up enough anger against him. Davis has a long history of angering CA voters. Many would say the only reason Davis was able to be re-elected in the first place was by tampering with the republican primary, and then embarking on a huge negative campaign against the resulting weak nominee. Davis also lied about the size of the state deficit, and then after "balancing" the budget by taking out billions of dollars in loans actually said there was no deficit because the budget was "balanced". Davis ALSO has the energy crisis that occurred under his watch. There are those who would say that he inherited that problem, but if the recession is because of Bush, then the energy crisis is because of Davis.

 

As for the FDR tangent, I did an extensive report on the new deal in high school. At the time I wanted to try to say that it was doing a good job, but I couldn't find any real evidence of that. The economy had recovered slightly from its lowest lows, but that could be credited to any number of things, even just the cyclical nature of economics. In my own opinion, the New Deal mainly gave a lot of people the false impression that the government can have a DIRECT impact on the employment rate. The only way it can do that is by hiring people itself. Government should just make employment possible and profitable for all parties involved. But, that much is just my opinion, so your mileage may vary.

[NoCalMike 0]

conservative talk radio got the recall in motion 2 months after Davis was re-elected. The recall started out as a joke, it was just looked at as sour apples. Then Issa came in there shortly after with 2 million to pour into it because he wanted to be govenor, that is a fact. When Arnold entered, he bowed out in tears cause he knew he had no chance. Then he tries to sneak in the back door and become an ally with Arnold, what a crock of shit.

 

Oh and there was 1.2 million signatures, not over 2 million.

 

Davis also made a big mistake by not reacting to the recall until it was too late. Of course Arnold isn't going to get recalled, there is no reason for it at all as of now. Also every democrat/liberal on TV is urging people NOT to try and start another recall. The recall process was not a popular thing and I doubt people want to do it again.

 

When the recall started, there wasn't this mass frustration/hatred for Davis. If you look at polls it took the recall awhile to actually swing into favor.