California was won by Clinton twice with a Republican governor

[ButterflyBlood]

New York has been won twice with a Republican governor.

Rhode Island, Massachussets, Vermont, Hawaii and Connecticut all have Republican governors--all states that we aren't worrying about losing.

Why does having a Republican governor mean California is definately going to Bush? Should we try to pick up Kansas, Wyoming and Oklahoma next year for having Democratic governors?

[Lone_Wolf]

1. I think Rove's strategy...

...is to make us spend time and money in CA. Historically, it is a state we only had to campaign minimally in. The Bush campaign is going to have money to burn, so don't look for them to concede anything. Part of their strategy is undoubtable to make us waste time and money in states that have historically been Democratic.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. something that many are forgetting

Bush won't even be on the ballot in California! Unless the legislature changes it, the governor can't do it alone.

Even with a Republican governor and Bush on the ballot, it won't take much campaigning, when Bush's approval ratings in the state are below 50, and a Republican governor who won't be anymore competant than Davis will lead to more backlash against Republicans (no Arnold's celebrity appeal won't save him. If he sucks as governor, people will let it be known. Look at Jesse Ventura here.)

I doubt Rove masterminded the recall. Issa wanted to buy the governorship, then Rove got him to drop out rather than let his scandals surface and cause more damage. But Issa was the mastermind, not Rove. And if Rove is behind it, it probably has more to do with Enron than anything. New York, with a Republican governor, senate and secretary of state, will be far easier to rig than California with just a Republican governor.

[Yavin4]

3. That Was BKR

Before Karl Rove. The Republicans have changed dramatically since Clinton won in 1996. They've grown desperate and have resorted to cheating in order to win.

[ButterflyBlood]

4. Then why not try the far easier New York?

than go through all the trouble of a recall in California?

[Yavin4]

6. They're Power Hungry, But Not Stupid

Look, they have Texas. They have Florida. That leaves NY or CA, and NY is much tougher to steal than CA because of the predominance of NYC. There's no way in hell they can steal NYC.

CA is much easier because all Arnold has to do is run immigration sweeps right before the election and pick up people with Hispanic and Asian surnames to prevent them from voting.

Moreover, CA has CALPERS, the largest pension fund outside of Social Security. That's the real prize here. Eronomics 101 preaches stealing from pension funds.

Prime example, Bush sold the Texas Rangers to Tom Hicks at a premium. In return, Bush allowed Hicks' company to manage the University of Texas' endowment fund. Hicks gambled a huge percentage of that fund away with bad investments.

Stealing the election is only part of the prize in CA.

[catzies]

8. What Yavin4 said.

[jiacinto]

5. Let's all step back

California can elect Republicans. From 1968 through 1992 no Democrat won the state. Democrats lost it for all but one election from 1952 to 1992. So let's not forget the recent past. California being a solid Democratic state is still pretty new--before the 1990s it was evenly divided between both parties.

And having a Governor of the same party has not been that great of help to candidates running for president. OH, IL, MI all had Republican Governors in the 1990s--and all states voted for Clinton twice.

To answer your question, ButterflyBlood, California is not going to vote Republican in 2004. If California is in doubt then we are losing 40 or more states. And Kansas, Wyoming, and Oklahoma will not be voting Democratic in 2004. If any of those states are in contention then Bush is in severe freefall.

[ButterflyBlood]

7. that's kind of the point

people are saying the recall is so Bush can carry California, but if a Republican governor is all it takes to win CA, we could just as easily win Kansas, Wyoming or Oklahoma.

[jiacinto]

9. Yeah

just having a governor of one party doesn't automatically guarantee a win in a presidential race.

[MoonGod]

11. Well, there are other issues here...

... mainly BBV and election fraud. We all saw how much owning the governor can help in Florida in 2000/02.

As far as the recent past you refer to, I assume you were talking about presidential elections, 'cuz the record isn't quite so bad for Dem governors, although Republicans prolly won more during that era. And in regards to those presidential elections, don't forget that between 1968 and 1992, 6 of the 8 elections featured Republican pres. candidates from California.

[AP]

10. A big 'DUH!' here:

(1) Touch screen balloting wasn't a threat when Clinton ran. A big reason Bush was able to steal FL was because his brother was governor and they began a multifaceted project to steal that election which started at least as early as 98.

(2) Enron is the elephant in the corner in this race. Nobodies talking about it, but that (in addition to the pensions) is what the Republicans want to protect.

(3) A related note about pensions: republicans in Bush friendly Ohio, CT, and FL all bought lots of Enron stock as it was tanking to bail out the executive insiders (not employees were locked out from flooding the market with their shares).