Why Busby lost

[DeBunk]

I'm a pretty well informed San Diegan.

Where does Busby stand on Iraq? I don't know.
Where does Busby stand on health care? I don't know.
Where does Busby stand on wire taps? I don't know.
Where does Busby stand on gay marriage? I don't know.

Why do our candidates follow these stupid consultants instead of leading us to victory? I don't know.

What I do know is that Democrats didn't turn out to vote in the numbers needed to win. Why? Because they had no reason to.

http://bunkport.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-busby-lost.html

[librechik]

1. thanks for the post and welcome to DU

interesting observations. And questions. Food for thought for potential candidates.

:hi:

[cantstandbush]

2. READ MY LIPS! IMMIGRATION IS THE ISSUE FOR 06!!

I said it before and I will say it again. The Dems are the politically WRONG side of this issue although they may be on the RIGHT side morally. This nation is a nation of VOTING RACISTS. If we can't get those opposed to vote, the Rethugs will control this government for as long as we can see. BUSH IS NOT RUNNING IN THIS ELECTION. Nothing he says matters to the racist voters around the country. It is NOT about Gay Marriage or abortion, or corruption (give us Barabas!). It is about illegal immigration and immigration period for most of the bigots in this country. MARK MY WORDS. Dems can keep their moral souls, and I think they should, but they will be giving up controling our elected government.

[AX10]

3. Democrats need to be very careful on this issue.

[bryant69]

4. I think that's a little overly pessimistic

I think it is likely to be a key issue in San Diego and in any of the border states - but I don't know if that is going to be the one and only issue that matters nationwide.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Squeech]

5. Disagree

Corruption is the issue in 2006-- because everything they're stealing belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.

Also it's a "frame" that plausibly ties together all the malfeasance and screwups. Iraq's a quagmire because Rummy tried to do it on the cheap and then subcontract it to Kellogg Brown & Voldemort. New Orleans flooded because they tried to reinforce the levees on the cheap, and the people are still homeless because FEMA and its contractors are cronies rather than competent functionaries. There's less money in your pocket because the K Street lobbyists, in collusion with the Republican party, are changing all the ground rules to reward the corporations at your expense. It's an oversimplified view of things, but it hangs together and rings true and has the extra added advantage of resonating with the actual experience of the electorate.

And pragmatically, nothing's gonna get fixed until we throw the crooks out.

[wisteria]

6. They wouldn't care about immigration if they didn't think it was taking

money away from their pockets.Imagine, all of their tax money going to feed and keep healthy those illegals coming in to our country, they aren't going to stand for that. Republicans are motivated by money, making it and keeping it, throw in protecting their butts with security measures and that just about sums up all the Republicans I know. It is all about them.

[DeBunk]

7. Bullsh*t she has the same possition as their president

All she had to do was say that and the issue is off the table.

[tjwash]

9. Great. Another attempted thread hi-jacking by the immigration boogieman.

Look. The immigration debacle is a manufactured "crisis" by this bunch of neo-con shitheads to further split this country up, and keep us arguing amongst ourselves.

Fuck this bullshit that we are on the "wrong side of the issue."

Our "issues" happen to be 9-11, thousands of our kids coming home in body bags from Iraq, the impending nuclear strike on Iran and possible world war as a result of it, the impending collapse of our economy, the sales of parts our national parks to China to pay for interest on our debts to them, The Katrina debacle and loss of a major American city, the collapse of our public education system, and the crumbling separation between church and state. To name a few off of the top of my head, it's still early you know...

[DeBunk]

12. We have the same possition as Bush

Let them fight it out amongst themselves. They keep trying to drag us into it. Hey, we have the same position as douche bag. Comprehensive reform. I'm cool with that.

Don't like it, take it up with your republican president.

[cantstandbush]

15. I really didn't say we were on the "wrong side" of the issue. I said

we are on the "politically wrong side of the issue." It's a matter of winning House Seats or saving our souls. I agree with most of the Dems positions on this. I also recognize the nature of the folks who vote...and therein lies the rub.

[DeBunk]

19. Go back and look at the polls

While most people favore enforcement, very few favore deportation of those living here already.

The house republican possition is not the nations possition. Bush is far closer to the people on this.

[cantstandbush]

72. Bush may be closer to "the people" but not closer to the "voters." n/t

[stepnw1f]

18. And They are Almost Doing Roves Work for Him

People need to wise up.

[Misskittycat]

51. In CA-50th, immigration is a very real issue. In other places in the

country, it is probably true that it is much more a trumped-up distraction, but here it is big, and likely was the deciding factor in this race. Bilbray took a hard-line position and smeared Busby as favoring "amnesty" when in fact she supports the Senate bill which is not an "amnesty."

[DeBunk]

53. For Republicans....

The issue is getting Dems to turn out.

Democrats care about the war. It's the biggest issue to us.

[Misskittycat]

58. I want to amend my post. Immig. was key, but there were other

factors.

This race deserves a lot of discussion over a period of time, not only as strategy for November in this District, when the candidates face off again, but because of implications nationally.

There were positive things, and there were also disappointing things.

The low turnout dismays me, but there were certain factors that suppressed turnout. First, the TV ads were relentless and awful. It turned everybody off. Also, the ads for the governor's primary -- between Phil Angelides and Steve Westly was ugly and negative. It left a lot of people wondering who to vote for in that race, and that suppresses turnout. I had to do some independent research of my own in the final days to determine that I really wanted Angelides. But most people won't go to that trouble, and the whole thing was a big, ugly turnoff.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. So the Dems should pander to bigots?

Is that what you are saying?

[Critters2]

59. You can stand on your principles

or you can win House seats. The election in California demonstrates you can't do both.

Looks like Dems are getting ready to lose again. Am I the only one who's getting tired of that?

[burythehatchet]

23. you couldn't be more

correct. Over a year ago I learned that immigration was going to be the wedge issue and my feeling was that dems must stake out a position as opposed to reacting to the repub position. I DO NOT beieve that the dems have to be racists. My feeling is that they simply need a position and explain why it makes sense.

[farmbo]

40. The Minutemen held a rally in Ohio (Columbus) and eight people showed up

The Immigration Issue will play well in Southern Red states...maybe SoCal...but is a dud elsewhere, IMHO.

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. I agree

We aren't all that excited about it here in the midwest either. It's an issue, but not like the war or the economy or the republican corruption.

[cascadiance]

65. The problem is that there are more than TWO sides on immigration issue...

There are actually other ways to fix this that aren't being dealt with by this Republican Congress. Busby felt the need to side with the less objectionable side to show she wanted to be a part of congress instead of being a "maverick" advocting her own solution. Note that I think this is a general criticism of the Democratic Party leaving her no other option in this case.

The "compromise" guest worker program solution that McCain crafted with other Dems like Kennedy isn't really the ultimate solution either in my book, and that is why you have the others, who are motivated by racism primarily, but have some of their points justified about not giving "amnesty" to these people, which some would argue that the "guest worker" does give.

The xenophobes who voted on this one issue should have been challenged to support a candidate more purely supporting them on this choice. Griffith instead of Bilbray. Dems should have made the case that Bilbray will f them in the ass later when he answers back to his corporate sponsors for cheap labor here and goes back on his "commitments" to keep out all illegals here. We should be walking his moves like a hawk on this and if he slips up even once, broadcast it to the world so that these xenophobes can see their mistake.

The third approach which isn't being discussed doesn't need to build a fence or staff us with a "border guard" and criminalize all who are illegals or those who help them in *any* way. But it doesn't give people "cheap jobs" here by legitimizing a work program for cheaper labor here either. It says basically we're going to prioritize making indisputable citizenship or work permit papers possible like we make our money so that it can't be counterfitted. That becomes a priority where it hasn't been in the past. Then come down employers and make them criminals for hiring people with this tool of having more power to determine who's illegal and who isn't.

Give this a shot, and if this truly dries up jobs for illegals here, as Thom Hartmann would say, most of these illegals would take the expense of moving themselves back over the border instead of forcing us to find them and do it. A lot of money saved as well as not building up a war zone along the border of Mexico if we try to be more militaristic about this.

The third approach would emphasize more going after Vincente Fox and other leaders of countries that export their jobs here and tell them they should be finding ways to create their own jobs. Perhaps find some ways to help them if they honestly share their wealth with their people instead of hoarding it for their elites there.

This third approach of course won't happen until we get rid of the Republican majority. But it is also the job of the current "do nothing" Democrats that don't want to offend their corporate DLC sponsors to stand up and articulate a vision like this so that they might even persuade some of the xenophobe types as well as the more reasonable folk that don't want illegals get "amnesty" here to vote for them. If that vision were articulated today, I think that Busby would have won yesterday if she were able to support it!

As it is now, we here still feel high and dry here in San Diego with no representation to try to help us articulate these feelings. As Russell Feingold would say, we have to get off our butts and be a party that stands for something, not one that just sits back waiting for the Republicans to implode, or we will fail again like we've done in 2002 and 2004!

[bklyncowgirl]

71. Busby shot herself in the head with that remark about illegals voting.

I realize that she meant to say that they could work on the campeign, but frankly this just gave them the ammunition they needed to take her out. I imagine that this is a very real issue in San Diego and she should have been much smarter than that. Many pissed off moderates probably stayed home over this.

Democrats have to get smarter on illegal immigration. They need to make it an economic issue--not a racial and cultural one. Right now the Democrats are playing footsie with the Chimp and his guest worker program.

Not a good move at all.

[TheFarseer]

77. I think you are right for the wrong reasons

Of course lots of people are going to vote for the party that is serious about stopping illegal immigration, but stopping illegal immigration IS a democratic issue rather than just pandering as you suggest. Keeping unskilled labor out of the country forces up wages for American unskilled workers. It's not any harder than that. If democrats aren't for helping the working poor, then I don't see much point to having a democratic party.

[unlawflcombatnt]

78. I agree

I agree. Illegal immigration is a huge issue for American workers throughout the country. Illegal immigration suppresses wages, and makes the rich Corporatocrats who illegally hire them richer. Allowing illegal immigrants to flood the U.S. labor market increases labor supply, decreases American worker wages, and makes poor Americans even poorer as a result.

Democrats need to get a lot more serious about helping American workers than they are about helping illegal immigrant workers and the employers who illegally hire them.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[msongs]

8. voter turnout less than 25% in so california nt

[DeBunk]

10. That proves my point here

The Republicans didn't turn out to vote. But, neither did we and there are just more of them.

Democrats needed something to get them out and it just wasn't there. I believe it's a feeling of hopelessness. No one is talking about what we believe in.

[skipos]

11. Um, you know that this is an insanely red district that

everyone thought the dems had no chance of winning after the Duke scandal broke, right?
Then the race got closer as time went on. She lost in 2004 by over 20%, this time she lost by 4%.

[DeBunk]

13. I live in the district, I walked the precincts. We should have won.

When I walked the precincts there were a ton of people who said they "don't like republicans". But, they didn't turn out to vote.

[hang a left]

41. I live in the district myself.

When I went to the polls they were empty, mind you it was lunchtime. But this sick feeling entered the pit of my stomach when I inserted my ballot into the diebold counter or whatever the hell it was.

That said, I am not sure if that is why she lost, or if it is just the fact that the brain-damaged, fundy-driven, Gasbaugh groupies, were the ones that actually out numbered us.

[kurth]

14. This contest was WAY overhyped by the media

She didn't have a chance.

[DeBunk]

17. ...

I believe she could have easily won if dems had turned out in larger numbers.

[Critters2]

60. Then wy didn't the party run someone who did? nt

[BonnieJW]

But people think immigration is part of the corruption

It's denying Americans jobs and hiring non-citizens at very low wages. It's importing poverty. It's part of the great American giveaway. It's giving the corporations exactly what they want: an unending supply of very cheap labor without giving them any kind of benefits. It's part of dissolving the middle class.

[begin_within]

20. Low turnout hurt Busby. When I went to vote, I was the only one there,

[Cha]

31. That's just sick.

One would think that the Dems in that District would be well enough informed on the bushites to want a Dem on Congress!

I feel for you guys in the 50th District of California who wanted Francine Busby!

[DeBunk]

32. I put a lot into this. I'm very disappointed

I'm sick of the play it safe mentality we get from our candidates.

To be truthful I didn't think Francine was a great candidate.

What I wanted to hear never got said.

[Cha]

35. Well, maybe, Just maybe..

this should be a waken up lesson for the dems who "play it safe"!??

They play it so fucking safe they don't get voted in.

[DeBunk]

36. From your keyboard to God's ear

I really hope your right.

I emailed my opinions to the Busby campaign.

We have another shot at the seat in November. I hope she plays it differently then.

[Cha]

37. "Another shot in November"?

This is just to fill in until November and then another election? I didn't know that! Wow! Thanks for your activism..I used to live all over San Diego in the '70's and '80's.

[DeBunk]

39. Yes, Francine won the primary

She is the candidate for November.

[DeBunk]

21. Forget immigration. The war is the issue Democrats care about

It's the only issue that matters. People asked me, "where does she stand on the war". almost no one asked me, "where does she stand on immigration".

Immigration is an issue to turn out the Republican base. We need to concentrate on turning out our base. We need to stop fixating on them and start building our own base and getting them out to vote.

Republicans are never going to go away, they are never going to convert to our side. The way to win American elections is by turnout. It's alway been that way and it always will be that way.

[cascadiance]

75. I think if she plays the war card right AND appeals to vets too...

Certainly if she comes out more against the war, many of the Dems will come out. I think you need to combine that with a strong vision that she gives out that she understands the problems that vets families and others are dealing with this war, and supporting them on a personal level, that will solidify that she's not against the troops and their reasons for being a part of the military and perhaps even their initial reasons for volunteering to be a part of the war effort. If she shows that she's the better agent of change for them in Washington to help them out in addition to ending the war, that will get a whole segment of voters here that might cross over from being independent or Republican even if she's against the war.

I've already talked to her about this, and have shared some ideas I have on how to work on this issue with her. Hoping that she'll have more time to work on those approaches for the November campaign. She remembered them again when I talked to her in Encinitas yesterday.

I do feel that military families here are a wild card that can be switched over if it is played right!

[xchrom]

22. fewer than four in ten voters turned out for this election.

i think therein lies your problem.

in cali that is.

[DeBunk]

24. That is exactly what I'm saying

Democrats didn't turnout because they weren't given a reason to.

If Franscine had taken a stand on the war like Murtha she may have still lost, but democrats would have come out in droves to vote.

I guess the rub is that Repubs would also have come out to vote against her. But, at least we would have been energized.

[Teaser]

25. Busby lost because CA 50 is very republican

end of discussion

[DeBunk]

28. Wrong. Republicans didn't turn out to vote

I've watched this "end of discussion" crap to many elections in a row.

We lost because there are more of them sure. But, we could have won if democrats had turned out to vote.


AMERICAN POLITICS IS ABOUT TURNING OUT THE BASE. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE THAT WAY.

THE REPUBS GET IT...WE DON'T

[GOTV]

26. Have you been to her web site.

The answers to half of your questions were there under the clearly labeled "On THe Issues" section:

"Where does Busby stand on Iraq?"

# Francine Opposed the War in Iraq From the Beginning Because it was a Distraction from the War on Terrorism
# Develop An Exit Strategy With Clear Benchmarks for Restoring Security and Infrastructure
# Start Withdrawing Troops as Soon As Benchmarks are Met
# Never Again Send Troops Into Battle With Too Little Body Armor and Inadequate Equipment
# Stand With the Men and Women Who Have Served by Keeping Promises to America's Veterans

"Where does Busby stand on health care?"

# Provide Tax Credits for Small Businesses and the Self-Employed to Lower the Cost of Health Insurance
# Make a Portion of Health Insurance Premiums Tax Deductible to Reduce Costs
# Allow Small Businesses to Enter into Larger Purchasing Pools to Negotiate Lower Health Insurance Rates
# Fix Prescription Drug Benefits to Ensure Seniors Have a Simple and Secure Plan
# Allow Medicare to Negotiate Lower Prices with Drug Companies
# Increase Access to Preventative Healthcare to Reduce Costs and Improve Health
# Invest in stem cell research which has the potential to save lives and provide cures to some of the most deadly diseases

I might be able to find the answers to the other two questions but, well, it's all over now isn't it.

So why didn't you know her stance on these issues?

[DeBunk]

29. I peddled that crap with Kerry too

If it didn't get on TV the voters didn't hear it.

You know it and I know it.

It's about turning out the base. Democrats were not energized.

[GOTV]

33. OK, but you said YOU did not know

Busby had clearly stated positions on Iraq and Health care.

[DeBunk]

34. I didn't bother to go and look

Just like most voters.

I remember in the 2004 election the trolls kept saying, "you don't have a platform" and, "Kerry doesn't stand for anything". I used to post links to the DNC and kerry's websites. But, that proves their point.

In 2004 you could ask any American, "what do Republicans stand for" and they would rattle off, "low taxes, the war, hatred of gays, etc..."

Sure we don't agree with any of that, but it turned out their base. More then that, it convinced a lot of independents to vote for them, just because they believe in something.

[GOTV]

38. You can't expect the corporate media...

... to carry an anti-corporate message. Between any two politicians, all else being equal, the one with the more corporate friendly message will get more of the coverage - and that will usually be the GOP candidate. A candidate with a corporate unfriendly message can get through but they will have to have some other exceptional characteristic that compels coverage.

Kerry's message will not be covered. Busby's message will not be covered.

But when WE don't know what Kerry and Busby stand for we become the proof of the "Democrats don't stand for anything" meme. We get pointed to be people saying "See? Even THEY don't know what they stand for."

Please, please, please, when you talk to your neighbors about a candidate, know their positions. As you say, your neighbors were asking "Where does she stand on the war?" and if you didn't know you lost much of your ability to affect and mobilize a voter.

It's great that you're working. So few of us do go out and do the real work. But don't go out into battle without your ammo.

[renate]

47. someone motivated enough to bother to check out a web site

...is probably someone who's motivated enough to have already paid attention to where a candidate or a party stands on an issue. In 2003/2004 I didn't bother checking out every candidate's web site, either--I picked my guy because I liked what I saw on TV and in the news, and then I read more on his site.

I agree with you--candidates need to make their positions crystal clear, because TV viewers are used to being spoonfed information in the form of easy-to-understand advertising. Most folks don't have the inclination or the time to give the "who deserves my vote" decision a lot of thought; it's a gut thing.

I think you're exactly right--even people who disagree with the Republicans' stand on issues can name what they believe (maybe under a different name; they call it "defense of the family," we call it homophobia). Success in November is going to come down to making it just as easy to identify what Democrats stand for.

[Mr_Spock]

27. If Dems could have won by turning out, then they are fucking idiots

If a Democrat there can't see how we will need EVERY DAMNED SEAT in Congress to take back control of America, then I'm not a Democrat.

Dems can't be that fucking stupid (I hope).

Any Dem who didn't vote there should be beaten severely.

[DeBunk]

30. Most people just aren't as political as us

I believe very strongly that if Francine had campaigned on the war she would have won. Democrats are thirsty for leadership.

San Diego has the highest gas prices in the country. I don't know how many times I've heard this exact statement from San Diegans, "we are paying for this war at the pump".

[Norquist Nemesis]

42. There was a piece about the race last night

Can't recall whether it was CNN, MSNBC, or which specific show (I tend to wear out the remote LOL!)...Anyway, they interviewed a woman is was (keyword WAS) a Republican. She said most of the people she knows have switched their party affiliation from Con to either Democrat or Independent (but I got the impression that it was mostly toward Democrat). :shrug:

[DeBunk]

44. Yea, I walked the precincts

People kept saying "I don't like Republicans", and "I don't like the war".

I heard it over an over.

But, they didn't turn out to vote. I think it's because she didn't go for it on the war.

[Norquist Nemesis]

50. Thanks for the insight.

I haven't watched this one intently for details. If she was getting any assistance from the DCCC and Immanuel...that could explain a lot. :(

[npincus]

43. She lost by 4% in a district that's 2/3 Republican

isn't that a bad omen for Repukes in 2006?

[DeBunk]

46. Basically my beef boils down to this:

We have got to get our candidates to address the war. They can't hide. The single most important issue for Democrats is the war. If our candidates don't address it head on they will run the risk of losing on turnout.

[npincus]

54. totally agree

don't they read the godammned polls?

[mountebank]

45. Thanks for all your effort in CA-50, DeBunk. Don't you think that the

only real chance Busby had to win was to make the election a sort of vague and gauzy referendum on corruption? I mean, if she took the Democratic platform on health care, Iraq, gay marriage - well, then she would have lost because everyone knows CA-50 is a heavily Republican district and they just don't agree with Dems on those issues. Gay marriage in CA-50? I mean, you know the district better than I. But really?? True, many GOP registered voters were ready to bolt - but not for gay marriage. They were ready to bolt (in my opinion) for an independent-seeming politician who ran against the excesses of Washington. That was Francine Busby, or what she tried to make herself to be. I mean, she was a Republican at one time! Just to say she's no liberal.

So she couldn't pull off this extrememly difficult task this time. But she came within a handful of % points. That's something. Your efforts were not in vain. I do think she could have won it, if the cards had fallen right, if the Repubs didn't have the echo-chamber they do on right-wing radio, and if the Dems weren't outspent 2-to-1. But I don't think it's being a Pollyanna to say that we won last night, we won before the first vote was cast. As much as I wish people had reserved that comment for today instead of yesterday, it's true.

[DeBunk]

49. No, I don't

I posted above. I walked the precincts.

People wanted to hear about the war. San Diegans pay the highest gas prices in the country. They automatically make the connection between the price of gas and the war.

The war is low hanging fruit for dems. If we can't get them to talk about it we will have diminished returns.

[mountebank]

56. You're probably right. I was just reading some posts on Daily Kos

and it is true that CA-50 probably turned on inspiring the base and those disenchanted with Iraq. Many die-hard Republicans stayed home. Everyone could learn something from Montana politics at this point. Maverick Dems will do well in November. Thanks again, DeBunk.

[jerry611]

48. I'll tell you why...

If you are against Iraq...you kill your chances at the military vote
If you are in favor of universal healthcare...you lose conservative votes (in a district of 2/3rds GOP, this is huge)
If you are against wire taps....you lose the security moms
If you are in favor of gay marriage...you lose the religious vote

Basically if you are a pro-choice, anti-war, pro-universal healthcare, pro-gay candidate... you will get only about 20% of the population.

Sad, but that's how politics works in this country.

[DeBunk]

52. I simply disagree

This is the fear that paralyzes our candidates.

I'm about to move to a different district. I called the Representative from that district and asked, "what was her position on the war?"

The Congresswoman was one of the 123 who voted against the war. That was all I needed to know. I seriously think the majority of Democrats and independents agree. I'm not concerned that she agree with me on every issue.

I think our candidates must stand up or no one will stand with them.

[LSK]

55. i have a very legit reason: JOHN CONYERS AS CHAIR

Isnt that more than enough to turn out?!?!?!

[misternormal]

57. I have an idea....

... Candidates should tell the consultants and anyone who tells them,"This is what you gotta say to win", to piss up a rope... And then go to the people and tell them what they really stand for... How they really stand on the issues, and then let the voters make up their minds, and let the chips fall where they may.

Just a new idea in modern politics...

On edit: Welcome to Du DeBunk.

[Halliburton]

61. I agree

I still think we performed very well given that CA50 is heavily Republican but we could've won the race easily if Busby would have taken more of a Paul Hackett approach to this race. Instead Busby was afraid to talk about issues like the environment and Iraq. she took the DC consultant route and that is why she lost.

[usregimechange]

62. Didn't she do really well for such a red district?

[DeBunk]

66. Yes, but....

There was really low turnout among repubs.

If dems had turned out to vote she would have won.

There was a real chance to win this thing.

My belief is that dems want to hear about the war.

[Nikki Stone 1]

67. Dems in the district may feel hopeless, considering past history

I think if most Dems had known how close it would be, they would have come out. It was only a couple thousand votes.

[Nikki Stone 1]

63. I think the lack of turnout is ELECTION FATIGUE

There have been so many goddamned special elections in the past two years (especially the mayor's race) that I think many folks decided to sit this one out.

Also the negative ads played a big role in turning off voters.

What the Democratic party needs to do is run ads about why it is important to vote in the election, instead of just answering attack ads with other attack ads. How about a commercial that says: Democrats, you have a way to make history if you go out and vote for Busby on June 6. It's very close and we could send a Democrat to Washington instead of a Republican lobbyist.

Dems are pretty intelligent. Explain why you need to vote, why it's urgent. Have the point of the commercial be why the Dems should take time from their busy day to vote. Or better yet, recommend that Dems become permanent absentee voters (possible in California) and remind them to send back their ballots in the mail.

[cascadiance]

74. I think the Dems need a victory too...

You are so right about voter (AND volunteer activist) fatigue! I'm feeling it myself now. If the Dems were to get one tangible victory where they've gained something, then it would provide more incentive for them to work harder on other issues as they come up later. It feels now that either through a totally hopeless electorate here, or "fixed" setups for various elections, that nothing we can do can get us really over the hump to get something tangible back.

It's kind of like you feel when the Democrats make a big deal towards a last minute fillibuster on Alito, and when they do the final vote, it shows that they had the numbers to pull off the fillibuster if they'd voted consistently on both votes. Then you wonder how sincere ANY of the votes they made either for or against the fillibuster really were. Were the votes for the fillibuster staged? Were those against it trying to satisfy split electorates, or to satisfy corporate donors? We don't really know. If they had successfully launched a fillibuster (even if it ultimately didn't succeed), we'd then know who really put their butt on the line for such a vote, instead of just providing a beauty pageant vote for display only.

It's hard to know how much we're really being robbed of votes here, how much it is that we just can't cross that 45% progressive barrier here because of a completely anti-Democrat/progressive 55% of the population here, or if some of that 55% can be appealed to with reason that we simply haven't offered yet. If it is an inflexible 55%, then that's when I think I'm moving to Oregon. I'm getting tired of beating my head against the wall!

[Nikki Stone 1]

79. I so agree with your posts.

I think that Democrats are getting demoralized and have forgotten how to take risks.

[Bumblebee]

64. I think you are right. Not being as bad is enough to keep you close

but not enough to put you over the top.

[robbedvoter]

68. May I ask what kind of voting machines they use in San Diego?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

70. Diebold optical scan in my precinct (yes, I am in CA-50)

HTH

[cascadiance]

73. They have optical scans but TSX machines for "assisted votes"

for the handicapped, etc. So the dominant number of votes were going through scanned ballots. I'm wondering if they were hiding the central tabulator machine away from the observors like they were with earlier elections here. With the Republicans in complete control over the Voter Registrar's office and the County supervisor's, there's not Democrat there to make sure they aren't doing anything sneaky. It's too bad we couldn't have gotten someone like Richard Barrera elected yesterday, who himself was a victim of a slimeball ad campaign too, to help out with that equation.

Some "Democratic Voter Guides" were mailed out to many people which had a lot of the Democratic candidates and positions, EXCEPT for one or two local races, with Republican Ron Roberts being recommended for the Board of Supervisors instead of Democrat Richard Barrera. Without county-wide name recognition for Barrera vs. Ron Roberts (who earlier ran for mayor against Dick Murphy with Donna Frye as a write-in), this sort of distortion was possible. They of course couldn't pull that same strategy with Francine Busby, who had a lot more name recognition.

[begin_within]

76. Right now, it's optical scan, but they are going to change to touch-screen

eventually it will all be touch-screen and when it is, I will vote by absentee only. I don't trust any system where I don't make the indelible mark myself.