Good Questions, Leo -- <font size = "4">The Drunks Bar </font size "4">

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:17:04 10/08/03 Wed
Author: SM78
Subject: Good Questions, Leo
In reply to: Leo P�tsch 's message, "What was the actual result anyway? How the media declared the CA election (from an outsider's view)" on 06:56:27 10/08/03 Wed

Hi Leo.

Here's how it works in California, and in the US in general with elections:

1) Polls are done constantly from the start of the election.

2) All of the editorial boards of newspapers endorse candidates and skew their reportage accordingly.

3) On election day, pollsters do "exit polls" as voters are exiting the polling places. These pollsters work for various media outlets and papers.

4) A small percent of polling data that reflects perhaps 5% of the voters is fed to the media outlets. They compare results with each other and report that "preliminary results indicate..."

5) At the same time, the CA Secretary of State's office reports the numbers of voters who are turning out to vote and extrapolate what they think the total turn out will be.

6) The media pollsters take the likely voter turnout and extrapolate a predicted result.

7)Unless there is a huge and obvious trend, most media hang back until later and do not make predictions as a bad prediction reflects negatively on the media outlet giving it.

8) Where there is an early and obvious statistical trend, the media starts making predictions at about 5:00 PM. This is controversial and is always criticized because it discourages people who are just leaving work from voting if they think the election is a foregone conclusion.

So yes, the media can decide an election to the extent that their predictions have a chilling effect on those who have note voted. Some outlets, such as MSNBC yesterday, had the good taste not to offer a predition until 8:00 PM when the polls had closed.

However, in the final analysis, it is the voters who decide. Lazy voters look at the news at 5:00 and stay home. Responsible voters go exercise their franchise. Personally, it felt good yesterday when I was part of the 54% of Californians who voted to fire an incompetent. Davis had it coming and we collectively fired him. We could do this because we put him there and we can make him leave. This recall shook up business as usual in CA politics.

As I said in the post that began this thread, Arnold won as a populist candidate and not as a Republican. Tom Mc Clintock was the conservative GOP doctrinairre candidate and came in with 13% of the vote. Arnold had 48%, thus showing that a moderate Republican was favored 3 to 1 over a conservative. Cruz Bustamonte, the Dem candidate earned a very respectable 32% and acquitted himself quite nicely.

On the "GAG" issues (Gay Rights, Abortion, Gun Control), Arnold supports gay rights, is pro-choice, and favors gun control. This caused doctrinairre CA Republicans to brand Arnold a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). This is fine with me; I'll take a populist RINO anyday over an extreme Liberal (Bustamonte) or Extreme Conservative (McClintock).

Arnold's success will not translate into electoral success for Bush in 2004 -- unless Bush really listens to the rage out here about taxpayers having to pay the costs for illegals while the Federal Government fails to enforce immigration policies and refuses to give CA any money to defray the massive costs of being ordered by the courts to pay for the medical care, schooling (including college), imprisonment, law enforcement, and the many governmental and private costs we incur from illegals. For example, Almost 50% of our prison population is illegal. About 80% of the babies born at County USC (LA County) Hospital, are born to illegals. About 50% of the hit and run accidents on the road involve illegals who flee the scene because they do not want to go to jail and then be deported (this number is based on those we catch. The number who get away is unknown of course). Aggravating this is the fact that illegals who are arrested for crimes in CA or the US can flee back down South with impunity as Mexico and other countries to the South lack the money to chase wanted criminals, and these countries probably do not care. A secret investigation of vehicle VIN numbers at the Tijuana Police Station once revealed that 70% of the police vehicles had been stolen from the US and converted into police vehicles (they were all SUV's). Another aggravating fact is that Mexico has no death penalty and will not extradite its citizens who face the death penalty back to the US. So now we have a Mexican National who killed an LAPD officer and fled to Mexico. Mexico will not turn him over unless we promise not to execute him. This is an outrage and is a cause celebre in CA.

Illegals break laws at every turn and argue that their poverty exempts them from the law. The super-wealthy also break laws and argue that their wealth exempts them from the law. There is little respect for the law at either end of the economic scale and it has hurt CA, especially when the large corporations who are based here register their HQ's offshore to avoid taxes. The Indian Tribes here make billions in gambling profits and pay no taxes because they are sovereign nations. Yet they take advantage of our roads, health care, and other infrastructure. The tribes have become massive freeloaders who have bribed CA politicians to the tune of $120,000,000 in the past ten years to get what they want. CA is full of corruption at many levels and our politicians support it. The recall was a sign of things to come and look for more political slaughter in 2004 if our politicians don't change things.

There is still tumult for CA as it is likely we will run out of cash in six months. There is tumult as voters fight illegals. Personally, I think the illegals will start another riot or two when we revoke the stupid law that will give them Drivers Licenses in Jan, 2004, as well as encircle them with more draconian laws designed to disincentivize them from coming here and living here.

Arnold may preside over the near bankruptcy of CA. The US gov't will have to intervene. As much as hacks like the Rushaddict blast CA, the fact is that we are too big and contribute too much money into the US Treasury to allow us to go broke.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]