Arnold: 48.1% 3,577,278 Davis (No On Recall): 45.2% 3,488,465 Mecha Member: 32.2% 2,388,314 McClintock: 13.3% 985,394
So Arnold out polled Davis despite splitting the vote with McClintock. 61.4% of the vote went to a Republican.
Democrats could vote No on recall AND vote for Bustamonte so there was no split to that vote.
Democrats are threatening a revenge recall but with 7.5 million votes cast plus an estimated 2 million absentee ballots, they will have to collect apx 1.14 million signatures. Much more than the recall Davis team needed (but far less than they got.)
Pix
[edit: fixed bad math. Added No On Recall votes by accident.]
[ October 08, 2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
How does he have 3.75 million out of ten million votes cast, and still show up with 48.1 percent?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
The votes listed above total 6,950,986. You should not count the "Davis" votes, as most of those who voted no on the recall, voted for Bustamonte.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Yes, but I SHOULD count all the non-listed votes for governer like Peter Comejo, Gary Coleman, Larry Flint, etc.
Also bare in mind that only 98.6% of precincts had reported as of the above numbers.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And before proclaiming this a mandate for Republican's remember that Arnold is a fiscal conservative, but a social moderate, almost liberal. This made him acceptable to many of the Democratic voters.
Not all the people who voted for Arnold will vote for Bush.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hehehe, I can't wait until everyone sees what Arnold's fiscal policy is really like. I predict it will be not as conservative as you might think. To understand more of why I am predicting this, take a look at his advisors.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If anyone wants to post the vote breakdown by race/age/income, that would be cool.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan, it's a Mandate for Arnold.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I think it's a mandate for famous people. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Such a generality, Tom. You should know better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think it's general at all. I think people were voting for something -- anything -- different, and responded like lemmings to the media.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
No way, Tom. I'm sure they voted for him because of his strong stance on...uhhh....well, I mean, he's a great supporter of...
Okay, maybe it WAS his super-stardom.
Posted by sarfa (Member # 579) on :
Now come on, it was not his super stardom that won him the election at all. It is the fact that he is a robot. Everyone knows that robots make better than governors than regular people.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I agree that he's a robot. I think Maria Shriver programs him every week, and when Californians elected Arnold, they really elected Maria (we have another Kennedy in office). She stocks him with lots of good catch phrases, but he doesn't have a lot of positions on anything because he wasn't programmed to have any but a few of the basics. I mean hey, she's got kids and a household to run, and a career in journalism. She doesn't have a whole lotta time for programming!
Edited for clarity...
[ October 08, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And before proclaiming this a mandate for Republican's remember that Arnold is a fiscal conservative, but a social moderate, almost liberal.
The worst of both worlds. . .
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
ha ha ha! I totally agree with you there, Scott
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See, that is what I personally (though no longer a resident of CA) would vote for, a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
How many "moderates" out there would go exactly the opposite and want a social conservative but a fiscal liberal?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)