Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goobergunch]

1. We ran too dirty a campaign

IMHO one shouldn't run a dirty campaign against an outsider candidate...it reinforces the perception of insider vs. outsider.

[NashVegas]

2. Bullfeathers

Arnold is married to a Kennedy, has meetings with Rove and Lay, and you think he's an outsider?

The Dems problem was that they weren't agressive enough, and didn't take the challenge seriously enough.

New leadership is needed.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. Are the Cal election rules for this site over yet?

because this type of observation has been disiplined by the mods as pro-bush since they took effect.

[Democat]

11. We didn't run a dirty campaign at all - we should have!!!

Anyone who thinks that the Democrats ran a dirty campaign is crazy!

The only thing that made it into the mainstream media against Arnold was at the very end of the campaign, and that was after everyone had already made up their minds.

Arnold attacked Davis constantly, going so far as to compare California under Davis to Iraq.

You people are crazy if you think that Democrats needed to be "nicer" to win.

This fucking party will never learn.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Nobody said they needed to be nice

but the groper nazi stuff looks over the top. You should have gone after him on Enron.

[Democat]

13. I agree with you on that

We should have made it clear that supporting Arnold is supporting Bush and that Bush is the one who screwed California in the first place.

The Democrats weren't willing to go all the way to win - they wanted to be "nice" - fucking Feinstein was pushing her "positive" campaign bullshit early on.

Voters do not want a positive campaign - when Arnold shouted down Arianna at the debates, his popularity went up.

When will Democrats learn that the voters want people who are willing to be assholes and fight for something?

[Skwmom]

3. The Dems are like lambs to the slaughter.

They should have offered a strong alternative to Davis. I think this is just a prelude to 2004.

MSNBC said Bush had a 50% approval rating in the exit polls. It's going to be very hard to win in 2004 but I don't expect the Dems to put up the strongest candidate. That would require thinking and strategy which is definitely not one of the Dems strong suits.

[dsc]

4. absymally

but it may not end up having mattered. We should have run no Democrat at all on the second ballot. This should have been presented to Californians as the coup it was and they should have been forced to choose between Davis and Schwartzeneger (sp). But given the fact he may well have gotten more votes than Davis, if early returns hold up, it may not have mattered. We need to give him 30 days (the time that Davis got) and then initiate the recall.

[John_H]

5. The campaihn was marked by an odd combination

of arrogance, which was the prevailing characteristic of the Davis administration at all levels, and wimpiness.

At the height of their powers the davis administration dismissed entreaties on a host of issues from a wide range of "base" organizations, often with utter dismissiveness--and today it bit them on the ass turnout wise (check the "big" turnout numbers tomorrow. Wanna bet it's mostly idiots voting for the Terminator?).

Arnold should also have been attacked for the boob he is from day one--laughed at continuously--instead of being treated like a real live candidate.

The good news--I bet there's more than a few political people trying to remember how to do old fashioned politics instead of raining money right now.

[Snellius]

6. Clinton's vaunted politcal acumen is overrated

Clinton told Davis to stay calm and act gubernatorial. Sign lots of bills. And say things like "They want to be the governor but I am the governor." Duh! They just weren't listening. I heard it in California for two years. Davis was a scapegoat sop even when it wasn't his fault. What good was it to act like the governor when that's exactly what people didn't want to see. They wanted to see a new Gray Davis.

But there wasn't one. Clinton's other dumb advice was to go all or nothing on the recall. They needed more than Bustamante. But with Feinstein out (and she bears a large responsibility for preferring her cozy state in the Senate over the hard duties in Sacramento), there wasn't much choice. Democrats everywhere have to start looking for unconventional candidates outside the old party machine.

[RichM]

8. I live in Calif, & assure you: the Dem campaign STUNK. The worst

failure was that they NEVER made clear why the budget deficit ballooned as it did. One of the main causes of the deficit was of course the Enron-Bush-Cheney theft of $9 billion dollars in spring of 2001.

But to drive home this point, the Dems would have had to make direct accusations against the Bush-Cheney-Enron crowd. This would have taken nerve -- & the Dems of course do not have this. So they made the point timidly, peripherally, & ineffectively. It got lost in the noise.

Secondly, they didn't really go after Arnold's ignorance & unfitness for office; they didn't explain which interests Arnold is a front-man for; they didn't explain what kind of politics Arnold would represent. They more or less let him pretend he was a populist cowboy, riding into town to "clean up" Sacramento.

Third, they relied on last-minute sex-Nazi smears, to try to pull the bacon out of the fire. This smelled bad.

Finally, they never made a case against the media favoritism of Arnold; against the silliness of celebrity-worship.

On balance, their campaign stunk. They certainly should have run a respected figure like Leon Panetta, if they were serious about winning.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. If you say anything bad about the sex/nazi smears

the mods will get mad! They sure have at me. They say it is pro-arnold.

[RichM]

10. LOL! It wouldn't surprise me a bit.