Calif. House Race Shows Voters Ready for Change, Liberals Say

[Desertdog]

A liberal advocacy group Wednesday downplayed Republican Brian Bilbray's victory over Democrat Francine Busby in California's special congressional election, saying they're "encouraged" because Busby "clearly was able to draw thousands of independent and Republican voters in an overwhelmingly Republican district."

This confuses me. When I first registered to vote, I registered as an Independent. I was able to vote in the primary on non-policitical offices.

Then I registered as a Democrat, I could vote on the Democrat Primary ballot, but not on the Republican ballot.

When I switched to the Republican Party, I could vote on the Republican ballot.

Am I missing something? How did the other parties vote for a Republican or Democrat instead of the party they were registered in?

Calif. House Race Shows Voters Ready for Change, Liberals Say
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200606/POL20060607e.html

(CNSNews.com) - A liberal advocacy group Wednesday downplayed Republican Brian Bilbray's victory over Democrat Francine Busby in California's special congressional election, saying they're "encouraged" because Busby "clearly was able to draw thousands of independent and Republican voters in an overwhelmingly Republican district."

Bilbray led Busby by about 5 points -- 49.5-45 percent, according to Wednesday morning press reports.

"The race indicates that voters across party lines are ready for a change - and that augurs well for Democrats in November. If independents and Republicans break in the rest of the country the way they broke in CA-50, the Democrats will retake the House," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, in a statement.

"A quick analysis of the numbers demonstrates how profound the shift is. Of all primary voters in that district yesterday, 56.5 percent were GOP primary voters, yet Bilbray only ended up taking 49.48 percent of the special election vote," said Pariser.

"In the special election, Bilbray's vote total was 58,566. That exceeds the total of all GOP primary votes cast by only 1,081," Pariser said, adding that Busby received "a substantial number" of Republican votes.

"On the other hand, Busby got 53,598 votes in the special, which exceeds the total number of votes cast in the Democratic primary by nearly 9,369. It's morning-after, back-of-the-envelope math, but it appears either Busby won Independents nine to one or wooed a substantial number of Republicans," Pariser concluded.

 

[crazed_ss]

There were commercials here saying that you can request a different ballot if you want. If I understood the commercial correctly, you dont have to vote Democrat or Republican just because you're registered with that party

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

It was a special election to elect a replacement for Randy Cunningham, not a primary.

 

[xd9fan]

remember....with liberals its NOT about logic.....its about thought control.....spin

 

[ArmedBear]

Kevin- it was actually a primary. The special election was tacked onto the same ballot. Bilbray and Busby were both also in the primaries for their parties, on the same ballot. They will face each other again in November. We've had 10 elections since January 2005 here. It's nuts.

Most Independents don't vote in the GOP or Dem primary, nor do third-party members, even if they can.

The "morning-after math" is silly.

Bilbray is often tagged a "RINO", and a true fiscal-conservative, libertarian-leaning Republican was running as an Independent in the race. He, along with the Libertarian also running, did siphon off over 5% of the votes from the conservative side, while Busby ran as the only Democrat, and the only liberal.

The results from http://www.sdvote.com :
BRIAN BILBRAY - REP
60319
49.33%

FRANCINE BUSBY - DEM
55587
45.46%

W. GRIFFITH - IND
4492
3.67%

PAUL KING - LIB
1875
1.53%

I'd say that the best read of this election is that, even when the former GOP representative is led away in handcuffs, for corruption involving lots of money, in a fiscally-conservative area where he HAD BEEN really popular and where his confession was a genuine shock, and there's a significant "spoiler" candidate like Griffith, the Democrats still can't win, particularly when the candidate is a DailyKos-boosted left winger who favors high taxes and free stuff for illegal aliens.

Hillary will surely take note.

 

[Haymaker]

Bottom Line............

The Republican won and gets to post "Incumbent" under his name on the November ballot.....Let the liberals claim a 'victory' = in that district, they are wasting their campaign $$$

 

[longeyes]

If the Dems couldn't win THAT one, what can they win? What it really showed was that the Dems are out to lunch on the illegal immigration issue, which is only going to grow in importance.

 

[Desertdog]

What it really showed was that the Dems are out to lunch on the illegal immigration issue,

Bilbray said his campaign did not take off until he started talking against illegal immigrants

 

[ArmedBear]

Desertdog, Bilbray is not particularly well-liked by conservatives or libertarians here, nor is he liked by Democrats or liberals.

This was not a really pro-Bilbray vote as much as an anti-moonbat vote. You'd have to know more about Busby.

I'm okay with that. In fact, now that the primaries are over, it's time to choose the candidate that's closest to my views, not tilt at windmills.

Here's a message to anyone else out there in a 3rd party or who is dissatisfied with their own GOP: it doesn't make sense to give control of the country to Barking Moonbats (not moderate, pro-freedom Democrats, but I can't think of one right now) to punish the GOP, and the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate won't get into office. Sorry. November is the time to choose the lesser evil; the time to get your best candidate on the ballot (as an R or D with a chance to win) is now, during the primaries. In November the primaries will have already happened, and it's time to bite the bullet and do the best we can.

Busby, like John Kerry and so many before her, is simply so bad that she galvanized weak support for her opponent. The last straw was her public statement to a group that pushes for free stuff for illegal immigrants (with an interpreter at the mic to repeat her words in Spanish) a few days before the election, telling them that "they don't need papers" and that she is relying on them to get out the vote.

 

[AJ Dual]

IMO, if the Democratic Party can't make any substantive gains in the mid-term '06 elections or the '08 elections in this political climate, I think they're done for.

It was obvious the Left held massive hopes for the mid-term elections in '02, especialy as Jeb Bush ran for re-election as Gov of Florida, where the 2000 "election/selection" took place, as some sort of repudiation of Bush, and were soundly thwarted.

The Democrats have some serious disadvantages as a whole.

- They lack a cohesive message, other than opposing Republicans/Bush.

- The Republicans, while not nearly as strong as Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that won them the '94 landslide, still have a consistent message, or limited government (even if complete lip-service), tax cuts, and prosecuting the WOT, ignoring Eurpoe and the UN, and not backing down to the Iran/NK "axis of evil".

- The Democrats have traditionaly been a loose coalition of various interest groups, minorities, union members, greens, seniors, gays etc. and various social issues are putting these groups at odds with one another. Gay marriage, the WOT, gun control, have all worked to make these groups examine their differences.

- The Republican fractures are much more minor, the Christian Right/Secular Right, fractures over true limited govt., abortion etc. are minor compared to the very diverse interests that form the DNC's base, and IMO, the GOP factions have got way more overlap in what they do share.

- The MSM monopoly has been broken forever. The Internet and talk-radio continute to thrive while all major newspaper circualtions contintue to shrink, while ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN's market share erodes. Millions eschew the center-left soft propaganda of the MSM completely, and millions more are now aware of it, making them immune.

(FOX is actualy true centrist news network. A Berkley (of all places!) University PoliSci study showed FOX had the most even and consistent news coverage of both Conservatives and Liberals of any major news outlet. That some people are dumb enough confuse the editorial commentator's political bent with the actual "news", when they get irritated at FOX, just shows how out of touch they are...)

- The economy has rebounded fully, there is single-digit unemployment, and despite the sticker shock at the pump, adjusted for inflation, gas prices aren't at the highest they've ever been. People also know that the Democrats are largely the opposition to allowing the the "obscene oil company profits" being re-invested in domestic oil exploration, ANWAR, and the building of new refineries, which will loosen the crunch, at least in the short term.

- If the GOP "wakes up" over the "immigration issue", the Democrats could see themselves destroyed in spectacular fashion. They may not do it though, but I think fears over alienating the "hispanic vote" the GOP has made some gains with in 2000 and 2004 are overblown. Only naturalized, or native hispanics can vote (fraud notwithstanding), and I suspect many of them are leery of mass illegal immigration too. However, the die is cast for the Democrats, with the exception of some local races, most of them will have to toe the party line over being "soft" on Illegals.

This dosen't mean the Republicans can't screw the pooch, but the Democrats have nothing going for them other than "liberal angst", and we've seen that negativity alone won't win elections.