Very cool -- Thanks Andrea !

Well Andrea, considering the Dems controlled both houses of the legislature and the Governor's office for 5+ years, the voters might have reason for blaming the Dems for the state of the State.

I really DON'T want to do the research right now, but I recall reading (probably in The New Republic) that California deregulated in such a way that they lost the price caps on power but didn't get the benefits of multiple suppliers. So yeah, the monopoly screwed the state.

Bottom line, the state has a responsibility not to put itself in a screwable position (or, if it inherits such a position, to get out of it ASAP).

Having just looked up "landslide," I have to admit that Jimpy's half right. The American Heritage Dictionary says it's "2.a. An overwhelming majority of votes for a political party or candidate." 48.6% does make Bustamante's 31.6% look paltry indeed, but it's a plurality, not a majority, of all the votes cast. OTOH, definition 2.b. is "An election that sweeps a party or candidate into office," and it certainly was that.

(Of course, by my standards none of the other elections mentioned would be called landslides, either. I guess that's just me--I generally find election coverage way too hyperbolic.)

On an unrelated point: D'ya think that Californians blamed the Dems for getting flimflammed by Enron? Or is that just ancient history?

Mike is right - there were two separate votes you had to cast. First, you had to vote yes/no on the recall, then you had to vote for who you would want if the recall vote was "yes." So if you add the "no's" and the Bustamante votes, you would be double-counting.

The sad truth is, Arnold got more votes in this recall (3.85 million), then Grey Davis got in the 2002 election (3.53 million). Davis won that election by 5 points (against Bill Simon, who got 3.17 million votes).

Bear in mind though, that back in 1998, he got 4.86 million votes, and won by nearly 20 points (a landslide!).

But that was then, this is not. In fact, if anything, I'd say Arnold's numbers understate the support for him (or, really, against Davis). Keep in mind that the third place person was also a Republican - McClintock took over a million votes. On the other hand, Bustamante split the Democratic vote with . . . Larry Flint. With just over 15,ooo votes.

So, if you really want to think about how bad it was, over 62% of voters voted Republican in the recall, with only 32% going Democrat. A 30 point gap. Ouch.

NS -- for the record, I believe that you could vote for both "no" and "Bustamante" -- they were separate, hence the "no on recall, yes on bustamante" campaign. So yes, Viriginia, it really was a landslide. But to the point: the map makes it look even more landslidey than it really was, since CA doesn't have a winner-take-all by county system.

But it was still a rout.

That should have read "vote for the recall was tighter" or closer ... it wasn't tight.
^^

Always edit before you post ... sigh.

But Jim -- the vote for the recall was tight. And if you add the No votes to Bustamente's, I think you get a majority of the popular vote. Schwarzenegger is the winner, fair and square, but the maps make him seem as if he has 95% of the state's support. Instead, a majority of the vote went for the democrats, but they were split between NO and Bustamente. Very different understandings of the state's discontent.

A very interesting article, and a cool concept, but when you say the official map "make[s] the election look like a landslide," are you saying it wasn't?

I mean, like it or not, Arnold crushed Bustamante. I was looking at some old Presidential numbers, and to find a 17 point gap in the popular vote, you need to look back to elections like Johnson over Goldwater, Regan over Mondale, or Nixon over McGovern - landslides all.

The warped up California maps certainly look cooler than the 'standard' election map, but I'm not sure either can do much to change the fact that the election was a good old fashioned ass-whooping.

I'm with Mark on this one - a nice new map isn't going to hide the fact that the Dems have tanked California (not a great thing to think about a mere 12 months before the next Presidential election) . . . .

great maps. they really point out that population density is a great indicator of relative voter inclinations. but a finer disection of the data still leaves a dead frog in the tray.

the question is, how does the democratic party of california go about re-earning voter trust? relying on arnold to screw it up doesn't seem like an answer somehow.

reading the press, i'd like to see a little more soul-searching from democrats (calilfornian and national). right now all i'm reading is name calling, finger pointing, and voter denigration. not good politics.

M-----: I guess this is what you mean by "respecting my decision" that you shouldn't post here any more. I'd hate to see what disrespect looks like in your book.

Despite your instructions to delete your posts, I think I'll leave them just as they are. Exhibit 32.

It's only for Jen's sake that I'm not writing something we'll all regret later. I'm waiting on her instructions. Because I seriously am not smiling.

I'd prefer not to have to communicate with you here (or through Jen), but since you delete my emails and refuse my calls and won't be in the same room with me, I don't have a choice now, do I?

Oh, by the way -- neat article, Andrea! Always looking out for those Tufte Alerts.

GREENS GOT ROLLED Â- Pete Camejo, the Green Party candidate, boasted before the election that Greens were Â"growingÂ" with up to 10% of the vote. Camejo got exactly 2.8% in the recall. But, hey - he beat Gary Coleman.

DONÂ'T FORGET THE LAST ACTOR CALIFORNIANS ELECTED Â- Who, of course, turned out to be the model for all California governors since, and is largely recognized as among the most successful U.S. Presidents in history.

THE VOTE WAS A TRIUMPH FOR THE GOOD GUYS, AND A CRUSHING DEFEAT FOR THE BAD GUYS Â- Okay, IÂ'm just being redundant now.

Till 11/04, ciao, girls.

FEMINIST MINORITY IS A SHRINKING MINORITY, PART 1 Â- It was quaint to see feminists holding press conferences with Â"grope-eesÂ", but the public was amused to finally see feminists in action after the Clinton years of inaction, what with those rape and exposure allegations against Bill. IÂ've said it before, but feminists have blown their wad for generations with spectacular hypocrisy.

FEMINIST MINORITY IS A SHRINKING MINORITY, PART 2 Â- While nothing excuses unwanted groping, feminists never seem grasp that women throw themselves at male celebrities in large and cheap numbers. They not only encourage advances, they often reward them. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, Â"Feminists just donÂ't know women.Â"

THE Â"PEOPLE-OF-COLORÂ" COALITION IS NOT Â- Despite Bustamante being on the ballot, Latinos voted almost 50% for Arnold. The Â"black voteÂ" did not materialize because, in California, there is no such thing anymore. Asians, of course, went for Arnold. Rainbow THIS, my friends.

Â"RACE-HUSTLING POVERTY PIMPSÂ" TOOK A BATH Â- Poor NAACP. With no Â"disenfranchisementÂ" or Â"voting irregularitiesÂ" to parlay into the non-case against Bush, it was sad to see Jesse making a fool of himself on election eve. He did the smart thing and fled L.A. the next day, but he should have left much sooner. Attentive voters can use punch card ballots, butterfly ballots, or anything else you put in front of them. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Â"ItÂ's the stupid, stupid.Â"

CLINTONS ARE THE KISS OF DEATH Â- My Democrat friends in Cali got computer calls from Bill, Hillary, Gore, Lieberman, Dean Â- and, in a display of how much Democrats have lost it Â- Barbara Streisand! Seriously, folks! And even more seriously, Clinton-backed candidates have lost every election but two since 2000. And Wes Clark already has that DOA look about him.

LIBERALS STEAL ELECTIONS Â- The Left tried to thwart this election on laughable grounds and failed. (Of course, the Times approved of the courtÂ's pre-reversed laughable decision.) Previously, liberals used the courts to reverse FloridaÂ's 2000 vote, and to dismantle California Props 187, 206 and 209 - all of which won by 60%-plus margins. When the Left sees an election it doesnÂ't like, it runs to liberal courts to trash the PeopleÂ's will Â- or tries to stop the voting before it begins. It is devious, it is a conspiracy, and itÂ's all on the Left.

THERE WAS NO Â"DISENFRANCHISEMENTÂ" IN FLORIDA 2000 Â- Nevermind that the Bush-hating Times and other media counted the contested ballots and STILL came up with a Bush win. Californians just proved that voters can express themselves perfectly well with punch card ballots... IF THEY JUST FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS. Sorry, chumps, Bush won Florida. If you donÂ't like it, stop whining and get rid of the Electoral College.

ARNOLD, LIKE W. BEFORE HIM, WON THE ELECTION IN A DEBATE Â- Before the debate, Arnold was down 25%-36% to Bustamante. After, those numbers reversed overnight and never looked back. Liberals thought Arnold and W., dumb guys up against smart cookies, would hang themselves in debates. The results were quite different.

THE Â"LIBERAL MEDIAÂ" IS WAY LIBERAL Â- The L.A. Times can blame Â"talk radioÂ" for thousands of subscription cancellations and nationally-hostile reactions to their smear pieces on Arnold. But voters made the connection between its anti-recall editorials, heavily-biased news coverage and last-minute smear pieces. And the N.Y. Times tried to tell us that Arnold was a Nazi Â- omitting, of course, that he hates Nazis and gives millions to Jewish groups. Anyone who still thinks the liberal media isnÂ't liberal is sleeping on the job.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS BACKFIRING Â- In a KABC-TV poll after the groping stories, 12% said they had not been planning to vote for Arnold but would now as a reaction to perceived media bias. The Washington Post reports that as a direct result of the Recall, public trust of the media has reached an historical low.

Hello, girls. Greetings from the Banned. DonÂ't like this One-&-One-Time-Only-Rude-&-Highly-Illegal-Intrusion? Delete it Â- hurry, now. But as supporters of illegal music downloads, you should have no problem with this little pro-1st Amendment guerilla insurgency Â- or with the Cali Recall vote.

In a recent post-election tradition, after the Ish Left invariably takes a cold hosing, I sneaked an illicit peak and noticed a predictable huff of discussion of my home stateÂ's Recall. Know ye that, waaaay back last summer, I suggested Mike post the Recall as a topic. But in a burst of prescience he declined, and decided to unpost me instead.

If not deleted by now, let me Steal This Moment to enlighten you as to what the California Recall REALLY MEANS:

YOU GUYS SHOULD LOVE THE RECALL BECAUSE IT WAS A POPULAR REBELLION AND Â"DEMOCRACY IN ACTIONÂ" Â- California, unlike many Northeastern states, is full of people who have come here to do something productive, as opposed to, say, collecting welfare or plotting to move to California. A 55% majority of productive Californians felt the government was standing between them and their aspirations. In Arnold they saw a candidate who might dislodge an entire obstructionist culture. Liberals who console themselves that this was an electorate vainly electing an action-hero to save the day are completely missing the historical steamroller that just crushed them.

LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS BLEW THEIR CHANCE TO GOVERN Â- In a state with far more Democrats than Republicans, Democrats controlled the governorÂ's office and both houses. But voters felt they were not being represented. What more can be said, except that an electorate with 34% registered Republicans voted 62% for Republican candidates? Oh, there is one more thing: Arnold got 3.7 million votes, and anti-recall forces mustered 3.5.

THE NEW YORK TIMES IS OBLIVIOUS - What the Times condescendingly called Â"a fit of piqueÂ" was a record-high 61% of voter-turnout in a non-presidential election. According to the Times, Republicans only win when either they steal elections or voters are stupid. Here, they say, voters are stupid. But eight million voters say the Times is stupid for not recognizing democracy even when they have to write about it.