Jun 07 2006

What Killed Dems In CA-50?

Published by at 10:59 pm under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions

I think a reader at KOS nailed it on what killed the Dems chances in CA-50, and it wasn’t immigration. It was a very important symbol. That was probably what made Latino voters go Rep in the end, despite the immigration debacle going on in the House. Religion trumps policies every time.

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “What Killed Dems In CA-50?”

  1. For Enforcement says:

    Yep he understood it, they don’t want us to give the country away either. Now maybe some die hards on this site will understand it too and decide that most people really do want a secure border.

  2. wiley says:

    There were several things at play, but immigration was the biggest issue and the reason Bilbray won. And what is Bilbray’s stance? Well, I don’t pretend to know totally, but he made clear that he was firmly opposed to the Senate bill and sided with the House in that the priority is border security. In fact, this is why McCain was a no-show (co-uthored the Senate bill) a couple days ago in a late campaign rally that he was supposed to be at. Yes, Busby had a gaffe, which did help. But, it also shone a bright light on their immigration differences. As the polls clearly indicate, the majority of voters want control over the illegal immigration run amok — first & foremost secured borders.

    It’s true this district is republican — by about 15% — but it was ripe for a Dem takeover because of the disgust, shame, maybe anger voters had with Cunningham, and by extension, the repubs. Busby did have a huge lead a couple months ago. But as the election drew closer she received closer scrutiny and did not come across very well. Bilbray was a former representative, so he was somewhat familiar to most voters, though not exactly real likable. In the end, enough of the voters were able to distance Bilbray from the Cunningham corruption, and decided his immigration stance was worth their vote over Busby, who really offered nothing except being from the other party (teaching a lesson).

    Also, voters aren’t dumb as the press or the elites presume. The dems taunt that the repubs are the party of corruption is not sticking with anybody except the far lefties and maybe some in the press. And something that doesn’t get much mention is that the approval numbers for congress are much lower than for Bush. So, when people hear about corruption in government and disgust with things not getting done and all the bickering — all of congress is blamed (rightly so), whether dem or repub. This often leads to voter apathy and low turnout, which usually favors the incumbent. And with gerrymandering and the asinine (& unconstitutional) campaign finance laws, there are not many house seats in competition. The most common way to pick up seats is with an open seat, vice opposing an incumbent. Bottom-line, I think it is unlikely that the dems will gain control over either house or senate. I think most voters are getting weary from all the partisan bickering, and fed up with politicians in general, and so the turnout will be low (there will be some exceptions), which will favor the repubs in most cases. Yes, they could still shoot themselves in the foot, but it is just as likely that the dems will. In fact, the one thing that they seem to agree on for what their agenda will consist of, if in power, is to conduct hearing after hearing slinging mud, accusations (which they do anyway), and trying to impeach Bush. Other than the hard left, no sensible American would vote for this.

  3. SallyVee says:

    The WSJ makes this point about CA-50:


    California Reprieve
    June 7, 2006 11:29 p.m.; Page A18 | The Wall Street Journal

  4. SallyVee says:

    Whoops. Try that again. Here’s’ the WSJ excerpt:

    [EXCERPT] The GOP won what it’s hoping is a bellwether House race in San Diego County to fill a seat that opened when former Congressman Duke Cunningham was caught taking bribes. Republican Brian Bilbray defeated Democrat Francine Busby, 49% to 45%. But it’s not a good GOP omen that the National Republican Congressional Committee had to spend $5 million on the contest and that Ms. Busby hurt herself with a late-inning gaffe.

    […] Mr. Bilbray made immigration the centerpiece of his campaign, which isn’t surprising for a former lobbyist for the restrictionist Federation for American Immigration Reform. Distancing himself from President Bush’s guest-worker approach, Mr. Bilbray called for constructing a wall “from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.”

    Some conservatives are touting his victory as proof that anti-immigration is now a winner for Republicans, and they may be right this year. But they’ll have a more convincing case when this result can be reproduced in a district where Republicans don’t outnumber Democrats by 3 to 2, and have to outspend them by 2 to 1.

  5. sbd says:

    My Letter to the Editor at Voice Of San Diego.Org

    For those San Diegans who need an education on the history of the Establishment Clause, they should read this research paper from the University of Virginia School of Law.

    I will quote a little from the paper to give you some quite needed history:

    “The modern Establishment Clause dates from Everson v. Board of Education, decided in 1947. In the preceding century and a half, the Supreme Court decided only two cases under that provision, and neither cast a long shadow. Everson, in contrast, set the course of Establishment Clause decisions for two generations.”

    In other words, the modern Establishment Clause dates back to 1947 and not 1789.

    “Begin with the bedrock proposition that the Establishment Clause requires separation of church and state.” The provision bars Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The phrasing suggests that Congress can neither establish nor disestablish religion.

    On this reading, the Establishment Clause adopts no substantive policy regarding separation of church and state, but merely divests the national government of authority on the subject. This interpretation is confirmed by contemporary practice. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, seven of the 14 states maintained government-sponsored churches and several others used various means to advance the Christian religion. With the arguable exception of Rhode Island, no American state could have been found in compliance with the modern understanding of separation of church and state.

    It seems odd to think that the states would have adopted, with little discussion and less dispute, a constitutional provision condemning their current practices. “It may be therefore that the original Establishment Clause embraced no substantive conception of the proper relation of church and state but merely reflected a determination that the issue be settled locally.”

    I think a vote by over 75 percent of San Diegans in favor of keeping the cross qualifies as being settled locally, don’t you?


  6. sbd says:

    Zarquawi killed in airstrike



  7. SallyVee says:

    Yep. Deader than a hammer. But his white infidel sneakers were in perfect condition and his Timex was still ticking.


    We love our troops. We love our troops. We LOOOOOVE our troops! God bless you all.

  8. crosspatch says:

    TF-145 will now be headed out to track down Osama.

  9. MerlinOS2 says:


    I just took the time to read the whole thread comments at Kos after more have observed and commented.

    Some are now getting is Kos’s face over his rationalizations.

    Overall view of the thread…

    Confusious says it is not a good idea to be on the end of an iceberg when global warming is so immediate.