« OC Blog News Roundup -- December 7, 2005 | Main | Blogosphere Reaction To 48th CD Results »

December 07, 2005

Comments

JozefColomy

You hit the proverbial nail on the head Jubal--losing is losing, and lose Uncle Jimmy did.

I just can't wait until Congressman Campbell gets into Congress, votes the way he has advertised, and puts to shame the lying JimG fiends. This election was a great victory for the citizens of the 48th, as they have elected the candidate who will best represent them and who will best stand up for their interests, and not go into personal tirades about one issue.

Allan Bartlett

Jubal you are just killing me with your spin. The fact of the matter is that if we had done an effective absentee ballot chase like the GOP is good at, Jim Gilchrist would be flying to DC today and not John Campbell. We beat you on election day which you convienently choose not to talk about. The fact of the matter is that the local GOP establishment is in a state of shock right now from Jim's showing last night. We are going to raise at least a few million dollars in the next six months before the June primary. Maybe we'll run against Campbell or maybe like Jim mentioned, an insurgency candidacy against the queen bee of amnesty for illegals herself, Diane Feinstein.

Powder Blue Report

Miriam Bertram

Allan, what were the results for those who voted on Tuesday?

Allan Bartlett

Miriam,

Here they are in all their glory. So much for the vaunted Campbell GOTV election day effort. That really is disgraceful that Steve Young beat John Campbell too. What the hell is going on at the county party? They can't even beat a no talent trial lawyer in one of the most Republican districts? I think heads should roll on this.

Campbell 10555 30.5%
Young 11229 32.4%
Gilchrist 12293 35.5%
Tiritilli 327 0.9%
Cohen 236 0.7%

Powder Blue Report

Art Pedroza

How did the Green Party candidate come up with more votes than the Libertarian candidate? Say it ain't so!

Congratulations to John Campbell - his career will surely last longer than a minute...

Art Pedroza
Orange Juice
http://o-juice.blogspot.com/

lanceman

The fact that Campbell's web site never changed once he got all of his establishment endorsements suggests he will take this district for granted. And he probably can. We can all go back into our coma, there's a "conservative" Republican in DC. I hope I am wrong. And if I am, I would be glad to vote for Campbell. In a sense I was a zombie - when, for over 25 years I repeatedly voted GOP in hopes of smaller government. By the way, where exactly is this smaller government the GOP repeatedly talks about?

lanceman

The Libertarian candidate was pretty much a now-show in this election. I hope he didn't spend too much money! I think he even supported "stay the course" in Iraq which I can't see as being libertarian.

Silence Dogood

Allan-

There's nothing to gloat about. Jubal makes what appear to be retrospective concessions to the Gilchrist camp (see point 2,3, and 4).

I think the 25% of voters who cast their ballots for Gilchrist did make a statement. Gilchrist may have raised more money and garnered more votes than any other AIP candidate since George Wallace. That's quite a feat.

But losing is losing. There aren't any points for second place, or third. This election was a foregone conclusion. No one respectable thought the outcome would change.

Hopefully, Congressman-elect John Campbell learned something from his constituents, the voters in this campaign, and their political interests. That's what campaigns are supposed to, drum up popular interests and have them realized by the various candidates. I look forward to seeing the voters' interests implemented - with wonder to what extent - by Campbell in Washington.

Moral victory? Call it whatever you like. It was six months in the long political life of our community and country.

anon ii

Results were to be expected, but I'm glad KFI and Gilchrist made some noise. Blog Watcher, go ahead- "But what did they win?"

Stuart O'Neill

Only thing I would like to see in all these analysis is a stop to the comparison's between the General Election of 2004, with a Presidential Election that lasted over a year..hundreds of millions of dollars to drum up the vote and a 60% turnout...,and a 119 day Special Election with 23% turnout and little cash on anyone's part but Campbell's.

And Campbell made no beans about a GOTV effort that I know of...he ran a 'high-gloss, direct mail campaign' from behind cover. He didn't get out and debate very often. It proved effective on the 40,000 households where he poured $450,000 in 11 direct mailings in the Primary. Most of them stayed with him in the General. And, frankly, it worked.

If you take a close look at the finish, his margin is only the margin of his Absentee ballots.

As to turnout, live turnout was only 8.6%! Comparing a 23% Gross turnout (which was actually only 8.6% at the Polling place) to a Presidential Election Year's Returns where turnout was 60% simply is apples and oranges.

Ah well...on to other races and places....

You've been more than fair, Jubal. Thank you.

Jubal

Jubal you are just killing me with your spin. The fact of the matter is that if we had done an effective absentee ballot chase like the GOP is good at, Jim Gilchrist would be flying to DC today and not John Campbell. We beat you on election day which you convienently choose not to talk about.

Spin? Spin?

Allan, my friend, the only ones spinning are you and your fellow Gilchrist zombies.

"If we had done an absentee chase..." If, if, if! Pure speculation, Allan. I submit Campbell would have beaten Gilchrist in the absentees even if Gilchrist's campaign workers possessed the skill and experience to conduct an effective AB program. Which they didn't -- so your guy got clobbered. Absentee voters are better informed and more deliberative than Election Day voters -- and hence more resistant to the suasions of oddlings like Gilchrist.

As for the "we beat you on election day" taunt, again I ask -- so what? That's like bragging that a football team that lost in a blow out "won" the 4th quarter.

Gilchrist came out ahead among the 8.6% who voted on Election Day, and Campbell came out ahead among the 14.4% who voted absentee. Guess who's a Congressman now?

Hardly "Decisive"

Jubal - No excuses, a loss is a loss for Gilchrist and a win is a win for Rep. Campbell.

However, it is inaccurate to call Rep. Campbell's victory "decisive"

Logical

A more accurate analysis is somewhere in the middle of how Jubal and Bartlett see it:

- A decisive win for JC: Well sure; 16.7 margin over SY and 19.6 over JG.
- A message sent to JC/GOP on illegal immigration: Sure; JC received lower percentage than the primary and picked up absolutely no additional votes (JG vote count increased 10K; SY got all those Dems back that voted for Brewer and increased 18K).

Bottom line: A good Rep without II hiccups would have won outright on Oct 4; and if not, would have definitely garnered in excess of 50% in the general (likely exceeding 60%).

It's doubtful our new congressman will champion anything except budget issues (where he should definitely be a hawk) but we can only hope he'll stand true on II when the strong-willed congressmen put forward their bills to curb the tide.

Lemons for Sale

It is no shock that "Honest" John Campbell the used car salesman is soft on illegal immigration. Once illegal aliens are given drivers licenses, he will be able to sell more cars.

Jerry Amante

To all:

Take it from a Bruin who just suffered a pretty signifficant loss ( Allan ..can you relate? )and who is still smarting from that spanking.... When you get crushed in competition...it's best to be graceful in the loss and live to compete another day with some degree of respect left from the competitor(s) that ate your lunch.

To argue..."but my defense in the 3rd quarter was better than your defense in the second quarter"...while getting your butt beat sounds like whining.

John Campbell beat Steve Young and Jim Gilchrist straight up. He had a better game plan. He had better execution. He did what he had to do and won...time for some of us to enjoy and the rest to gracefully move on.

Jim

Allan, I don't think it's fair to characterize Steve Young as a "no talent" trial lawyer. I would not and did not vote for him, but I have been his opposing counsel and can tell you that he is a talented attorney.

Allan Bartlett

LOL Lemons for Sale!

Powder Blue Report

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories