Bush in California - 2000
Nov. 9th, 2006 02:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
webfarmerA few historic data points from the 2000 Presidential election cycle with regard to Bush's near fatal time and money investment in California. One can argue that may have been in part because Nader - with his near double digit polling early on - made it look like a state they could steal away from Gore.
(Note to self: Google Robert Novak 2000 and Cook Report 2000 for Nader, California and Bush for more goodies.)
----
"California Doesn't Matter: The Political Future Once Happened There; No More" by Fred Barnes - Weekly Standard (July 21, 2000)
"California's newly marginal status makes Bush's decision on whether to devote serious resources to the state problematic. So far, though, polls that show him tied or just behind Gore have made California look inviting. Brulte says he hasn't had to urge Bush to commit to a major effort. 'Bush himself is the biggest proponent of Bush in California,' he says.
In the run-up to the national convention beginning July 31, the Republican National Committee spent $ 1 million on TV for Bush in California. 'You don't spend a million in California just to say howdy,' says chief Bush strategist Karl Rove.
A major effort in California may be a mistake. In 1996, Bob Dole poured money into California, where he had no chance against Clinton, and de-emphasized Pennsylvania, a state he might have won. Democrats insist Bush is in roughly the same position."
---
Inside Politics - Al Gore Confronting the Credibility Issue; Bush Campaigns in Gore's Home State of Tennessee (October 10, 2000)
"Governor Bush is getting new help today from the Republican National Committee as he tries to take on Gore in California. The RNC says it will buy an additional $1 million worth of spots per week in the Los Angeles market, continuing through election day. The party's current ad buy there is about a half million dollars.
Initially, the RNC will run two ads that have been airing in battleground states: one on education, the other on prescription drugs. The RNC says it is responding to a Zogby poll commissioned by Republicans which shows Gore is only six points ahead of Bush in California. However, the last Field poll of likely voters in California shows Gore with a 13-point lead. "
---
Crossfire - Election 2000: Bush and Gore Target California (October 31, 2000)
"[ROHRABACHER] Yes, we may be down to 10 or 7 percent, but that means that we have come a long way and the momentum is coming with us. We've got all the energy and Tom Clinkey (ph) is down in Orange County; he's absolutely correct. We're going to have the precinct-walkers out because they're energized; the Democrats aren't going to want to get out of bed. Half of them think they're going to vote for Nader because these people sympathize with the demonstrators up in Seattle, and it was Al Gore who those demonstrators were demonstrating against."
"ROHRABACHER: Let me answer that. That is precisely why the Nader people are going to vote for Ralph Nader and a lot of Democrats... the whole China issue, the whole issue they were demonstrating against, this globalism where the corporations have all of the power. They know that, and they know that Al Gore is up to that up to his elbows and they're going to vote for Nader and that's going to help George Bush."
"[NOVAK] You know, you're renowned as a great political strategist, and I just want to ask you if your party didn't make a tremendous mistake in California since June 1, when the Bush campaign was way, way down they have spent 5.5 million dollars.
BOXER: The Bush people.
NOVAK: The Bush people. The Gore people have spent -- you know how much since June 1? Zero, a round number. That's a mistake, isn't it?"
---
"Inside Report: Bush in California" by Robert D. Novak (October 23, 2000)
"The decision by George W. Bush's high command to spend $8 million in California during the presidential campaign's final stage followed weeks of lobbying by his leaders in the state. Even before polls showed Al Gore's lead down to single digits in the Golden State, investment banker Gerald Parsky and State Sen. Jim Brulte pleaded for Bush to put money into the expensive Los Angeles market."
"It Basically Ended in a Tie" - 2000 Presidential Election Overview
"...the [Bush] campaign nearly overplayed its hand in California, where it made a major investment of resources that failed to produce results on Election Day. Although Gore and the Democrats resisted advertising in California, the pressure did prompt Gore to add a visit to Los Angeles on Oct. 31."
"California Reaming" by Anthony York - Salon.com (May 28, 2001)
"Despite 15 campaign visits during his presidential run and at least $15 million, Bush lost California to Gore by 12 points."
----
"Bush Advertising in CA" by Heather Law - Ad Watch (October 31, 2000)
"Bush just spent 1.8 million dollars last week advertising in California. Bush's largest expediture has been advertising to this state. Some say recent ads have been to help local senate races in CA. Surveys show Gore still leading but the gap is closing slightly. "
"The 'Prop. 187 Destroyed the California GOP' Myth" by Steve Sailor - iSteve.com
"Similarly, in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush -- who supports amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants, bilingual education, and what he calls "affirmative access" -- outspent Al Gore $20 million to nothing in California, and still lost by 11 points."
----
FPC Archives - May 2000, Week 3 (#9)
"U.S. News and World Report writer Betsy Streisand:
'Longtime consumer activist and presumptive Green Party candidate Ralph Nader will almost certainly not be the next president of the United States. Even he knows that.... Yet his candidacy could make a difference. Nader's popularity is growing among reformist voters, and a rash of recent polls suggests the 66-year-old longtime activist could add a new dimension to some increasingly tight races between George W. Bush and Al Gore, especially in California.
The presumption of political pros had long been that a third-party bid by Pat Buchanan would hurt Bush, but now it appears to be Gore who has the problem. A recent Zogby poll shows Nader grabbing 9 percent of the West's vote and 5 percent nationally. In California, where Bush is running a surprisingly close race, Nader's appeal to young and liberal voters is coming at Gore's expense.'"
---
"Presidential Outlook" - Evans & Novak - Human Events (November 3, 2000)
"Out West, Gore's lead in California is still only at 6 points. It's likely that Gore will carry California, but Bush's competitiveness (as well as Nader's) has forced his campaign to spend money in a state once considered a cinch."
"What About the Media Factor?" by Brent Bozell III - Townhall.com (November 9, 2000)
"The TV pundits talked themselves hoarse into the wee hours of the morning playing Monday morning quarterback to see what variables might have altered the election results for each candidate. What if Bush had not wasted time and resources in California, but applied them to Florida instead?"
---
FPC Archives - May 2000, Week 2 (#8)
"The Nader factor would be strongest in California, the nation's most populous state, Schneider said. Noting that polls there show Gore stronger than Bush, Schneider said California is a state that the vice president would need to carry, but an eight or nine percent showing for Nader would put the state 'in play.'"
"Bush's Big Blunder" - The Athenaeum (December 14, 2000)
"Now, this is not to say that Bush's team did very well in this strategy. In fact, their over-confidence cost Bush a smooth, easy transition into the White House. His campaign spent three days a week before the election, and a whopping 21 million dollars, in CALIFORNIA!"
---
"Gray Skies From Now On: Dreary California Governor an Early Bet for Presidential Nomination" by Matt Welch - National Post (November 9, 2002)
"During the 2000 campaign, Bush visited the Golden State more than a dozen times, conducting interviews on Spanish-language broadcasts, promising spectacular reductions in waiting times at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and spending upwards of US$15-million trying to steal a state Al Gore was too confident to campaign in.
On election day, Bush's efforts were rewarded with a butchering. Gore stomped Dubya, 53.4% to 41.7%, and every contested Congressional seat went Democrat, not Republican. The diversion of campaign resources away from such states as Florida nearly cost Bush the White House."
---
"2000 Presidential Race First in Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More on TV Ads than Candidates - Press Release" - Brennan Center for Justice (December 11, 2000)
"The Bush team dedicated $10.8 million to winning California's 54 electoral votes, yet they lost the state by 12 percentage points, 54% to 42%. Al Gore did not spend a single dollar in California on television ads. 'Bush's massive spending in California – only Florida and Pennsylvania received more ad dollars – erased his advertising advantage over Gore in other important states,' Professor Goldstein says. 'As a result, the Vice President was able to outspend Governor Bush in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington, and in New Mexico, Oregon and Iowa – all states that Bush lost by tiny margins. The second guessing will be muted if Bush becomes president, but political strategists are sure to question that California ad buy.'"
(Note to self: Google Robert Novak 2000 and Cook Report 2000 for Nader, California and Bush for more goodies.)
----
"California Doesn't Matter: The Political Future Once Happened There; No More" by Fred Barnes - Weekly Standard (July 21, 2000)
"California's newly marginal status makes Bush's decision on whether to devote serious resources to the state problematic. So far, though, polls that show him tied or just behind Gore have made California look inviting. Brulte says he hasn't had to urge Bush to commit to a major effort. 'Bush himself is the biggest proponent of Bush in California,' he says.
In the run-up to the national convention beginning July 31, the Republican National Committee spent $ 1 million on TV for Bush in California. 'You don't spend a million in California just to say howdy,' says chief Bush strategist Karl Rove.
A major effort in California may be a mistake. In 1996, Bob Dole poured money into California, where he had no chance against Clinton, and de-emphasized Pennsylvania, a state he might have won. Democrats insist Bush is in roughly the same position."
---
Inside Politics - Al Gore Confronting the Credibility Issue; Bush Campaigns in Gore's Home State of Tennessee (October 10, 2000)
"Governor Bush is getting new help today from the Republican National Committee as he tries to take on Gore in California. The RNC says it will buy an additional $1 million worth of spots per week in the Los Angeles market, continuing through election day. The party's current ad buy there is about a half million dollars.
Initially, the RNC will run two ads that have been airing in battleground states: one on education, the other on prescription drugs. The RNC says it is responding to a Zogby poll commissioned by Republicans which shows Gore is only six points ahead of Bush in California. However, the last Field poll of likely voters in California shows Gore with a 13-point lead. "
---
Crossfire - Election 2000: Bush and Gore Target California (October 31, 2000)
"[ROHRABACHER] Yes, we may be down to 10 or 7 percent, but that means that we have come a long way and the momentum is coming with us. We've got all the energy and Tom Clinkey (ph) is down in Orange County; he's absolutely correct. We're going to have the precinct-walkers out because they're energized; the Democrats aren't going to want to get out of bed. Half of them think they're going to vote for Nader because these people sympathize with the demonstrators up in Seattle, and it was Al Gore who those demonstrators were demonstrating against."
"ROHRABACHER: Let me answer that. That is precisely why the Nader people are going to vote for Ralph Nader and a lot of Democrats... the whole China issue, the whole issue they were demonstrating against, this globalism where the corporations have all of the power. They know that, and they know that Al Gore is up to that up to his elbows and they're going to vote for Nader and that's going to help George Bush."
"[NOVAK] You know, you're renowned as a great political strategist, and I just want to ask you if your party didn't make a tremendous mistake in California since June 1, when the Bush campaign was way, way down they have spent 5.5 million dollars.
BOXER: The Bush people.
NOVAK: The Bush people. The Gore people have spent -- you know how much since June 1? Zero, a round number. That's a mistake, isn't it?"
---
"Inside Report: Bush in California" by Robert D. Novak (October 23, 2000)
"The decision by George W. Bush's high command to spend $8 million in California during the presidential campaign's final stage followed weeks of lobbying by his leaders in the state. Even before polls showed Al Gore's lead down to single digits in the Golden State, investment banker Gerald Parsky and State Sen. Jim Brulte pleaded for Bush to put money into the expensive Los Angeles market."
"It Basically Ended in a Tie" - 2000 Presidential Election Overview
"...the [Bush] campaign nearly overplayed its hand in California, where it made a major investment of resources that failed to produce results on Election Day. Although Gore and the Democrats resisted advertising in California, the pressure did prompt Gore to add a visit to Los Angeles on Oct. 31."
"California Reaming" by Anthony York - Salon.com (May 28, 2001)
"Despite 15 campaign visits during his presidential run and at least $15 million, Bush lost California to Gore by 12 points."
----
"Bush Advertising in CA" by Heather Law - Ad Watch (October 31, 2000)
"Bush just spent 1.8 million dollars last week advertising in California. Bush's largest expediture has been advertising to this state. Some say recent ads have been to help local senate races in CA. Surveys show Gore still leading but the gap is closing slightly. "
"The 'Prop. 187 Destroyed the California GOP' Myth" by Steve Sailor - iSteve.com
"Similarly, in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush -- who supports amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants, bilingual education, and what he calls "affirmative access" -- outspent Al Gore $20 million to nothing in California, and still lost by 11 points."
----
FPC Archives - May 2000, Week 3 (#9)
"U.S. News and World Report writer Betsy Streisand:
'Longtime consumer activist and presumptive Green Party candidate Ralph Nader will almost certainly not be the next president of the United States. Even he knows that.... Yet his candidacy could make a difference. Nader's popularity is growing among reformist voters, and a rash of recent polls suggests the 66-year-old longtime activist could add a new dimension to some increasingly tight races between George W. Bush and Al Gore, especially in California.
The presumption of political pros had long been that a third-party bid by Pat Buchanan would hurt Bush, but now it appears to be Gore who has the problem. A recent Zogby poll shows Nader grabbing 9 percent of the West's vote and 5 percent nationally. In California, where Bush is running a surprisingly close race, Nader's appeal to young and liberal voters is coming at Gore's expense.'"
---
"Presidential Outlook" - Evans & Novak - Human Events (November 3, 2000)
"Out West, Gore's lead in California is still only at 6 points. It's likely that Gore will carry California, but Bush's competitiveness (as well as Nader's) has forced his campaign to spend money in a state once considered a cinch."
"What About the Media Factor?" by Brent Bozell III - Townhall.com (November 9, 2000)
"The TV pundits talked themselves hoarse into the wee hours of the morning playing Monday morning quarterback to see what variables might have altered the election results for each candidate. What if Bush had not wasted time and resources in California, but applied them to Florida instead?"
---
FPC Archives - May 2000, Week 2 (#8)
"The Nader factor would be strongest in California, the nation's most populous state, Schneider said. Noting that polls there show Gore stronger than Bush, Schneider said California is a state that the vice president would need to carry, but an eight or nine percent showing for Nader would put the state 'in play.'"
"Bush's Big Blunder" - The Athenaeum (December 14, 2000)
"Now, this is not to say that Bush's team did very well in this strategy. In fact, their over-confidence cost Bush a smooth, easy transition into the White House. His campaign spent three days a week before the election, and a whopping 21 million dollars, in CALIFORNIA!"
---
"Gray Skies From Now On: Dreary California Governor an Early Bet for Presidential Nomination" by Matt Welch - National Post (November 9, 2002)
"During the 2000 campaign, Bush visited the Golden State more than a dozen times, conducting interviews on Spanish-language broadcasts, promising spectacular reductions in waiting times at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and spending upwards of US$15-million trying to steal a state Al Gore was too confident to campaign in.
On election day, Bush's efforts were rewarded with a butchering. Gore stomped Dubya, 53.4% to 41.7%, and every contested Congressional seat went Democrat, not Republican. The diversion of campaign resources away from such states as Florida nearly cost Bush the White House."
---
"2000 Presidential Race First in Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More on TV Ads than Candidates - Press Release" - Brennan Center for Justice (December 11, 2000)
"The Bush team dedicated $10.8 million to winning California's 54 electoral votes, yet they lost the state by 12 percentage points, 54% to 42%. Al Gore did not spend a single dollar in California on television ads. 'Bush's massive spending in California – only Florida and Pennsylvania received more ad dollars – erased his advertising advantage over Gore in other important states,' Professor Goldstein says. 'As a result, the Vice President was able to outspend Governor Bush in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington, and in New Mexico, Oregon and Iowa – all states that Bush lost by tiny margins. The second guessing will be muted if Bush becomes president, but political strategists are sure to question that California ad buy.'"
