CA-50 Special Election Busby vs. Bilbray

[CARLHAYDEN]

Its really hard to predict these special elections in California as a high percentage of the vote typically comes from 'early'  voting.

My best guess when the dust settles is:

Bilbray               Republican          49%
Busby                Democrat            45
Griffith               Independent         4
King                   Libertarian            2

Bilbray is a lackluster candidate who barely won the Republican primary.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bilbray will win, but it will obviously be closer than it would normally be.

True.

1. Bilbray is a poor candidate.

2. Turnout should be higher among Democrats than Republicans due to contested Governor's race.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I must agree that the election authorities in San Diego are being very slow.

The polls have been closed for two hours!

They should have at least half of the vote counted by now!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Its really hard to predict these special elections in California as a high percentage of the vote typically comes from 'early'  voting.

My best guess when the dust settles is:

Bilbray               Republican          49%
Busby                Democrat            45
Griffith               Independent         4
King                   Libertarian            2

Bilbray is a lackluster candidate who barely won the Republican primary.

Not too bad a prediction.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The race in the 50th CD has been closely watched as a harbinger for the fall elections.

Several tentative conclusions:

1. The 'culture of corruption' argument doesn't work.

2. Opposing amnesty for illegal aliens does work.

3. John McCain is digging himself into a hole,

4. The Democrats are not likely baring unexpected changes between now and november, to achieve control of the house.

5. Nancy Pelosi, go looking for another job.

6. S. 2611 will either have to be dramatically altered, or it is dead!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Moral of the story, $11 million is effective at buying a Congressional race.

Yeah... because the Democrats never spent $88 million on the New Jersey Senate race, out spending the Republicans 10/1 and only winning by 3%.

That was ineffective.

Okay, so as New Jersey is 13 times the size of a congressional district... they actually spent less on that worst example you could think of.

But not much less.  My point, of course being that the Democrats had to massively outspend their opponents to win a seat that, by all rights, should have been theirs anyway.  And back then, that was the most expensive Seante race in history... by far.

Where as, I think the most expensive House race in history cost about $15 million on one side, so this isn't that big of a deal.

Hey everybody.

While a lack of sufficent funding can cause a candidate to lose, if the competing candidates are adequately funded (and both the Democrat and Republican candidates were in this election) then additional funding is rather ineffective.  In short, most of the money spent by both sides was wasted!