Press Release: California Democrats Shatter Record

In the final 45 days (60 days pre-election, December 7, 2008 to the January 22, 2008 15-day cut-off) prior to Election Day, the Secretary of State’s report of registration shows Democrats added 150,633 voters to bring its total to 6,749,406 or 43.0 percent of registered voters statewide.

Altogether, 244,202 voters were added to the voter rolls in this period, and the Democrats’ total of 150,6377 registered is 61.7% of the total – a record for California.

In comparison, in the final 45 days of the 2004 presidential primary, Democrats added only 68,007 voters, just 46.5% of the increase of 146,129.

“History is about to be made with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and Californians overwhelmingly want to be a part of the excitement as registered Democrats,” said Senator Art Torres (Ret.), Chairman of the California Democratic Party.

“Our grassroots around California and the Clinton and Obama campaigns went all out to register Democrats, and we have not seen this level of enthusiasm in a presidential primary in decades,” added Torres. 

Comments

[Judy Hotchkiss]

Where's the link to Art's podcast from the Commonwealth Club?

[David]

Does America have Amnesia? Hillary is running on her husbands record. Remember Wacco? When Tanks were called on Americans on American soil? Remember Janet Reno? When kids were sent to prision, not jail for petty crimes under The Scared Straight Program and they were raped by convicts. Remember the Savings and Loan scadals and White Water scandals? Does America have Amnesia?
Do you want me to vote Republican? Then Elect Barack.

[Justin]

The Clintons are liars,race baiters and will do or say anything to get elected.

Do we really want "Slick Willy" back in the White House"'.

You know this is another "buy one get one free" campaign.

Give the new guy a chance.

The same old Clintons ,they will never change

Obama In 2008!

[Kim Stevens]

The Commonwealth Club has not posted the audio from the January 28 event featuring Chairman Torres. I will check with them to see when it's going to be available.

[Firefoxxe]

I'm sick beyond description of hearing Obama blame the entire Iraq war on Hillary Clinton. Does anyone out there honestly believe that we would be at war now if Hillary Clinton had been president at that time? Does anyone really think Hillary is pro-war?

If so, then explain how it is that we managed to avoid wars, aside from stopping the Serb's "ethnic cleansing" without losing a single troop, under Clinton?

Obama has become just another mud slinging candidate, his claims to nobility and "change" have worn clear through, IMO.

Why does he get the kid golve treatment from the media, while Hillary is being constantly bashed? The "Liberal Media" we hear so much about from the far right.

Does anyone honestly think the right wing owned media would bash the candidate they want to run against, Hillary Clinton according to Obama, while giving the candidate they most fear, supposedly Obama, a cake walk? It's ludicrous that Obama claims the GOP and right wingers fear him more.

I remember the Clinton administration very well. I recall a better America, a hopeful America. The oppurtunities for education that were offered, the comprhensive anti-nuclear test treaty that Clinton signed into law, providing poor children with health care and focusing our nation's funding on programs that helped Americans, getting laws protecting women from violent crimes passed, the way they protected the enviornment and helped those who really needed help, intead of cutting taxes for the rich and starting oil wars for Haliburton.

I remember not seeing thousands our troops coming home in coffins or maimed, and how almost everyone I know wasn't struggling to get by in an economy that has since gone to hell.

This is all thanks to George Bush JR!!!! The nation was doing great during the Clinton years.

Obama longs to make us forget this and blame Hillary Clinton for the entire mess we are now in, but let's lay the blame where it belongs, at the feet of George Bush.

I've watched Obama's camp dragging Hillary through the mud constantly, all the while talking about "change." Is this "swift-boating" style of politics really the "change" we want? Not me.

Do we really want a president who can only boast three years experience in the US Senate, aka Obama?

Do we want a president who wasn't even in the Senate even four years, yet claims he has better judgement?

Was announcing that he would be more liked by Muslims a show of that "better judgement?" Good heavens, imagine what the right wing will do with stupid remarks like that.

In fact, Obama has made one mistake after the other all ready in this campaign, though you wouldn't know that from following the media, who fawn over Obama and pretend he can do no wrong.

We may all enjoy pretending that this nation is one of equal rights, but the stats show a very different picture. The sad fact is that Obama has been unable to draw in more than about 25% of the white vote in any state.

Considering the reality of racism, Obama's lack of experience and judgement, and the right wing's ability to "swift boat" Democrats, how can Obama possibly hope to win in the general elections?

Hillary is a far stronger, more experienced, and well known candidate than Obama, who offers little other than rheteric and 20/20 hindsight perfection.

It's time someone said it. Just as Nadar's campaign brought us eight years of Bush, a vote for Obama, no matter how well intended, will very likely do nothing but bring on another four years of Republicans running the White House.

Another four years, at least, of war in Iraq. Another four years of a failing economy.

Every viable GOP candidate wants to continue the Iraq war and have said they support Bush's "vision" regarding wars and taxes.

Final thought here, why is it the right wing owned news media is taking it so easy on Obama while trashing Hillary Clinton?

Not because they want Hillary to win. I don't buy that they really perfer to run against Hillary instead of Obama, and the fact that the media bashes Hillary, they must fear her more. Think about it. Who does the GOP really want to run against here?

[Judy Hotchkiss]

Firefoxxe-Agreed on all points and well said.See Rebecca Traister in Salon for a more positive interpretation of the dilemma.

[Snugy]

There is no such thing as "the perfect candidate" and both hopefuls have had their scandals. Clinton had white water and Obama with his shady real estate purchases with a Slum Lord. Funny that because it was brought up he then decided to give the campaign donation to charity. Makes one question the sincerity…if this hadn’t been uncovered, would he still have that money? Setting the "history" aspect aside too, we need someone capable of hitting the streets running...Obama isn't there yet. I'm tired of hearing about all his promises and not hearing him break them down to specifics on how he will accomplish them. Clinton has clearly defined her programs and where she plans to get the money. I especially love the taking from Oil Companies revenues…cheers for that!

Bottom line is who brings more to the table to clean this mess up. Clinton has the upper hand, she knows the World wide players, she's already been on the forefront of the health care issues (and now with a Democratic Congress issues like this will be easier to get resolved), and she's already proven she handle real life issues, such as the man with a bomb at one of her campaign centers. Even the Police Chief, who was not a Clinton supporter at the time, stated how extremely impressed he was in her immediate action and involvement is resolving this issue. She’s not a power-puff to scare easy.

As for the earlier Clinton years...yes, there were moral issues and ineptitudes but they were many, many success too. Cleaning up the mess President Bush Sr. left to begin with. When President Clinton left office we had jobs, peace with World leaders and we actually had a balanced budget and surplus. He was the last President to accomplish this since Nixon, and even paid towards our National deficit. Mr. Greenspan speaks highly of him and this knowledge in his book, which I recommend people read. People should see how great is it to know that the next President Clinton can tap into all this knowledge. She’ll be able to come home and have those one on one talks, (since Bill maintains his security clearance), with someone who also knows the places, people, and systems. His past experience and knowledge are great to have as a sounding board, in addition to any Cabinet she can assemble. Obama won't have this asset...he'll only be able to pick up the phone and call Oprah or Ted Kennedy, who last I remember still might be guilty for a little thing call "Chapiquitic." Now that was a scandal…and possible murder.

Maybe in the years ahead Obama will become seasoned enough to step into this office without the need of additional training. Now is simply not that time. We need action, clean up, and World ally mending to begin from day one. With that, Clinton is the best option. Even the GOP on the other side recognizes this… think about it...why would they already be running ads against her even before she earns the nomination. I have yet seen a negative ad from the GOP towards Obama. That tells me who the Republican fear and they fear her because they know she’ll get things done that they don’t like.

Cheers and vote!

[Sonja Jellison]

THANK YOU CALIFORNIA...Here's hoping Texas can aid the cause.

[JayHub]

I am very concerned that if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to split the Democratic delegates as the primaries continue, as I think likely, then neither will get enough delegates to win the nomination outright. This will mean that, practically, the nominee will be selected at the convention by the vote of the so-called "superdelegates."

I think this could be devastating to the party if the superdelegates are perceived as coronating someone in an unfair fashion. Such a result would make meaningless all the hard work and votes cast by all the party's supporters in the primaries. Moreover, if Hillary Clinton were to be selected solely by the vote of the superdelegates, this kind of backroom deal would risk losing all the new young and African-American voters Obama has energized when the general election comes around.

Therefore, I would urge both candidates to agree now, to take a pledge, that the superdelegate votes will be split pro-rata, based on the primary results in actual elections.

[Independent for Obama]

I am viewing the Democratic primary with great pleasure as there is the possibility that the DNC will provide us independents a candidate to vote for: OBAMA. I understand that the primary system is not perfect but I will say that I am concerned that the primary may be decided by the Super delegates and not the voice of democracy, the people. The delegate count that truly represents the people should determine the nominee and not the party establishment(Undemocratic). It is also interesting to see that the GOP will be represented by a centrist leading to an interesting race between Obama and Mcain. If the Clintons were to win the nomination, the DNC can expect a mass exodus of independent supports as we would prefer to vote for Mcain than the Clintons. Wake up Democrats and do not allow the Clintons to ruin the chance of change.