"You know, we - if, for example, Jerry Brown can withstand, you know, what will probably end up being $200 million of spending by his opponent and get elected governor of California, that will be a big victory in the nation's largest state"
About this Quote
David Axelrod frames the California governors race as a stress test for the power of money in politics and a barometer for the national mood in a turbulent midterm year. The reference is to 2010, when Jerry Brown, a veteran Democrat and former governor, faced Meg Whitman, the billionaire ex-CEO of eBay who was pouring unprecedented sums of personal wealth into the race. By floating a figure like $200 million, Axelrod highlights the sheer scale of Whitmans spending and the fear, after the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision, that elections could be swamped by moneyed interests.
California, the nations most populous state, functions here as both symbol and amplifier. A Democratic win in such a massive, media-saturated environment would send a signal that message, experience, and voter connection can blunt the force of paid advertising. It would also provide a counter-narrative to a national Republican wave, offering Democrats a marquee success to point to amid midterm headwinds. Axelrods phrasing suggests not just a tactical victory, but a moral one: the survival of a candidate running on authenticity and record over sheer financial firepower.
The subtext involves Browns persona and campaign style. Known for frugality and plain talk, he contrasted with Whitmans slick, heavily produced ads. California voters were saturated with messaging, yet many remembered Browns long public service and saw limits to the effectiveness of relentless spending. The late-breaking scandal involving Whitmans former housekeeper and immigration status also underscored the risks of overengineered campaigns colliding with messy realities.
Ultimately, Axelrod is pointing to the elasticity of democratic judgment. Money can buy attention, but not necessarily trust. Winning in California would show that even under the new rules of unlimited spending, there remain ceilings on persuasion and room for candidates who embody credibility. As it happened, Browns victory became proof that the electorate can resist a tidal wave of cash when the political weather and the candidate align.
California, the nations most populous state, functions here as both symbol and amplifier. A Democratic win in such a massive, media-saturated environment would send a signal that message, experience, and voter connection can blunt the force of paid advertising. It would also provide a counter-narrative to a national Republican wave, offering Democrats a marquee success to point to amid midterm headwinds. Axelrods phrasing suggests not just a tactical victory, but a moral one: the survival of a candidate running on authenticity and record over sheer financial firepower.
The subtext involves Browns persona and campaign style. Known for frugality and plain talk, he contrasted with Whitmans slick, heavily produced ads. California voters were saturated with messaging, yet many remembered Browns long public service and saw limits to the effectiveness of relentless spending. The late-breaking scandal involving Whitmans former housekeeper and immigration status also underscored the risks of overengineered campaigns colliding with messy realities.
Ultimately, Axelrod is pointing to the elasticity of democratic judgment. Money can buy attention, but not necessarily trust. Winning in California would show that even under the new rules of unlimited spending, there remain ceilings on persuasion and room for candidates who embody credibility. As it happened, Browns victory became proof that the electorate can resist a tidal wave of cash when the political weather and the candidate align.
Quote Details
| Topic | Victory |
|---|
More Quotes by David
Add to List
