Posted on 02/10/2018 5:33:39 AM PST by 11th_VA
The Public Policy Institute of California poll revealed a tight race... it may be Republican voters who could choose the next governor because of California’s top two primary system. With the June primary four months away, Newsom tops the PPIC poll with 23% support from likely voters with Villaraigosa closing in at 21%. Third position also belongs to a Democrat with state Treasurer John Chiang claiming 9% just ahead of the first Republican in the poll, Assemblyman Travis Allen at 8%... If Newsom and Villaraigosa hold their positions through the primary Republicans will not have a candidate in the general election [due to the single party state corrupticrats ruining California] and Republican voters who choose to vote for governor would have to pick between the top two Democrats... Conservative voters go for Villaraigosa over Newsom 15% to 6%. Moderates also favor the former L.A. mayor over the former S.F. mayor, 24% to 18%.
Thanks 11th_VA.
Both major parties (and all minor parties) OPPOSED and the law which was immediately challenged but upheld by the State Supreme Court.
The retard Governator and business groups (who hoped it would make it harder for far-lefties to win if they faced more moderate rats in elections in which Republicans could vote) are the ones who supported it.
Anyway, If’s it’s Newsom Vs. Villar the cuck who merged his surname with his now ex wife? What a choice, I live in Chicago and vote in the Mayoral election so I’ve made a choice like that.
Senate race, Republican will probably reelect DiFi over her further left challenger. Oh, what a world.
half the voters disenfranchised
*************
If that were true then the Pubs would have a candidate in the race.
I never Voted for a Democrat in my Life, and I’m 64 Years Old.
I , too have only voted one time for a Democrat, his name was John McCain
>>>I , too have only voted one time for a Democrat, his name was John McCain<<<
Great, that makes TWO times I Voted for a Democrat.
Oh crap, I Voted for Romney in the 2012 General Election too.
Three times, I’m out.
That is the best solution
That is the best solution
If that were true then the Pubs would have a candidate in the race.
—
I think you missed the point.
California set it up so the top two candidate in the primary run in the general election. Not the top Democrat or top Republican but the top two. They further found a way so that only Democrats would end up as the top two so in the General election only Democrats will be on the ballot.
Republicans don’t even have a chance.
Now there's a blast from the past. I checked it and it's the same John Cox who kept running for major office in Illinois during the early 2000s, and coming in last place. Then he'd put out PR releases saying it proves he's mega popular and a "proven vote getter"
I think he had some "campaign" for President in 2008 when he came in last in the Iowa caucus and got something like 0.002% of the ballots cast.
I guess he wants to make the history books by finishing last place in THREE states.
He seems to have added some Clark Kent glasses, maybe hoping we don't realize it the same guy, or maybe hoping California voters confuse him with CHRIS Cox.
Also, he talks about how much he loves California and is running for office because he wants to make him home a better place. Said the same thing about Illinois 16 years ago. Guess he didn't love it enough to stay here!
If Cali Republicans were serious they’d gather together all their gubernatorial candidates and settle on ONE (not Cox) to be the nominee so they’ll have a chance to make the runoff. At this point they need do this for all statewide races, have a nominating system and shun anyone who runs without the party endorsement, if 15 barely known Republicans run for every office and badly split an already low vote share they will never win statewide office again under this ridiculous scheme.
Yes, though they should also pursue legal means using private citizens filing lawsuits galore (representing all the different political parties) that this top two vote-getter system must be brought to a screeching halt. This present system has effectively (illegally) outlawed the right of the parties to present and put up a duly-nominated individual for a general election.
No different than the Ossoff-Handel race in GA ... or the State Legislative district that is a REPUBLICAN District but 2 Democrats were in the Runoff because only 2 Democrats ran in the first round.... but dozens of Republicans also ran and split the majority Republican vote.
Republicans (and Conservatives) are stupid in more than one state.
In 2000, when John Cox ran for the U.S. House, in Illinois’ 10th District, he wasn’t last, in that primary. That race had 11 Republicans. Mark Kirk won with 31%, and Cox was fifth, with 10%. In the 2008 Iowa caucus, Cox got more votes than Alan Keyes.
According to Wikipedia Cox dropped out before Iowa and got only 10 votes to Keyes 247.
As for the House primary, Billyboy probably meant he placed last among the serious candidates, the others who got less than him were no-chancers, including former State Rep. Thomas Lachner.
I remember TV ads for that primary. The woman named Shawn, the dude who owned a Walmart that bragged he stopped selling guns, BARFFFFFFFFFFFF. “Human Events” incorrectly thought that Kirk (whom they labeled a moderate) would be an upgrade from Porter (labeled a liberal).
I saw and cheered at Cox in a parade in 2002, I was right up front. He didn’t acknowledge me therefore he’s a jerk.
My brother was handed a Blago sponge (yes like you wash dishes with) and tore it up which angered the rat who handed it to him “You’ll be glad when he’s Governor”, the man said. Another sponge we took home and used, IIRC it was of poor quality.
I guess that I was thinking of the Iowa straw poll. Cox got more votes than Keyes, in that event.
I'm sure he wouldn't be happy about people bringing up his poor showings when he ran for office in Illinois, but I think its fair game.
I decided against John Cox in the 2002 U.S. Senate primary when he stated he didn't believe in the death penalty, so I emailed his campaign and asked if he would sponsor a bill that would outlaw the death penalty nationally if he became a U.S. Senator. I got back some evasive response that talked about George Ryan's actions putting a death penalty moratorium in place at the STATE level and how John Cox thinks the death penalty is morally wrong but doesn't agree with how George took all the murderers off Illinois Death Row without consulting the families of the victims first. My question about a hypothetical effort to abolish the death penalty nationally wasn't answered, and the statement told me absolutely nothing since a United States Senator has no control over state of Illinois policies.
In short, it was pretty much a weasel response, and I don't vote for politicians who try to weasel their way out of answering policy questions.
My gut feeling with Cox is he's a pretty conservative guy but has no clue how to campaign for office and just tries to tell everyone what they want to hear and claim he's the "only true conservative in the race" regardless of who else files for the office.
I know a guy who was Cox's legal advisor during his Illinois campaigns, he had some amusing stories about Cox freaking out when the parade volunteers went to cool down a beer from the cooler during 90 degree weather, and Cox thought the image of his campaign volunteers 'DRINKING IN PUBLIC' would "ruin" his candidacy. Apparently he also rewarded people who kissed his butt and told him how "handsome" he looked.
In any case, Cox means well, but I think his "campaigns" are just embarrassing. That's what happens when some guy has millions of dollars and needs something to fill the time.
The California GOP really needs to get their act together and united behind ONE credible candidate (and sorry, his name ain't John Cox)
I thought the same thing when that lying douchebag Robert Dold (a self-described "middle of the road on social issues guy") replaced Kirk (who also claimed to be "middle of the road" but voted however Planned Parenthood told him to)
Seems to be an endless cycle in that district. Campaign to the center during the GOP primary, and then do the RATs bidding once elected.
Unfortunately, in a state riven with dems, he’s the only game in town. He’ll lose however.
Billyboy, I was one of John Cox’s full-time, paid campaign employees May 2001-March ‘02. I don’t know who replied to your email. If I knew about it, I would have suggested that the answer say, “yes” or “no,” with more details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.