[nyconse]

I see; the big population areas (liberal) cancel out the less populated (Republican) areas. But the thing is; doesn't this map sort of prove a conservative can't get elected:you got get some votes from "blue" areas. It seems to enforce the idea that only a liberal Republican can get elected. The key point here is this-getting a Republican elected is what is important.

[Maelstrom]

"The key point here is this-getting a Republican elected is what is important. "

This is where you're wrong. Putting a Republican in the governorship accomplishes nothing if the state continues it's downhill slide. If anything it's *better* for Democrats that this happens, because this absolves them from responsibility for the policies that drove California down. After all, the Republicans can do no better.

A conservative, however, will do better, and create the sort of soul-searching that will persuade Californians that maybe everything they "know" about conservatives is a lie.

"Not really-Bloomberg is a Democrat who only changed his party so he could run in the Republican primary-less crowded field."

I submit it is the same thing because "Democrat" or "Republican" are only gross labels. The philosophical approach toward politics should be the determining factor.

It's not the "R" or "D" at the end of the name that deserves the vote. It is the candidates' underpinning principles that drive their choices as your representatives that determine your vote.

This is why many of us do not understand why Riordan was even on the primary ballot...the philosophical underpinnings of his politics are NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF DAVIS.