Schwarzenegger's re - election chances up

The Argus ^ | Jan. 13, 2005 | Steve Geissinger

[FairOpinion]

A recent poll shows the born-again "moderate" Republican governor has gained back some popularity, especially in the Bay Area, and is now in a dead heat with Democratic competitors.

"Our survey demonstrates that Schwarzenegger's retreat from the more conservative rhetoric and agenda he brandished during the latter part of 2005 has paid off among middle-of-the road voters," said Melinda Jackson, director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University.

The governor's job performance rating among voters in a Democrat-leaning state has climbed from 36 percent positive and 53 percent negative in September, to 40 percent positive and 51 percent negative this month.

[Hildy]

You call it negativist...I call it realist. LOL! I do like your sense of humor though!

[calcowgirl]

Well, I have yet to be wrong regarding the outcome of any people running in a race in all the time since I've posted here at FR for starters.

I ask you to support your contentions (post #92) and now the best you can come up with is that you've never been wrong? We should all be so lucky to be omniscient like you.

I have the ability to look at things unbiased with logic.

Yet, despite all facts, you call Schwarzenegger a fiscal conservative and state that conservatives don't like McClintock (questioning whether he "is mentally stable"). Perhaps there is much more bias than you are aware of or the "things" you are looking at are so select as to bias your conclusions. I do recommend you read the articles I linked in post #31 and reassess your claims that Arnold is a "fiscal conservative".

[calcowgirl]

Yeah, you are Amening what has been a lot of the reason why we lose.

In my response saying "Amen", I was commending the post by calex59 that said:

Arnold needs to honor his base and say to hell with the dems, this is what he stands for and he continues to belevieve in it.

You disagree with that?

[68 grunt]

... unbiased with logic. ...

Brother, thats the truth!

[SierraWasp]

How dare you??? I'm agast!!! I was certain I had killed this squabbling thread at #200!!! (snark!)(that's the noise one makes with a sick sense of humor!)

[calcowgirl]

Okay then, why didn't McClintock spend more money? I assume he couldn't raise it. Why couldn't he raise it?

I don't know for sure. Perhaps it was because the Republican Party was all tapped out, giving their support instead to their preferred "more moderate" candidates like McPherson. McClintock was outspent 5 to 1 (running against a candidate that appeared to be moderate), and came within spitting distance. McPherson was outspent only 1.6 to 1 and couldn't beat a Mexican separatist. McPherson got lots of financial support from the party leaders while McClintock got little.

Candidate                                     Vote Pct.  Spent($MM) 

LT GOVERNOR RACE - 2002
Cruz M. Bustamante  Leftist Democrat          49.5%      $4.6 
Bruce Mc Pherson    Moderate Republican       41.8%      $2.8 

CONTROLLER RACE - 2002
Steve Westly        Moderate Democrat         45.4%      $10.6 
Tom McClintock      Conservative Republican   45.1%      $2.0 

[calcowgirl]

A vote for Arnold is a vote for a Dem.

Putting party politics aside, I agree that a vote for Arnold is a vote for a liberal.

[calcowgirl]

Let me correct you, the Governor came out as a fiscal conservative who went to battle against the unions and public employees ...

How do you define fiscal conservatism? Issuing bonds to fund ongoing deficit spending? Supporting more general obligation debt for unaffordable Stem Cell Research? Increasing general fund spending by 37% since taking office? Introducing a budget that projects deficit spending for years to come (while funding new social programs) while at the same time introducing an enormous new infrastructure package that will further the states indebtedness? Turning a $9 Billion dollar surplus into a reserve of only $153 million in two short years? (see fig 3) Introducing new legislation to increase the minimum wage?

...but was abandoned by the Conservative voters. He was given no backing by Republicans/conservatives and has had to get along with who else is in power. Not his fault and he has tried.

Are you seriously trying to get people to believe these plans were put together only AFTER the November special election? That defies all logic. Many of these plans were laid out (and implemented) far before the election. His support of minimum wage increases was announced before the election. The budget package has been on the drawing board for a year. Arnold is not a fiscal conservative by any means.

[calcowgirl]

Republicans vote on Tuesday and Dems on Wednesday?

Lol. Thanks. I meant separate races... or separate tickets (i.e. Gov and Lt. Gov are not a single vote, but separate votes)

[calcowgirl]

It was inaction on part of the Republicans that FORCED Arnold to turn to the left. You guys are so full of yourselves.

Hardly. Arnold has been tacking left for some time, BEFORE the special election. (See post 208).

[Alia]

lol -- you and I both know they represent something OTHER than "true California Conservatives". But they are very clever. Doesn't take long before they begin revealing what some of them hide behind their "barbs", anti-chewisms", and rhetoric.

Alas, I posted straight out of Economics, and they refuse to actually discuss the point. Instead, some are doing the usual of switching subjects, etc. and while pretending to "represent" CA voters. Yes, there's been a problem in FR for quite some time. And only the more obvious get banned, censored, and kicked out.

Clever is, as clever does...

Bless you for hanging in there, Hildy, FairOpinion; A CA Guy; Doodlelady; and others.

These alleged "anti-arnold" types are actually creating, IMHO, more support for Arnold.

You are at least providing more of a clearer "glimpse" for "lurkers' and casual readers, than if you weren't here laying it all out. That what I call "Canvassing the CyberNeighborhood"! :) We all agree McClintock would be dynomite for CA. I haven't seen any of you post otherwise. We also agree that given current dynamics, why that didn't happen, and why that might not happen again.

I think we also might be of a mind, that some people proclaiming themselves the most "realest" of CA conservatives, who sounded educated, might not be providing the best education, in or about CA. And their legion is MANY.

[Alia]

There's a pattern and underlying "something" to their teamwork and their posts. Didn't take long to identify. Nor, when one tracks who they "amen" with. And who they try to rub up against, otherwise. So be it.

Their manner of debating tactics and issues fits a pattern of those belonging to a cell. Each has a role and a part. And that's part of the reason this matter of "CA conservativsm" continues to be a hell in FR.

The term "reasonable people" involves both parties. There's no reason this matter shouldn't be discussed intelligently nor civilly.

It's worth re-reading this thread and others, and if one is truly interested, a pattern will indeed begin to emerge as to the "intent" and roles. Been studying it since last year, periodically. It's even predictable.

[FairOpinion]

I am glad to hear it's becoming obvious to more and more people that these people are only MASQUARADING as conservatives, when in fact they are promoting the Dem agenda. This was also obvious, when they agitated against the reform propositions, telling people to vote in a way, which was EXACTLY how the Dems wanted voters to vote.

Doodlelady coined a perfect acronym for these people: They are a bunch of "DICCs" (Democrats In Conservative Clothing)

[calcowgirl]

Few to none ever, regardless of "arnold" support or not refer to Tom McClintock in derogatory.

Please read upthread but for a few examples. See post #102, where A CA Guy questions whether McClintock is "mentally stable" and post #153, where FairOpinion "agrees 100%". And if those aren't enough, check out this thread as an example of all derogatory things A CA Guy has to say about Tom McClintock ("not a good man," "a traitor," "toxic," wishes him success in "office of dog catcher," and on and on and on.) There are hundreds of threads with similar trashing of McClintock by the so called Republicans.

[Alia]

Ping you to 211,212,213. (Didn't mean to leave you off).

[calcowgirl]

Folks VOTed for Arnold based on a thinking we might call "Marginal Costs and Benefits".

True. But an evaluation of performance to date shows the marginal costs have far outweighed the marginal benefits and we have thus LOST ground, not gained.

[FairOpinion]

So let's compare how many negative things were said about McClintock vs. Arnold, shall we?

Let's see THAT ratio? I bet on this board negative things about Arnold vs. McClintock are something like 10,000 to 1, or manybe even 50,000 to 1.

Not to mention that you and your little group said some rather nasty things about McClintock when he was campaigning for the reform propositions for Arnold.

Your little game of promoting the Dem agenda under the guise of conservatism has become very transparent. People aren't as stupid as you hoped they are and they see through your pretense and can see clearly that you are pushing the Dem agenda and your only purpose is to try to "divide and conquer" by splitting the conservative vote, to help the Democrats.

[calcowgirl]

As someone else already pointed out, there is no voter registration or other factual data to show "conservative" voters. It shows only Republican, Democrat, etc. As such, all we know for sure is that Democrat turnout was higher than Republican turnout. Well, DUH! The campaign was so confrontational it motivated every democrat to show up at the polls. On the flip side, the campaign did little to educate voters and get them to the polls.

I asked someone else this question a while back: If you go fishing and come home empty handed, do you blame the fish or change bait--or your technique? Trying to blame the voters will get you nowhere.

What we do know, is that more voters voted for Props 73 and 75 than they did for Arnold's other propositions (74, 74, 77, and 78). Now, since Prop 73 and 75 were the most conservative of the 6 propositions, and they by far did the best, doesn't that indicate that those voting were the more conservative voters? If you say "No", I sure look forward to your explanation of how that would happen.

[Amerigomag]

I think we also might be of a mind, that some people proclaiming themselves the most "realest" of CA conservatives, who sounded educated, might not be providing the best education, in or about CA. And their legion is MANY.

Bickering erupts when partisans, almost exclusively Republican, appear on this forum, as if it were a house organ, to shill for their party. These partisans expect that conservatives will follow their lead and participate in efforts to strengthen the CAGOP. When conservatives object, on principle, which is happening more and more lately in California, the partisans pout or resort to vitriolic, ad hominem tactics leaving fact and fortune in the dust.

The CAGOP leadership and it faithful might be better served to approach the forum with respect for its traditions and ask conservatives how the CAGOP might be changed to make it more palatable to conservative sensibilities and principles. Animated discussions may follow but the pursuit would accomplish more good for both the CAGOP and conservatives alike.

Unfortunately the opposite has been happening. Republican visitors frequently admonish the resident conservatives because their conservative principles and traditions won't allow conservatives to purchase what the CAGOP is currently trying to sell.

[Alia]

What the casual "reader"/lurker" doesn't get is that most of the barbs from the "realest of the CA conservatives" comes across to other current and former CA voters is exactly how a Liberal Democrat has always talked to us; As a sharp stick in the gut. And instead of screaming at us the ad hominems of "racist, sexist, homophobic, war monger" -- they've got "individualized" barbs they toss.

Then, their usual taunt about any of us not currently residing in CA had just "better shut up" or by calling us other names. But boyo, do they love anyone else in any other state, maybe even other countries, joining in on their "ideology" and slamming at the rest of us. That's okay, in their books.

Nah. I've seen the game. Ain't fooled. Most of us stay out of these threads and because there's this wickedly nasting tag-teaming going on which crosses the line of debate. And an ideology they have which they aren't at all coming clean on.

I can appreciate views which express dismay with Gov S. And from anywhere. There's legitimate disagreement; and then there's "something else" a foot.

A certain specific "identity group" bootstraps "conservative principles. Where I lived in CA it was VERY obvious what these folks were up to. They support "quotas" for whites, etc. Support "abortion" (but in their unspoken caveats) for minorities only)

It's that "something else" which continues to be played out on all of us, here on FR and I do perceive more "notable" types are also seeing it at their levels of interactions.

And that's how I read it.

What you've posted, FairOpinion, is correct in my POV. And Doodlelady's term is also very apt, as I've posted elsewhere.

And now, I'm putting on my cyber flak gear for the rest of what is sure to come at me, again.. lol.

It's predictable.

I've tried analyzing this, over the past year, using various other models. The results keep coming up the same.