Replies

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 even said that Bush would win by a minimum of 3% in the last election.

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

McClintock is no Reagan.
Reagan was world known when he became Governor of California and had he not been already known to all the California voters there would never have been a Reagan Governor based on his politics. The fact he was a well known actor gave him an edge.
McClintock is a ghost to most California voters and to those that do know him he is known as a strong conservative, not as a guy who can do anything.
There is no desire to elect a Governor to office because he is a conservative. People in California will only vote a conservative in over a Democrat if they are made to believe they can do things.

All McClintock has shown was he can get himself a living in state government at the level he has been at on the people's tax money, so what?

He sure screwed the pooch with a ton of Republicans/conservatives with his staying in the race as long as he did before. People will NEVER forget that.

I at this point don't even know if the man is mentally stable the way he stayed in that race before.
Sure he says the right things, but when he did what he did at the risk of getting Bustamante elected, he shows us he fails in the judgment arena.

So he is pretty much unbearable for liberals, those that don't know McClintock are not very motivated by him and conservatives/Republicans are split now over him by his own hand.

He is politically dead still IMO.

"He sure screwed the pooch with a ton of Republicans/conservatives with his staying in the race as long as he did before. People will NEVER forget that.

I at this point don't even know if the man is mentally stable the way he stayed in that race before.
Sure he says the right things, but when he did what he did at the risk of getting Bustamante elected, he shows us he fails in the judgment arena."

====

Thanks for your excellent analysis and summary of McClintock as a statewide candidate. I agree with you 100%.
I am bookmarking your post.

Actual conservatives are NOT divided over McClintock at all. They support him.

That having been said, at least you have the right strategy for a ground war to retake California if the elitist left wing airheads who have run the GOP into the ground in California will get the hell out of the way or even if they don't. The GOP limps in California because it is too proud or too lazy to go door-to-door organizing and asking for votes. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for door-to door.

AND, ummmm, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is not exactly a Chippendale or a charismapuss but (ex-farmer and blue collar worker) he has done very nicely indeed. Senator Grassley is to charisma what a pound of butter is to the latest low-fat Hollywood social x-ray diet. His secret is that he has SUBSTANCE and PRINCIPLES, ummm, like McClintock. It is not that Iowa is a bastion of conservatism. Not with Tom Harkin as its other long-time senator.

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".