Posted on 08/26/2010 6:34:13 AM PDT by sunmars
The tie is broken for now, with Republican Meg Whitman, coming off last weekend’s state GOP Convention, moving out to her best showing yet in the race to be the next governor of California.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in California finds Whitman earning 48% support, while Democrat Jerry Brown picks up 40% of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
When leaners are included in the new totals, Whitman posts a 51% to 43% lead over Brown. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate.
Early in any campaign, the numbers without leaners are generally more significant. Later in a campaign, the numbers with leaners matter more. After Labor Day, Rasmussen Reports will report the numbers with leaners as the primary indicators of the campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Hopefully, this will have a positive spill over effect in the Senate race against Boxer, which as of yesterday Rasmussen has at a dead heat.
I’m just amazed California is even in play wit how notoriously lefty it is.
The electorate seems severely pissed.
If CA voters elect Brown, they deserve EVERYTHING that’s coming to them.
Probably in play because the Republicans are flaming RINOS. But, at this point, anything to beat Boxer.
Don’t get too excited, remember who her opponent is. I saw the 1995 movie “Jade” this last weekend. Love that line: “Yeah, that guy has about as bright a future in California as Jerry Brown”, to which the reply was “Who?”. Moonbeam was a joke 15 years ago and a joke today.
Even liberals like to have a job and a roof over their head.
Obama and the democrats combined have been an epic fail.
I'm more concerned about how the attempt to remove Boxer is going.
Meg makes Arnold look like a hardcore conservative.
California is in trouble no matter who wins the election.
My worry is Meg Whitman wins, the state fails financially, and the Republicans get the blame for all eternity.
PLEASEEEEEE
You are not promoting that STUPID strategy of letting the DEMS win this one are you ????????????
HOpefully this is accurate and she starts to expand her lead. ALso i hope she has significant coattails bringing not only Fiorina but a slew of House candidates in with her as well
California has set up a HOUSE of LORDS, that controls the Governors office and with Rubber Stamping court system.
The two are not unrelated. I believe Fiorina will benefit from independent voters going to the polls for Whitman and Whitman may benefit from rank and file Republicans going to the polls for Fiorina. As long as nieither of them makes a serious gaffe in the next two months they both might get elected.
Too late. Were you as worried about that with Schwarzenegger?
What this news means is that BOXER can be BEAT! It will take Meg voters in the polling booths to run the (R) gamut and thus resulting in BABBLE BABS BOXER death kneel.
NO.........I’m NOT promoting that strategy.
But as a long time eBay seller, I’ve seen a lot of bad decisions coming from dear Meg. Her strategy is to use the position of governor to become America’s first woman president. She is uber RINO, and the media will gleefully point to her and say....”those failed Republican policies.”
The dems already control California’s Assembly and Senate thanks to gerry-mandered districts....that’s where the real power is located.
All of California’s fiscal problems, which happened pre-Whitman, will be blamed on her by the media if she becomes governor. If Brown wins, the media will blame all the problems on the “republican” former governor Arnold. And Bush, of course.
The dems have controlled the U.S. Congress since January 2007.....do they every get blamed for the bad economy? No.
Obama....does he get blamed? No. It’s always Bush, Bush, Bush.
I no longer live in California, so I can’t vote there, and I’m happy not to have to choose between two bad candidates.
When Arnold ran the first time, I thought he would be OK.
Then, when his ballot initiatives failed, he turned into a full-bore DEM.
I was fooled by Schwarzenegger, I know better than to be fooled by Meg.
I suppose in the end, Obama will bail out California....
after all, 54 electoral college votes are 20% of what he needs to get re-elected (God forbid).
I warned you that he was a radical greenie.
Then, when his ballot initiatives failed, he turned into a full-bore DEM.
Oh it was long before that. His first ballot initiatives, props 57-8 included provisions to get rid of the Gann spending limits. Then after calling that special election (in return for a $300,000 campaign favor) our Grovelnator went to New York bond houses to float those issues instead of California underwriters, costing Californians a totally unnecessary $250 million in lost tax revenue, for which he should have gone to jail.
Don't flatter yourself with the idea that Arnold changed his stripes after having his fraudulent "spending controls" rejected. his positions were a ruse from the get-go and you fell for them apparently repeatedly, at first probably out of a bogus fear of Cruz Bustamante whom McClintock would have beaten 1 on 1, but by the time of his later attempt to foist bogus spending controls, you should have known better. You were offered the reasons for rejecting Prop. 76 too, here and here.
Most people did; but all they had to do is look at who he is married to.
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.