Another Strange Endorsement

>> I don’t know a ton about Allen but I’d have guessed Cox was to his right. Cox was the most conservative of the candidates when he ran for Senate from IL in 2002. <<

I would dispute that. I voted for Jim Durkin in 2002. George Ryan was hellbent on ending capital punishment at the time and Cox was one of those anti-death penalty conservatives. While I understand the "all life is sacred no matter what" position, Cox would say bizarre stuff like he thinks life in prison would be a "worse punishment" but he would allow the death penalty for terrorists. So wait... he wants to give terrorists the "lesser penalty" according to his own internal logic? He actually believes that? Huh?

>> I didn’t know Cox was a never Trumper though. Weird. <<

He means well, but he's a clueless campaigner and his shtick is to always go around claiming "I'm the only true conservative in the race" regardless of who else files for the job. Another FReeper pointed out the main difference between John Cox and Jim Oberweis losing every time they seek a major office is at least Jim Oberweis runs a competitive campaign and puts up a respectful showing, usually coming in a close second. Cox does awful and wins about 20% of the vote, then goes around telling everyone he's popular and a proven vote getter.

>> Allen certainly seems to be a stronger candidate. <<

I certainly agree. The problem is, its California, so any Republican will have a huge uphill battle. But I'll take a 5% chance of winning with Allen over a 0% chance of winning with Cox. Of course, $100 says that Cox and his supporters will go around claiming "we woulda WON if conservatives had gotten behind COX!!" in the event Allen makes the runoff and then loses to a RAT.

>> One of them needs to drop out to have a decent chance of making the runoff. <<

California's jungle primary is a disaster and keeps resulting in RAT vs. RAT matchups. That being said, Cox's egotistical run actually appears to not be that damaging, since the second place RAT in the race is polling a very DISTANT fourth so it doesn't matter if Cox and Allen duke it out for runner up. Still, it baffles me why any conservative who is an informed voter and reads up on Cox's past campaign history would want to vote for him. The only IL conservative I know who DOESN'T have buyers remorse over backing Cox is probably Phil Collins, and I bet even Phil agrees that Allen would be the stronger candidate for California Governor. Cox will be taken seriously when he stops running for the highest office in the land and sets his sights on something he can actually win.

I also voted for Durkin in the primary cause he was talked up as most electable (I voted for Jim Ryan too), but despite that one issue you mention I doubt very much that Cox wasn’t more conservative than McCainiac Jim Durkin on the vast majority of others. Much like someone pointing out to me that Bob Smith was more conservative than John Sununu despite Smith being a burgeoning environut.

“So wait... he wants to give terrorists the “lesser penalty” according to his own internal logic? “

Yeah that’s some pretzel making right there. Obviously he knew his position was unpopular with the base and wanted to mollify it BOTH by saying life without parole was worse and by saying he’d kill terrorists, without realizing the contradiction.

I heard Bill O’Reilly say he was against it too and favored hard labor instead.

Obviously they both have a moral objection and were trying to mollify conservatives with the “life is worse” line. Some prisoners would rather die I’m sure but their feelings are not relevant to the subject in my eyes, I just want filth wiped off the planet.

Cali’s system s*cks b*lls. CA GOP could work it to our advantage if they would run a SINGLE, DECENT candidate for every statewide race but any jerk can just file to run as a Republican, they need an official endorsement or caucus process and anyone who runs outside of it gets blackballed for life.

Maybe Trump endorsed Cox cause of the polling, Allen is behind Cox in most polls. Hard to gauge these polls at this juncture, not even Nemsome is polling so highly as to be assured of making the runoff, Cox is even ahead of him one poll! How rich is Cox? Cause spending a jillion is the only way I can imagine he’d do better against Newsome than Allen would.

>> I doubt very much that Cox wasn’t more conservative than McCainiac Jim Durkin on the vast majority of others. <<

Eh, the Governor's race was clear cut in 2002, but the ideological lines were blurred in 2002 and there was no clear distinctions between the candidates (although Oberweis ran as a mildly pro-choice candidate in 2002, and then he and his supporters retroconned it later on to claim he had pro-life all along). Still, I stand by position from 2002 that Durkin was the more conservative candidate. This article does a good job debunking the 'Cox is the only true conservative' image he and his supporters tout:

Many conservative activists have confided to me that they don’t trust him. California doesn’t need another big money outsider who will get pushed around by Deep State Sacramento interests in the state capitol. Look at Illinois RINO Governor Bruce Rauner to confirm these suspicions.
Cox isn’t a shining conservative by any means, either. He opposes the death penalty. He has gone on record during debates that he supports Agenda 21 style constructions, including high density housing. Yes, the California housing crisis has reached unsustainable proportions, but the problem is government overregulation and corporate cronyism, not just a mere lack of housing.
Cox has received a few endorsements from pro-life groups, but then has falsely charged that his rival is pro-choice with a dismal record on defending life. After reviewing five years of Planned Murderhood records on this issue, anyone can see that Allen received a 0% rating from the baby-killing organization for three years, then received a failing grade and a 60% rating for two years because of legislation supported by PP, but which had nothing to do with abortion in the first place.
Cox has stood on different sides of the immigration issue, too. On Spanish-language media, he has dismissed the idea of a border wall, then he favored it as his conservative rival picked up steam in the primary. Recently, he shied away from emphasizing the wall in an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune. Cox is running to be competitive in the general election, in that he wants to find a comfortable spot for conservative voters to like him enough, and then he can appeal to independents and moderate Democrats in the general election.

In short, Cox is the only the 'most conservative' on paper because he wants to be liked by the GOP base so he tells conservative activists what they want to hear in stump speeches. There is legitimate reason to doubt his record in office would be as conservative as his campaign rhetoric. Aside from Durkin's creepy McCain fanboyism (and hey, Fred Thompson's similar amount of McCain cheerleading didn't stop FReepers from hailing Thompson as Reagan Redux in 2008) and aside Durkin's image as an "establishment" candidate, his voting record in the Illinois General Assembly was pretty solidly across-the-board conservative in 2002 (100% pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage, etc.) The same can be said of Travis Allen, and Allen is FAR less "establishment friendly" than Durkin was.

>> How rich is Cox? Cause spending a jillion is the only way I can imagine he’d do better against Newsome than Allen would. <<

Eh, both Cox and Oberweis have millions of their own cash to burn, and made the case in 2002 that they could "Beat Durbin" because of their deep pockets, and could self-fund a statewide general election campaign & wouldn't need party funding. Then both later had their chances as the party's nominee in another campaign down the road against a FAR less prominent Democrat. Both floundered terribly, and the party tried to bail them out and spend $$$ to improve their standing with voters, to no avail. It reminds me of that Mark Kirk primary opponent in 2010 who was supposedly "electable" because he had millions to spend, and then the guy did WORSE than Alan Keyes. Money can't help a clueless candidate win elections.

>> Cali’s system s*cks b*lls. CA GOP could work it to our advantage if they would run a SINGLE, DECENT candidate for every statewide race but any jerk can just file to run as a Republican, they need an official endorsement or caucus process and anyone who runs outside of it gets blackballed for life. <<

Getting rid of California's "Jungle primary" (whoever thought it was a good idea to adapt Louisiana's crooked system must have been smoking some good stuff) should be priority #1 in the CA GOP. Still, I think THIS election cycle its not likely to hurt us that much, as Mayor Reconquita is running a DISTANT 4th place in the Governor primary (so he's unlikely to make a Newsom vs. Villagosia runoff) and RAT Kevin de León is running far behind GOP candidate James Bradley in the Senate primary, so the likely result is Bradley will face off against Feinswine. Ideally the "Jungle primary" will come to haunt the RATs, and they will end up with more "progressive" RATs being eaten by their own, because that's the only way they're gonna play ball in getting rid of it.

>> Allen is behind Cox in most polls. Hard to gauge these polls at this juncture <<

True, I believe Cox has been slightly ahead of Allen (CA GOP voters must be buying the "Cox is the only true conservative running" propaganda he's always touting). The good news is the run-off will likely be a Dem vs. GOP race rather than a Dem vs. Dem race like it usually is. The bad news is that if Cox is the nominee, it will be a redux of when Nevada Republicans insisted on running Sharron Angle or Missouri Republicans insisted on running Todd Akin. i swear, its like some useful idiots on our side WANT to lose to the Dem, given how hellbent they are on running crappy candidates who have a proven track record of getting their butts kicked.

It could very easily be Newsome/Villar, very easily. If had to bet I'd actually bet on that at this point, thank goodness there is a third major rat or else we'd be cooked for sure with 2 Republicans.

Re: Cali's System, it's not a "jungle primary" like Louisiana and I technically misspoke when I called the November elections "runoffs".

In the Bayou the all-party "jungle primary" which is is on election day, if someone gets 50% + 1 they win, if not the top two advance to a Dec runoff. Municipal elections in Chicago are the same system.

In Cali (and also now WA State) the all-party primary is held in June and the top two in each race advance to the November general election regardless of whether a candidate get's over 50% or not (as they often do), all general election races have 2 candidates (unless the incumbent was unopposed I guess, none were for any major race).

Cali's old system the "blanket" primary, ruled unconstitutional in 2000 (after ALL the parties sued), was similar, you could cross vote, vote for a D in one race and R in another, but the top finisher in EACH party advanced to the general. So if a primary result was say

Rat A 51%

Rat B 30%

GOP A 18%

Green A 1%

Rat A would have faced GOP A AND Green A in November and Rat B would be out. I prefer CLOSED primaries but I wouldn't mind that system so much in Illinois (or Cali or any dem leaning state).

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.