Well, that's a step in the right direction! My worst-case scenario is to have the "conservative" vote split between three more-or-less OK candidates (Simon, Jones, and Jesson), and wind up with Riordan by default. As DoughtyOne notes in #16 above, a choice between Riordan and Davis is not much of a choice at all. I am willing to make incremental progress (look at what the left has done with this strategy over the years!), and think that an excess of purism hurts, rather than helps, conservative candidates. Also, I think that it's important to not just to agonize over "who to vote for". Fine, do that, but it's going to take more than that: donations, pounding the pavement, phone banking, the works. We all have our favorite issues, but the chance to get a pro-life governor in California is too important to pass up. There are many other critical issues as well (immigration, taxation, 2nd amendment, pro-family etc.), and this primary is a real opportunity to effect real change. Hence my concern, and hope.
For myself, now is the time to do what I can for the right candidate -- not just voting, but real support. All things being equal, Jesson would be my guy, but as noted above, the stakes are pretty high if he can't break through the haze and the media "cone of silence".
Jesson would be my guy, but as noted above, the stakes are pretty high if he can't break through the haze and the media "cone of silence".Jesson is really an idiot. He thinks that we have a $200 billion surplus. Why? Because of PERS. That's right, the retirement that many state employees pay into with their OWN MONEY, he wants to take to balance the budget.
He wears pastel suits and doesn't understand the budget, finances, or the way the state works. While he may be pro-life and pro-gun -- two good things -- you need to also look at electability: would the people of California vote for a fiscal dufus in a pink suit? I don't think so.