Replies

I like your style but not your choice of candidates. Real Republicans will not empower RINOs with jobs and contracts or give to Wilson any say whatsoever in party or government ever again. They will NOT vote for Arnold. The Demonrats WILL get all the blame they deserve and the GOP will return to primaries as usual to choose the next officeholders in 2006.

Ummm, If you clicked on my name you would have learned I do not live in California, so I can't vote there.

Therefore I still will not vote for McClintock.

:-)

Ummm, If you clicked on my name you would have learned I do not live in California, so I can't vote there.

If it is any consolation, I won't vote for Arnold either.

:-)

Dream on.

I don't know where you buy your fantasies, but I think you'd best return them for a full return of your money

--they are obviously neutered of any potency.

First of all, no one, no one, no one, can give you any kind of idea what the margin of error in any of these polls is, which is why they vary so widely.

Polling relies largely on past history, but there is no past history for a recall election not held on the regular election day. Nobody has a reliable way of knowing who is going to show up, and who is not.

California is a bif statre. It is big enough for Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown. It is big enough for Deukmajian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis.

The simpletons are the ones who say that there are simply left and right voters.

What we have is a certain percentage of committed Democrats and Latinos who will vote for Bustamante. Most of them would vote for Bustamante if he had the politics of Zell Miller, because he is a Democrat and/or a Hispanic.

Another percentage will vote for Schwarzenegger because they think it would be "cool" to have him as gov., or they like his persona. His politics has less to do with it.

What's more, the talking heads are happy to cast the election in this light. No wonder 1/3 roughly are undecided with 135 candidates!

Anybody who follows the party primaries, including those in open primary states, knows that the polls are often way off. They have gotten better in recent years, but they did not see Buchanan taking New Hampshire in '96, Jerry Brown in CT in '92, Wallace's strong showing in Massachusetts whenever he ran, or the surge of Gary Hartpence in 1984 (pre-scandal). Even outside of primaries, no one predicted the Republican landslide of '94 or even Ventura's win in MN in '98.

Let me ask you, as far as real voters are concerned. Who has the ground forces, Ah-nold, or McClintock? Who would actually be drawing conservative financial suport nationwide if it weren't for the sideshow ... Ah-nold? or McClintock?

Personally, I want Ah-nold to stay in the race and stay at in the low 20's or so. This keeps the socially left-leaning libertarian types away from Cruz.

Who here really thinks the one-third of undecideds are really considering Ah-nold. They already know who he is, and they are NOT flocking to him!

Now, what if Cruz wins? I would rather that Cruz win than Schwarzenegger.

Chicago had a three way primary in '82 where the incumbent (Jane Byrne) and Richie Daley Jr. split the vote, and Harold Washington won the primary as a result. He was more liberal than the other two, by far, and did not do well by the city. The next black mayor Chicago elects will be a conservative. It also pays to note that Daley's splitting the vote and losing did not cost him a successful run later on. Similar things happened in New York with Dinkins. Both were pyrrhic victories for the Dems. In California, Wilson was a pyrrhic victory for the GOP.

It would be better if Cruz won than Schwarzenegger, because he would be their Dinkins, Washington, Glendenning, Cuomo (last term), Weicker. He would be Gray Davis writ large. The good news is that the race is not over yet, and that with a large undecided base (that is leaning neither towards Cruz nor Schwarz.) McClintock could be the winner.