Replies

Bottom line if you’re a Republican you normally should believe that Republican policy’s (i.e. less taxes, spending and regulation)work

Also if you’re a Republican you normally should believe Democrat policy’s (i.e. more taxes, spending and regulation)fail

So what happens when a Republican follows a Democrat policy’s (i.e. more taxes, spending and regulation... think Bush Sr. in 91) ....they fail...... and the Republican party takes the blame ....

So why would you want to vote for a Republican that will follows Democrat policy’s and then fail and then take the party down with them....

If you truly believe Arnold will govern with Republican policy’s (i.e. less taxes, spending and regulation) and will succeed well I can respect that...I disagree that Arnold will govern with Republican policy’s ....but I can respect that people might honestly believe he will govern like a Republican

However if you only care that Arnold can win and could care less on how he will govern the CA economy..... your inviting disaster on the party... because the party will take the blame if he fails

Bush Sr lost not just because of Ross Perot but because the economy tanked caused by raising taxes... and that was because Bush Sr folded to the Democrat pressing to raise taxes... Republican following Democrat policy’s fail...... and the Republican party takes the blame ....

If Tom stays in the race until the end and ends up coming close to or exceeding Ahno's percentage of the vote, will Ahno's supporters still accuse McClintock of ruining the party? Why isn't it the other way around?

Here, there is clearly a three-way race that conservatives could win by backing a solid conservative, but many supposed conservatives refuse to believe that such an outcome is possible. They accept the notion that conservative voters, who tend to be much better educated, intelligent and informed than their liberal counterparts, are also swayed above all by "name recognition" and charm. Hence, there is no choice but to vote for the movie star.

Here's another hypothetical situation worth pondering. Let's say that in the final days before the election, Bustamante is polling 35%-40%, Ahno is polling 20-25% and McClintock is polling 15-20%. You know that neither Republican candidate is likely to win. What do you do? Do you vote for McClintock to bolster the influence of conservatives within Republican ranks, or do you vote for Ahno to ... (insert a reason here other than "I think he has a better chance of winning")?

Why is it always the hard-core conservatives that are being asked to sacrifice their preferences for the sake of party unity? Why shouldn't it be the Ahno conservatives who are called on to sacrifice their preferences to get on the McClintock bandwagon?

I am not a California voter, but I have several times been in a situation where I had to sacrifice the more "purist" option in order to have my vote meaningfully effect the outcome of an election. However, this time around I am glad to see that a lot of folks seem to be intent on backing McClintock, even if the ultimate result is Bustamante. At some point there has to be a consequence for taking the "lunatic fringe right wing" for granted as part of any liberal Republican's electoral calculation.

As for the calls for McClintock to get out of the race, one should think twice about that. Ahno is not going to gain much more ground on the Left. This is clear. The only way he can pick up more votes is by "moving" further to the right in hopes of having more conservatives feel better about the prospects of a successfuly Ahno governorship. The longer and stronger McClintock stays in the race, the more it will be clear to Ahno that he has to do something substantive to gain the confidence of the "right wing".