New California Field Poll leaked

Field Poll | September 20, 2003 | Field Poll

[carbon14]

Recall (yes)...53%

Bustamante.....28% Schwarzenegger.26% MadClintock....14%

For comparison (Field Poll August 18) Bustamante.....25% Schwarzenegger.22% MadClintock.....9% Simon...........8% Ueberroth.......5% Huffington......2%

[Reagan Man]

I appreciate you sharing you analysis with me and your steadfast support for Arnold the liberal.

In the political world, conservatives don't vote for liberals. Until you understand that fact of life, you'll remain flapping in the proverbial wind.

I agree with you. This isn't a normal election. This is a unique opportunity for conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans and conservative minded independents, to unite and defeat Boy Davis and bury Cruz Bustamonte into irrelevency for the next three years. Its a unique opportunity to elect a traditonal conservative and a Reagan conservative. That would be, Tom McClintock, of course.

It's not the time to elect a Hollywood liberal and pop cult icon, who says a no tax pledge isn't necessary, revealing the specifics of his economic recovery plan for California isn't necessary, militarizing the borders isn't an option, Prop54 is wrong and has no opinion on affirmative action, abortion on demand is okay, more gun control is okay, special rights for homosexuals is okay and debating your political opponents isn't necessary.

Think about it, my friend.

[=Intervention=]

They are not. However, the political philosophies of "pragmatism" and "realism" involve looking superficially at a scenario, and/or accepting the media-driven analysis of a situation and proclaiming that because this is true, we must embrace someone who is more palatable to the media.

[EllaMinnow]

But she's not the same kind of democrat as Chris Lehane - the one pushing McClintock.

He is completely incapable of embarassment - and he loves Gray and Cruz AND Tom!

[deport]

One on one he'd put Bustamante away, IMO...... But with a huge field and another republican plus others that have dropped out but still getting votes, I don't think anyone will top much over 40% at best... just a guess. Heck Bustamante being the only name Democrat can't get a huge number with the democrats being 45% of the registered vote...

But one thing is for sure..... anyone at low double digits isn't gonna be in the hunt come vote day....

I think this is the 3rd version of the poll... but I can't be absolutely sure.

[fabian]

Arnold does obviously have sympathy for high tax paying citizens and businesses and would have the influence needed to bring relief. Being a very sucessful businessman starting from nothing says alot about his character. If McClintock is viable to win I will vote for him, otherwise I will vote to at least have part of a good agenda.

[Reagan Man]

[isthisnickcool]

The reductionist mantra of "a vote for A is a vote for B" is patently not true. But it's always promulgated by those who wish to bully others into supporting candidates that they ordinarily would not support. It's nothing more than strongarm tactics practiced by fearmongers and opponents of conservativism.

What a load. The ONLY GOAL is to win. You can't unless your guy gets the majority of the votes. Which ain't going to happen in McClintocks case. So a vote for him elects the racist who should be running for office as a member of the PRI in Mexico instead of office in this country. And Arnold, the only Republican who has a shot loses.

Some logic pushed around here make about as much sense as a guy about to be shot by a firing squad who won't smoke a cigarette because it's bad for his health. He has "his standards" you know.

The deal is to win. And to have a Republican win. Why? Because he isn't a damn Democrat. Oh, but "Arnold is not conservative". Boo damn hoo! The guy that will win is insane and wants to give our biggest state to Mexico.

This is not high tea. It's not some kind of game where people can afford to be high-minded and not vote for a guy that night be able to win. It's about winning! That means "not losing".

You may not like my Ross Perot analogy but ask yourself this: "What did Ross Perot ever do for all the people that voted for him". The answer is nothing. Now ask yourself another question: "What did the guy that won because people that voted Perot do once he was elected"?

[thoughtomator]

All he did was a straightforward political analysis. When even left and right see eye to eye, the folks in the middle who disagree are deluding themselves.

To refer to Tammy Bruce - a lesbian Democrat - as indicative of conservative sentiment just shows how fast and loose the (R)nold crowd has been with the truth.

[FreeReign]

Pragmatist and realist are merely different spellings of the word "liberal"

Since when is viewing and seeing things as they really are -- a liberal thing?

They are not. However, the political philosophies of "pragmatism" and "realism" involve looking superficially at a scenario, and/or accepting the media-driven analysis of a situation and proclaiming that because this is true, we must embrace someone who is more palatable to the media.

Since when did the definition of the words pragmatism and realism change?

I've voted for canidates less conservative then me. If fact I've done that a lot and I'd do it again if I feel it would gradually move us more in the direction of freedom. I believe that would make me -- using real definitions -- pragmatic and realistic.

That said, at this point, I see no difference between Cruz and Arnold and I give Arnold no pragmatic support.

[Seeking the truth]

The FR poll is not neither a cross section of CA voters en total, nor is it a cross section of CA Republicans, nor is it scientific in nature, so I do not believe that the FR poll offers any evidence of how CA voters will choose on Oct 7th, and THAT is the poll we are trying to predict

Again, you are stating the obvious and I never said anything near that.

In reply #128, I asked these questions that you have not answered:

Are you seriously saying that most Freepers support Ahnold even though all FR polls show the opposite?

Are you that much in denial of the fact that most Freepers do NOT support Ahnold?

[FreeReign]

Sorry! :(

[EllaMinnow]

When even left and right see eye to eye

Yes. like you and Chris Lehane see eye to eye...

[thoughtomator]

He feels your pain. Where have you seen that one before?

[ElkGroveDan]

Schwarznegger dwarfs McClintock in proven leadership skills.

Give us some examples please.

[ElkGroveDan]

What point is there for a conservative to back him? How about for a reason no one can legitimately support Tom for...to keep bustamante from becoming California's next governor.

Yeah, but what do we do to keep Arnold from becoming California's next governor (and bringing Robert Kennedy Jr. and Bonnie Reiss with him?)

[rwfromkansas]

He only picked up 5 percentage points out of both Ub's and Simon's supporters.

That is pathetic.

[Ingtar]

This whole situation is an interesting one to watch from another state with a schism in it's Republican party(Tennessee.) Here the mentality of supporting the electable, more moderate candidate gave us Lamar! and the Democratic "moderate" governor that many of the Republican officials supported over a Conservative Republican.

It seems the choices in California have come down to supporting Conservatism and increasing the chance that the Democrats will further ruin the state, or supporting a Liberal Republican and risk finishing off any chance the party has.

Nationally, the Republicans have lost much of their collective will by embracing parts of the enemy agenda to gain seats. Now California is faced with the same choice. If I compromise so much that my enemy's agenda is advanced more than mine, who wins?

[=Intervention=]

" What a load. The ONLY GOAL is to win. You can't unless your guy gets the majority of the votes. Which ain't going to happen in McClintocks case. "

Sorry, but your statement is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. You don't think McC can win, so you declare it can't happen, and so you stand convinced of it!

The only goal is to win with the right person. Winning with a liberal is not only disasterous short-term, but long term to the interests of the Republican party.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin. You argue that it's worth electing a liberal for temporary security.

Your vitriol ignores the fact that Arnold holds a majority of the positions that his opponent does. That has been posted over and over again.

*shrug* The point of your questions is again, to strongarm people to vote against their consciences. That reeks of vacuity.

[ElkGroveDan]

You don't get to decree who is a "real" Republican or "real" conservative, and I'm sick and tired of a small group railing against the rest of us.

How about if we go down the Republican Party platform and say that you should probably agree to half of it if you want to call yourself a Republican?

Arnold can always start his own party.

[thoughtomator]

If that's pathetic, why then is the (R)nold camp worried?