Posted on 09/22/2003 7:28:24 AM PDT by tallhappy
Real Clear Politics elegantly presents all the polls concerning the California Recall election at this link
It seems that just about everyone pushing Schwarzenegger as the best chance for Republicans also feel McClintock would be preferable if he had a chance to win. McClintock is thought to most reflect their values and positions on issues. But “Tom can’t win.”
A simple perusal of the poll numbers, though, belies this conventional wisdom. Do the math. If only 60% of Schwarzenegger supports decided to vote for McClintock, McClintock take the lead.
Some examples:
The vilified LA Times Poll:
Schwarzenegger - 25
Bustamante - 30
McClintock - 18
With a switch of 60% Schwarzenegger to McClintock, McClintock is at 33 and wins by 3.
In polls with Schwarzenegger polling higher the effect is stronger, e.g. SurveyUSA.
Schwarzenegger - 39
Bustamante - 29
McClintock - 16
McClintock at 39.4, wins by more than 10.
Even the ureleased newst Field poll with Bustamante higher than Schwarzenegger plays out the same:
Schwarzenegger - 26
Bustamante - 28
McClintock - 14
McClintock at 29.6 with the silent 60 switch, over the top by 1.6%.
The reason for this effect is that Bustamante support has stayed consistently low, only about 30%. This is lower than the Democrat candidate would generally poll in a general election. The dynamics of this unique recall are different. Many dems won’t vote for a candidate for recall on principle. They feel the recall is wrong hence will only vote no and will not mark a replacement candidate. Others who normally would vote for a Democrat also may be voting for Huffington, Camejo or even Schwarzenegger. This effectively splits the left/liberal vote more than usual causing Bustamantes numbers to be low.
This dynamic allows a conservative a chance to win in this election compared to a regular general election where the numbers don’t quite add up.
Conservatives are playing defense by voting for Schwarzenegger. Defense doesn’t win. The offensive strategy is for conservatives to vote for McClintock in this election where a conservative actually could win. Conservatives shouldn’t be scared off by the media drumbeat and conventional wisdom. It doesn’t apply in this election. In a normal election a Democrat would pull near 50% and always beat the 40% conservative/Republican base. But this isn’t a normal election and Bustamante isn’t pulling the numbers.
Let the race play out as it is. Schwarzenegger doesn’t have to pull out for this to work. In fact, if he did pull out this scenario wouldn’t apply.
On election day there needs to be a silent surprise. If the polls on Bustamante’s support are right, only 60% of Schwarzenegger supporters need to quietly punch the McClintock chad rather than Schwarzenegger’s to shake the world with their silent surprise.
The author forgot to include eye-of-newt, ear-of-bat and shavings of horn-of-rhino in his formula. That's where he got it wrong! You mix those things in and dance around the bubbling cauldron in your underwear chanting selected passages from Ayn Rand, and McClintock can squeak it out!
This California election is of central importance to national politics both for the immediately coming election cycle and I suspect for decades to come. What the "McClintock" faction is doing can have very bad consequences not only in the media and Washington but in Wisconsin politics as well. You guys are further marginalizing the Right. The Left is counting on it.
Perhaps.
Yes. I agree. I am not a purist.
I do not want Schwarzenegger to win.
McClintock is the best candidate. Bustamante is horrible and I do not want him to win either.
But he does less long term harm than Schwarzenegger.
A Schwarzenegger victory effectvely ends the Republican party as a conservative party. Not an ideological pure party - but one that is on balance more conservative than liberal.
Actually it is to a large degree. Not fully, though, and your interest and contributions are appreciated.
Ah, your true allegience is showing. You would RATHER have Bustamante.
With all due respect, you've got it exactly wrong. What will marginalize conservatives is the media trotting out Arnold as a Republican who represents mainstream conservative views. Against abortion? You're an extremist! Don't want a network of hydrogen fueling stations? Extremist!
And so on.
There you go again -- saying what Arnold is more likely to do when you have absolutely "zero" credibility about Arnold and that issue has never been discussed but you state it anyway! Actually IMO the Indian gambling is just as bad -- if you think the Indians are controlling it without organized crime think again -- organized crime would not permit that to happen. You can bet if they were not getting a piece of the action, there would be strikes of workers, etc. Don't be so naive! Arnold is right -- you don't take contributions from someone who you will be negotiating with as Governor. Shame McC doens't see it the same way!
A bit of hyperbole imho, but assuming true, why cheer for the political newbie who is afraid to debate and is starting to be infected by foot-in-mouth disease whenever he does? The election campaigning is getting exponentially harder, and Arnold can only keep up the act that he knows what he is doing for so long. The last political newbie we ran was Simon, in 2002, and you know the rest of that story.
BTW was that another election of central importance to Wisconsin?
(bracing for the "governor-is-not-rocket-science" response ;-)
I do think I'd rather see Bustamante win than Schwarzenegger.
It is hard for me to believe I have that opinion.
I am the one who came up with the slogan Cruz Must Lose.
Schwarzenegger has really turned me off after initially being enthusiastic that we could actually damage the dems.
I now see him as worse than Bustamante in the long run.
Others understand this as well.
I, though, would never recommend a vote for Bustamante or supporting him overtly. We are in a lose lose situation.
Lose lose lose actually.
Substitute "would" for the words "may well" in your sentence mentally. The difference between your sentence as you wrote it and after the subsitution is of miniscule dimension.
Please think of what you are saying, and what sort of people agree with your statement. Boxer, Feinstein, Davis, and Streisand for four.
Hugh Hewitt discussed it at length as a sort of "gambling card" Schwarzenegger could play.
Make you case. I will listen.
Polls in general have a bad track record in recent years. Polls had John Engler with 38%. He won with slightly over 50%. Polls had Debbie Stabusall losing to Spence Abraham. Nope. Internal polls had Joe Hune at a distant third in the GOP primary. He won. Polls had Jesse Ventura losing in Minnesota.
1. The only poll that matters is on ELECTION DAY.
2. A vote for McClintock is ONLY a vote for McClintock. Those that whine about it being a vote for Cruz need to try and earn those votes instead of having the leftist sense of entitlement. If you think he's entitled to it, you should go to DU and join the liberals since entitlements are leftist. Arnold isn't entitled to jack. Neither is anyone else.
3. A vote for Arnold is a vote for Arnold.
4. A vote for Cruz is a vote for Cruz.
5. ANYONE of the three can win.
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.