“Tom Can’t Win”? Wrong – Do the Math – Silent Switch Makes McClintock Governor

9-22-03

[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.

[68 grunt]

That was pretty nicely said! I think the general attitude is the gloves are off, re: outta staters. I sure have no problem with it, especially when as polite as yours.

I agree that California is a trend setter, and I concur with the group as seeing McClintock with no chance, none, but I see a new trend. A new Republican Party, willing to accept some compromise on platform issues, open to new ideas, tolerant of diversity amoung all humans, unity as a people with petty differences set aside for a common goal. A Ghengis Khan for our time. Create a groundswell wave of Republicans that are outspoken, but tolerant, fair but severe and brave, always brave, and belittling the democrats in righteous indignation at every turn.

[Paulus Invictus]

Good luck! The Circus has been overturned several times before. let's see if they get it yet. Sinced they are mostly RATS, I predict they will not get it and continue the farce.

[SteveH]

Ha, good riposte, albeit repetitious in its circular reasoning ("Tom can't win, therefore..."). Glad to see you got your crystal ball stoked with steroids...

You left out the possibility Davis remains in office due to generic voter turnoff by Arnold and Busta. In strela-world, this of course implies that Arnold and Busta are willing collaborators and pawns of the evil dastardly mastermind Gray Davis!

Hey strela-- can you smell what the Gray One is cookin'?

(Obligatory sheesh ;-)

With "conservatives" like "Arnie's Angels" on FR these days, hey, who needs liberals???

;-)

[strela]

And now we pause for this brief message from Outer Space.

[William Tell]

Paulus Invictus said: "Sinced they are mostly RATS, I predict they will not get it and continue the farce."

Well, my hope that they would have an opinion by sunset has been dashed. There is always tomorrow.

[SteveH]

And now back to our main feature, The Strela Zone:

They sent up another unvetted newbie against me, can you believe it? LOL!

[Iris7]

Thanks for your support. Maybe those of us with our eyes open should stick together. Ping me when you think it appropriate, especially if my rhetorical style would fit in! We truly have a noble cause.

[jagrmeister]

The latest Field poll showed that Arnold could win if McClintock bowed out but the reverse is not true. The reason? Arnold pulled 29% of Independents, while McClintock pulled only 8%. Tom McClintock has to make a decision- does he want to be the reason Bustamante gets elected or does he want to the Party first. He has to decide soon.

[tallhappy]

The latest Field poll showed that Arnold could win if McClintock bowed out but the reverse is not true.

What latest Field poll? You mean PPIC Poll?

You miss the point that Schwarzenegger must not bow out for the silent switch to work.

You miss as well that McClintock bowing out will not help Schwarzenegger. In terms of numbers, if McClintock's numbers or a fraction of them were switched to Schwarzenegger, he would win.

But after all this time have you not realized you are dealing with intrasigent people. If they were going to vote for Schwarzenegger they already would be.

McClintock bowing out would actually hurt Schwarzenegger's chances. In a two person race he becomes oerceived as more right wing and loses some support from liberal/left voters among the independents you mention. He gains almost zero of McClintock's vote.

But non-independent Schwarzenegger voters would vote for McClintock ie 70% of his supporters. There is not the same ideological animosity and in fact many Schwarzenegger voters say they like McClintock better but have accepted the premise that he can't win and therefore are planning to vote for Scwarzenegger.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I see NO chance of a conservative winning a statewide office in Californica. NONE.

Hostility and nastiness in this regard are indeed misplaced and I try not to add to them. If I fail in this regard please whack me. It is true I have little patience with "true believers" who are blind to realities and do consider them dangerous but will try to not make it personal. But I do consider them my enemies since their actions will prevent progress in many areas and I consider some quite wrong in most of their political philosophy.

McC could only win if ALL republicans voted for him and the others split theirs almost equally. It is crucial to split the RAT vote. THAT is the most important part of this whole affair. Breaking up the automatic 35% RAT vote is the only chance for Republican success in Cali. As long as that remains the RATS will win every time. Who helps break it up is not important but that will NEVER be a hard core conservative.

Not being a Californian my only interest in this is in the damage it can do to the RAT machine and the positive effect it will have on Bush's 04 run. Arnold as governor would have a tremendously positive impact on his chances in California and spell enormous trouble for the RATS. McC winning would have almost NO impact as far as I can see.

[XJarhead]

I see NO chance of a conservative winning a statewide office in Californica. NONE.

Wasn't Simon pretty conservative? And didn't he get 42% or so of the vote in California? If you've got that high a percentage willing to vote for a conservative in a two man race, why couldn't the right conservative get a plurality in a three-man race?

Let's just change it up a bit. Suppose Arnold was more conservative on abortion, gun control, etc. I'm guessing that would have knocked McClintock out, and Arnold would have Simon's base plus whatever else his name recognition would attract. Add in some middle of the roader to take more votes from the lefty Busta, and a conservative Schwartzenegger might win.

The problem in this race is that McC just isn't the type of guy who inspires confidence in party as a whole. And since he can't nail down the Republican vote, and has little chance of anything in the middle, he's almost a sure loser. If a conservative is going to win, he must have the lock-step support of the party. At an absolute minimum. Add in the dynamics of a three-way race, and such a candidate has a chance. Unfortunately, McC isn't that guy, and the splintering occasioned by the recall is unlikely to be repeated.

So I think a conservative could have won this race. It's just that this conservative can't win at this point.

[Iris7]

Bribery is one of politics main foundations. United States foreign policy is of three parts, sweet reason, the threat of overwhelming force, and "foreign aid", that is "export credits", access to US markets (big bucks in that one), IMF/World Bank "loans", and direct payments to politicians. Even Arafat gets tons of US government cash in return for his promise to play nice. English power in the old days was based mostly on bribery, backed up by military force. As is ours.

Vote buying, that is bribing the voters to vote the way you want, is a very old American tradition. Social Security is one big modern example. The Roman Empire worked so long as Rome could afford huge "government contracts" for "services" and to operate their "social welfare" system. The list is endless.

If you leave this potent political weapon in the sole hands of the Left you fight with your strong arm tied behind your back. The Right in the USA has been so dumb for so long that the Right would raise the money and the Left would use the money raised for the "public good" by the Right to buy votes for the Left! How incredibly stupid! We HAVE to win this thing!!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Like it or not part of Arnie's appeal is sheer charisma and celebrity not political positions or even politics. We can bemoan it and complain about it OR we can take advantage of it to remove a greater enemy. I prefer the latter course even if it is not ideal.

Simon could not beat perhaps the most unpopular governor in California history, certainly one of the most unpopular and least appealing. Unfortunately, the RATmedia paints any conservative as a cross between a baby eater and a killer of puppies. They have two strikes against them and the brain dead electorate of Cali can't figure out that it is a lie.

However, lies about Arnie will not have the same impact because the aforementioned BD electorate won't care.

[SteveH]

Vote buying, that is bribing the voters to vote the way you want, is a very old American tradition. Social Security is one big modern example. The Roman Empire worked so long as Rome could afford huge "government contracts" for "services" and to operate their "social welfare" system. The list is endless.

I understand all that already. The meta-problem (if you will) is that the political problem is described in terms of the following alternatives: a small additional bit of socialism to bribe the masses (a la No Child Left Behind, for example), versus a large dollop of socialism to bribe the masses (a la Social Security, WPA, etc.).

But no matter, the ultimate effect is the same, only the slope of the function with time is different. Your choice as posed offers the alternatives of totalitarian socialism by next Tuesday or the following Wednesday, so the argument goes, well, the rate associated with the following Wednesday would of course be the obvious choice!

Are you familiar with the analogy of the frogs being slowly cooked in a pot of increasingly hot water? That is the view of conservatives with respect to any agenda involving proposed increases of any sort for taxation, spending, and the concurrent restrictions on rights and property ownership. The choice you offer is illusory if the objective is to stop, not merely to slow down, incremental socialism.

[Iris7]

You would like to stop creeping socialism. So would I. If I honestly thought there was a faster way to accomplish thwarting the Left's plan than the arduous road I recommend, I would eagerly pursue it.

I see no road but the "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" that Churchill trod, and losing Tuesday is worse than losing Wednesday, since, who knows, by Wednesday the enemy might give up, we might all die of natural causes, or maybe God will intervene. If we give up we accept defeat.

[Iris7]

The frog boiling I first heard about 1970. As far as "conservatives" as a class, I last saw the universe that way in about 1990. I've gone through all those arguments, libertarianism, Marxism-Leninism, Roosevelt socialism, Original Intent Constitutionalism, Paleoconservatism, Neoconservatism, Jeffersonianism, Andrew Jacksonism, Voltaireism, Rouseauism, Spenglerism, Reaganism, Goldwaterism, de Maistreism, and a bunch of others. I have come to the conclusion that man's will to power is what powers Leftism, and that the virtues I admire, liberty, loyalty, honor, and Christian love (in reverse order!) are in dire danger.

[Porterville]

I figured out what is going on. Arnold and McClintock are working together to throw off the dems on the very last week of the elections.. Like Arnold did before announcing his candedancy and waiting until the 5,000 pound redheaded gorrilla/whale/pig/lesbo/stale/stank/beast was out of the race... the plan... corner the dems in only having Bustamante on the last week of the elections against Arnold, so that Dem resources are spent on McClintock and Arnold, fracturing the Dems focus of negativity and efficiency... McClintock will wait until Monday, the 29th of September to drop out, possibly Friday the 3rd of October.

[XJarhead]

Like it or not part of Arnie's appeal is sheer charisma and celebrity not political positions or even politics. We can bemoan it and complain about it OR we can take advantage of it to remove a greater enemy. I prefer the latter course even if it is not ideal.

Agreed. You said that no conservative can ever win in California. My point is only that it is possible for a conservative candidate with charisma to win, particularly in a three-way election. But McClintock ain't that guy.

The reason that's important is because some conservatives view McClintock as perhaps the only chance to ever get a conservative. That's not true, because under the right circumstances, and with the right candidate, a conservative can still win.

[LibKill]

A vote for Bustamante is a vote for Bustamante and his positions.

A vote for McClintock is a vote for McClintock and his positions.

A vote for Schwarzenegger is a vote for Schwarzenegger and his positions.

Etc...

In that case Californians will enjoy a BUSTAMANTE government.

Go ahead, flame me McClintbots. I won't even bother to reply.

I don't care, I live in Texas.

When you wake up to Governer Bustamante, don't blame me.

You will be under the power of Holy Darwin then, and I won't be able to help you inspite of my best intentions.

[jagrmeister]

I've been in eletoral politics a while and this "silent switch" assumption is quite possibly the worst analysis I've seen. There is no precedent for such a dynamic. And no, I was referring to the Field poll which asked follow-up questions asking people their preference without Arnold or without McClintock. Arnold can win without McClintock, whereas McClintock will lose, even if Arnold drops out of the race. It's time for McClintock supporters to do the right thing, the practical thing. Let's take back California one position at a time.

--

Arnold is no liberal