[NYC Republican]

If Republican voters see evidence that a McClintock, a true conservative, can beat Bustamante, that they don't have to settle for a candidate who is far to the left of them, might they not be expected to support McClintock? If so, why would that evidence not be relevant? If these poll figures are a pipe dream, why are not the polls you are relying on to justify your claim that only Scwarzenegger can be elected, pipe dreams? What evidence are you using to draw your distinction?

Very simple. This "alleged" poll shows that McClintock could win IF Arnold was out of the picture...

Arnold is proven that he has a very good shot at winning even with McClintock, but it would be close. With McClintock out if the picture, it would be a cakewalk.

Come Nov '04, is it's Clark vs. Bush vs. Nader, and the poll was done Bush vs. Nader, Bush would win all 50 states in a landslide, maybe even D.C. Ok, maybe not DC... The facts are, Clark won't be dropping out, so comparing Bush to Nader is irrelevant.

[JCEccles]

Arnold is proven that he has a very good shot at winning even with McClintock, but it would be close. With McClintock out if the picture, it would be a cakewalk.

Close win or cakewalk, a win is a win. Why wouldn't you prefer a close win by a conservative over a cakewalk by a liberal?

The bottom line: evidence suggests that a conservative can win in California in this particular election at this particular moment in time. That makes liberal Schwarzenegger the interloper. If any Republican candidate deserves the contempt of conservative voters, it is Schwarzenegger--not McClintock.