Replies

Not picking on FO but I had to pick one post to reply to :)

Creds: Grew up in CA, degreed from UCSB, moved to and presently living in MI; so I won't be voting in the recall (rats).

Let's see if we can agree on certain basic points:
- If either Tom or Arnie were out, the other would certainly win.
- Arnie is consistently polling higher than Tom
- Neither is polling consistently higher than Cruz by more than the MOE.
- Tom's issue positions are more consistent with conservative principles.
- With many absentee ballots coming in, if one candidate dropped, a lot of votes would be lost as invalid.
- Democrat supporters are happy to see and encourage division between Arnie and Tom in any form wherever possible; they know their own position is weak.

Ok? No flamebait there I hope.

There exist the following possibilities. I will attempt to state the two candidates' supporters' views on these possibilities as neutrally as I can.

1. Division among the two Republican candidates ends up electing Cruz. On the plus side, conservative integrity is intact, and we retain "we didn't vote for this mess" as a talking point. On the other hand, principle without power is still powerless to affect change, and Cruz is far to the left of even Davis.

2. One or the other Republican, most likely Arnie, wins even with two Republican candidates; this will almost certainly not be a plurality. On the plus side, Cruz doesn't win; either R will do more for CA than Davis or Cruz; and a R governor will be able to lend support for W in 2004; on the minus side, CA congressional RATs will be able to stonewall using the line that 'most voters didn't choose X' and later blame the Governor and Republicans for any CA woes.

3. One of the R candidates drops out (or a decisive number of endorsements are given or change to one candidate). The remaining R candidate wins, quite possibily with a plurality. Positively, we get the benefits of #2 plus the 'mandate' line the winner can use to get things done in Sacramento. However the likely name in scenario 3 to win is Arnie, not Tom; which means if you will 'settling' for incrementalism and the concern over watering down conservativism.

My own perspective is that since we have seen in CA, and in the 92-94 timeframe nationally, what happens when radical leftists run everything. CA is too big to lose, both on a political scale as a leading indicator into 2004 and an economic scale. I don't personally buy into the "watch them screw it up worse, then they'll really see how right we were all along" because frankly the end-road on that path is Zimbabwe, is North Korea.

Do I have a preference for Arnie or Tom? Yes. But IMO that preference is irrelevant next to making sure we don't all end up looking like the back-biting incompetant party. Let's leave that title for the Democratic presidential hopefuls.

"My own perspective is that since we have seen in CA, and in the 92-94 timeframe nationally, what happens when radical leftists run everything. CA is too big to lose, both on a political scale as a leading indicator into 2004 and an economic scale."

===

Excellent analysis!

making sure we don't all end up looking like the back-biting incompetant party

Much much too late for that.

CA R leadership is and has been incompetent for a long time. 1994 is a prime example.

The same people who couldn't get their won speaker elected after wining a majority in 1994 now support and endorse Schwarzenegger.

It goes on and on.