New Chamber of Commerce Poll: Recall leading 53-41%, Arnold 35%, Cruz 31%, Tom 17%

http://www.calchamber.com/news/index.cfm?id=67&action=detail&navid=270 ^ | 9-27 | Chamber of Commerce Poll

[fqued]

on another thread redlipstick posted:

I just posted the CNN/Gallup poll.

63% for recall
40% SCHWARZENEGGER
25% BUSTAMANTE
18% McCLINTOCK


Yep, Arnold's stalled out all right.
Looks like Arnold will win, and McClintock will be irrelevant.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for your comment. That means, though, that Arnold has gone from 28% to 35% during the same period that Tom has gone from 14% to 17% or 18%; in other words, Arnold's 7% "surge" has been almost double that of Tom's 3-1/2 to 4%. Am I doing the math correctly?

[alwaysconservative]

Sorry, that should have been 12% to 17 or 18% and 27 or 28% to 35%. Geez, with all the numbers floating around, it's hard to see exactly what is current! Anyway, Arnold's surge still is bigger than Tom's, which is what I was trying to point out.

[fqued]

Here's another way of looking at it:

Arnold goes from 28 - 35, a 25% rise
Tom Mc goes from 12 - 17, a 42% rise

that's in two or three weeks.

If that trend held true, then in another two or three weeks,
Arnold rises another 25% to 44% of the vote
Tom Mc rises another 42% to 24% of the vote

[alwaysconservative]

Is the poll you cited post-debate? Boy, Cruz is not going anywhere either, is he? EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE YES ON THE RECALL!!!

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the analysis! The information from my college statistics classes seem to have disappeared in my brain!

[fqued]

Relipstick posted it at post #118 on thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/990884/posts?page=118

[fqued]

Note, though, that Tom Mc could NEVER catch Arnold at those rates: the next period would give:

Arnold 55%
TomMc 34%

[fqued]

CNN/GALLUP POLL ON THREAD:

Poll: Davis in peril, Schwarzenegger strongman New California Poll)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991055/posts

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks! I'm switching to that now, then off for some family time (they get tired of me muttering at the computer sometimes!)

[BillyBoy]

>> McClintock can win in Mississippi <<
Currently has liberal Democrat Governor because GOP establishment didn't like conservative nominee.

>> Louisana <<
Two RAT Senators, one moderate-centrist, one very liberal. Conservative governor, but he wasn't the choice of the GOP establishment.

>> Georgia <<
GOP governor due to HUGE GOP upset. Nobody thought he would win. They previously had 120 years of RAT governors (and you crybabies in CA say it so imperative to elect a Republican after only 5 years of RAT rule) Conventional wisdom said a staunch Republican "couldn't win" the governorship in GA.

>> South Carolina <<
Currently has conservative GOP only because liberal 'RAT governor was a total retard and screwed up the state. Sound familar? Before that, conservative Republicans were kept out of the governor's mansion.

>> Nebraska <<
"Moderate" Republicanism rules here. Conservatives are never allowed the nomination, even though the state is guranteed to go Republican 90% of the time. Governor is a "moderate".

>> Oklahoma <<
Has a partisan RAT governor, Brad Henry. GOP moderates through a temper tamtrum against the conservative candidate.

>> BUT NOT A STATEWIDE OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA <<

As you can see, your fellow "pragmatic" Republicans in the party establishment said the same thing in the "conservative" states you just mentioned. Funny how the RAT establishment there never said guys like Ronnie Musgrove were "too liberal" to win though. The Dems run liberals in conservative states and WIN, but cowardly Republicans won't even run conservatives in CONSERVATIVE states.

Oh, and yesterday one of your fellow Schwartzekennedy supporters was gloating about how "conservative" Secretary of State Bill Jones endorsed Arnie. Hey, isn't that a STATEWIDE office? How the heck did you have a CONSERVATIVE secretary of state in office just a few monthes ago if they "never" win in California, eh?

[bvw]

A good poem. Deserves to be published in a "better" collection.

[==Oink==]

El Tom's proved himself to be uncooperative, and therefore, unelectable.

He's getting on my nerves.

If Bustamecha wins, Tom should leave the state.

[Erik Latranyi]

TOM MCCLINTOCK's CONSERVATISM IS NEEDED MUCH MORE IN THE US SENATE, A BODY LOADED WITH RINOS.

[The Other Harry]

Your post is interesting, but it is NOT a person saying that they would rather vote for Busty over McClintock, or even close to that.

The question to which I was responding was Bustamamonte versus *Arnold*.

It looks like McClintock isn't going to win this. I think that's a shame, as I think he is the only person running who is capable of dealing with California's problems.

Between Bustamonte and Schwarzenegger -- which seems to be the contest -- I'd just as soon Bustamonte won. My logic on that is admittedly a bit perverse. It is sort of like, "If Californians won't elect McClintock, then the hell with them." Also, I don't see all that much difference between Bustamonte and Schwazenegger. One difference is that Bustamonte has some idea what he doing, whereas Schwarzenegger does not. I actually believe California would be better off with Bustamonte.

Imo, Diane Feinstein should be running, and McClintock is the person who should get elected. But that's not the way it's going.

It looks like California is in for some more years of hard times. That's too bad. It is such a pretty state. I enjoyed living there.

But if that is what they vote for, that is what they get.

I'll tell you what. If Californians want a celebrity to be their governor, they should go for Clint Eastwood. It's too late now, but he could handle it. He was mayor of Carmel, and he did a good job of that.

[EternalVigilance]

A good poem. Deserves to be published in a "better" collection.

Thanks much. It is. ;-)

[BikerNYC]

In other words...candidates shouldn't debate because its the right thing to do, they should only debate if there is an advantage for them?

[KQQL]

 




Gallup/CNN 09/28/2003
Recall Davis 63%
Keep Davis 35%

Schwarzenegger 40%
Cruz 25%
McClintock 18%
Camejo 5%
Arianna 2%

MOE 4% 

[Quix]

Wasn't getting into the SHOULDS.

If one wants to talk about shoulds, probably, as in any situation needing to judge right from wrong; better or worse . . .

One FIRST NEEDS TO KNOW:

1) What's the priority relevant GOAL?
2) What's the criteria/standard of measure informing you of when you've reached the goal?
3) What's the context.

SHOULD Arnold have debated? From Arnold's perspective given all the data in politics of the last 100 years? NO. Nothing to gain, too much potentially to lose.

Should Arnold have debated to have satisfied YOUR notions of fair play or some such? Somehow I don't think that goal of YOURS in YOUR construction of reality etc. divorced from the the wholesale realities of the recall--I just don't think your goal merits that high a priority from the perspective of Arnold's advisors.

In terms of it being a better moral choice to debate Gray Sewerwater Davis?

Hogwash.

Don't wrestle with a skunk. Nothing to win. Lots of time lost in bathing in tomatoe juice.

[A CA Guy]

I suffer fools poorly after the fist 250 times.