Poll Vault: California Voters Flocking to the Governator (Arnold over Busta by 15%)

New York Post ^ | September 29, 2003 | David K. Li

[Sabertooth]

Yeah, well, you get your chance on October 7 to see if they need you more than you need them.

Right now it doesn't look like Arnold needs me to win a plurality.

I'm OK with that. In most elections here, it takes more than a plurality.

[b9]

>>> thanks for your little Doodle on my Noodle <<<

Ha!
My folks were nicknamed Noodles and Doodles...
Mom loved to make pasta from scratch and
Dad was a cartoonist. :o)

[Sabertooth]

He did the conservative cause in California considerable harm by his stubbornness. He has emboldened the moderate forces in the party, merely to satiate his own ego.

The moderates have been emboldened for years here. Backstabbing is expected from them.

By his stubborness Tom McClintock put conservatism into the public square in California, at a time when liberalism has been discredited and people here needed most to hear it. It would not have happened without him.

If he had stepped aside when the GOP believed they desperately needed his constituency, he would have been perceived as a king maker with considerable clout. From there, he could have run a campaign with the entire GOP behind him in the future.

No, he'd have been played for a chump and dumped for Issa, Brulte, or any of a number of others when the time came.

Moderates have been burning bridges for years in California, and periodically, when they need conservatives, they holler from the opposite bank, "swim to us, the water's fine."

[Concerned]

DEAD WROTE TO OLD SCHOOL: "The conservative wing of the party backed McClintock. Unfortunately, the conservative wing of the Republican Party apparently consists of about 18% of the population in California."

DEAD ADDED: "The go-it-alone attitude is nice, but 18% is as good as 0% in a two party system. You can either compromise and form alliances with people who partially agree with you, or you can sit on the sidelines and boo."

I AM RESPONDING: "EXACTLY!!!!!"

I AM ADDING: "As a social/moral/economic/andEveryOtherWay conservative, I realize that Rome was NOT built in a day! As someone with MANY years of experience in Politics and Marketing, I realize that if you don't have a PLACE AT THE TABLE, you do not even have a VOICE!!!!!!

I AM ADDING: "If you want YOUR principles to be HEARD, but IF YOU HAVE NO VOICE, YOU CANNOT BE HEARD!!!"

[Concerned]

BTW, I wrote some quite thorough comments at the following URLs:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990452/posts?page=546#546

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990452/posts?page=547#547

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks to our elegant and clever wordsmith, Doodlelady, we have a rallying march!

[The Old Hoosier]

Now Republicans can vote their conscience and support Tom.

[The Old Hoosier]

You didn't read the part of this poll (question 6) that shows McClintock beating Busty 56-37 in a head-to-head, did you?

[Poohbah]

You didn't read the part of this poll (question 6) that shows McClintock beating Busty 56-37 in a head-to-head, did you?

I have reason to believe that USA Today cooked the books on this poll--because a Democrat in my neighborhood participated, and he was not asked that question.

[The Old Hoosier]

You don't even know this is the same poll. And he may not remember being asked.

[Poohbah]

You don't even know this is the same poll. And he may not remember being asked.

All but the McClintock-Bustamante lineup mentioned; the wording of the questions was identical to the USA Today poll; he was polled on 9/26/2003 (during the poll in question); and he's the guy who IM'd me and told me something smells about the poll, because there was a question in there that he wasn't asked.

I live in the most heavily-surveyed part of San Diego (we also get test-marketed for every product you can name).

[davisfh]

"Now Republicans can vote their conscience and support Tom."

I find your remarks astounding. I embrace your desire to vote your consience but reject the result of this action. It is clear to me that Tom CAN NOT win at this juncture. So what is the point in voting your conscience. You must ask yourself the question, "Who gets me closer to where I want to be? Schwartzenegger or Bustamante?" Answer that question for yourself and you will be enlightened.

[davisfh]

"Don't overestimate the power of the Democrat vote fraud machine."

You're exactly right and I have never "underestimated" the power of these people to inflict their will on the American body politik.

[The Old Hoosier]

Strategic voting is for fools. Vote with your conscience, and damn the consequences--consequentialism is a false moral philosophy.

[davisfh]

"Strategic voting is for fools. Vote with your conscience, and damn the consequences--consequentialism is a false moral philosophy."

There is simply no way that I can argue with this lack of logic. You've helped me to understand why the Republican Party is so often fragmented and marginalized and I think you for that.

[The Old Hoosier]

There is simply no way that I can argue with this lack of logic.

It's a lot harder to argue with this lack of principle. Mind you, it's one thing to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but I have no qualms about making the perfect the enemy of the bad.

The polls show McClintock can beat BustaMEChA, so why should a conservative vote for liberal Arnold?

[davisfh]

"The polls show McClintock can beat BustaMEChA, so why should a conservative vote for liberal Arnold?"

We'll know whether this is true or not on October 8th, wont we? As for a lack of principle, I feel that is unprincipled to give an election away to an obvious enemy when, by compromise and strategic planning, the election could have been won. I would agree with you that, if this were a perfect world, McClintock would be the better choice. But, it isn't a perfect world and that is precisely why a winning strategy has to be employed.

Lets give Arnold a year or two and see what happens. It is entirely possible that he won't be up to the task. But, if he is up to the task, let us be able to forget our ideological entrenchment and say that he was up to the task.

I believe that your dislike for Arnold probably has a lot to do with the abortion issue and I agree with you on that. As has been pointed out though, McClintock would not be able to reverse Roe v Wade anyway and neither would Arnold. That makes the whole thing a non-issue in my mind.