Skip to comments.
Has Anyone Changed Their Vote as Result of the Gray Davis/LA Times Smear Attack?
Posted on 10/02/2003 2:59:13 PM PDT by ambrose
Has Anyone Changed Their Vote as Result of the Gray Davis/LA Times Smear Attack?
TOPICS: US: California
KEYWORDS: mcclintock; recall; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: billhilly
Amen. You're preachin' to the choir!
To: ambrose
I'm an out of state observer, but if I was a Californian I would have been leaning McClintock. After this I would be far more likely to vote for Schwarzeneger than previously.
To: Argus
Dirt Dump Day is always the Thursday before an election. If it's released after the 6pm news on Thursday, it gets lost in the weekend news cycle and doesn't have time for traction.
To: GSWarrior; ambrose
I'd be more curious to see who Freepers would prefer if this race was solely between Arnold and McClintock.Easy. Issa!
24
posted on
10/02/2003 3:28:00 PM PDT
by
NathanR
(California Si! Aztlan NO!)
To: South40
Bingo!
Give the man a cigar. He nailed it.
25
posted on
10/02/2003 3:29:45 PM PDT
by
Ronin
(When the fox gnaws -- smile!)
To: NathanR
I already voted, for Arnold, but would not change my vote if I could.
26
posted on
10/02/2003 3:30:05 PM PDT
by
merry10
To: ambrose
I stay the same- voting for Arnold.
This is the dems trying to get revenge on Arnold.
The voters and other people should consider the source...
To: Argus
Re#18. I too liked McClintock. Your looking at who the LA Times would hit is wise--they are desperate. Personally, I thought about the $$ and time I gave to Simon in the last election and the power of the Rats and the left in this fine state and knew Tom could not win and could not lead (witness Indian $$ to Tom--which sickens me--and the presstitutes saying how great Tom is-trying to divide with some success). Arnold will be a good leader and will surprise many naysayers. He has matured and will continue to grow. You will not be alone come voting time.
As to a landslide--it is most possible. Major Garrett of FOX talked to Tony Snow on Hannity and said the most recent Arnold internal polls showed him leading Cruz by 8 to 12% and the recall passing by 12 to 16%. I smiled.....
28
posted on
10/02/2003 3:34:55 PM PDT
by
eureka!
(Rats and Presstitutes lie--they have to in order to survive.....)
To: eureka!
As to a landslide--it is most possible. Major Garrett of FOX talked to Tony Snow on Hannity and said the most recent Arnold internal polls showed him leading Cruz by 8 to 12%It is actually somewhat amazing that he'd only be leading 8 to 12% considering that Bustamante has done no real campaigning for days now.
29
posted on
10/02/2003 3:37:21 PM PDT
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
I'm a member of the VRWC, practicing Pro-Life Catholic voting for Arnold! With the groping accusations we should get more Dems!!
30
posted on
10/02/2003 3:38:09 PM PDT
by
mo4bush
To: ambrose
Not when there is another big GOPer in the race and the RAT party is so dominant in the state....
31
posted on
10/02/2003 3:39:22 PM PDT
by
eureka!
(Rats and Presstitutes lie--they have to in order to survive.....)
To: ambrose
As a Rat attack, this one was pretty lame. These allegations have been out there for months, even before Arnold decided to get in. The difference is that we now have a couple of names.
This isn't going to change anyone's mind, except maybe to get him additional support. It's such an obvious election smear story. The Rats almost made it work against Dubya, but Arnold is immune to all this because he never tried to portray himself as having a morally pure past.
If he hadn't admitted to past drug use, or sexual exploits, and his support came substantially from the Religious Right, then this could have been damaging.
All this really looks like is a cheap attempt by the LA Slimes and Bob Muholland to poison the process. They're pathetic.
32
posted on
10/02/2003 3:40:17 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: ambrose
I sure haven't, but then about the only use to which I put the L.A. Times is to line my old dog's traveling crate with it. The dog is almost 14 and is incontinent.
33
posted on
10/02/2003 3:41:28 PM PDT
by
Wolfstar
(NO SECURITY = NO ECONOMY)
To: ambrose
On the other hand, the unaffiliated "independent" voters are a notoriously fickle lot. There are practically no undecided voters left in California. Zogby was on Hardball last night expressing his amazement at this fact.
I suppose a scandal could still theoretically change their minds, but Arnold told everyone this was coming from the very moment he announced his campaign. And once people decide to vote for someone, it usually takes a LOT to make them change their minds. I don't think "He grabbed my boobie"-gate is going to make very many people change their minds in any direction.
34
posted on
10/02/2003 3:41:34 PM PDT
by
Timesink
To: ambrose
I suspect that Tom McClintock would make a good governor, but since none of us have the power to appoint him to that job our only other option is to support someone who can win under the existing rules. Namely, a popular election. In a funny kind of way, this election is both a popular and an unpopular election.
To: merry10
It certainly has not changed my vote. This thing was so expected it was funney, even to what it would be about.
However that was not the question as given, and the answer was at least semi-serious. If only we had someone who had the best qualities of Tom and Arnold.
36
posted on
10/02/2003 3:42:24 PM PDT
by
NathanR
(California Si! Aztlan NO!)
To: Timesink
Has Zogby done any polling of his own, or was he just commenting on other polls?
Another factor to consider is all those already cast absentees. Grayout would have to do much more than simply "win on election day" to reverse the numbers on those already cast absentees.
37
posted on
10/02/2003 3:47:11 PM PDT
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
Has Zogby done any polling of his own, or was he just commenting on other polls?IIRC, he was just commenting. It was a panel discussion.
Another factor to consider is all those already cast absentees. Grayout would have to do much more than simply "win on election day" to reverse the numbers on those already cast absentees.
I agree 100% on that.
38
posted on
10/02/2003 3:59:12 PM PDT
by
Timesink
To: ambrose
Grayout would have to do much more
The LA Times will have another story tomorrow, it's virtually guaranteed. It's so laughable when they try that "no bias here" schtick. This stuff isn't "yellow journalism", this is urine journalism.
39
posted on
10/02/2003 4:04:21 PM PDT
by
JayNorth
To: ambrose
There were always rumors about this over the years, most of us heard them before. I liked how honest he was right away, not trying to beat around the bush, not denying that some was true, some not, apologizing etc. Don't get me wrong, I am against anybody being touched without their consent! But, I don't remember any other politician admitting to something like that until they got into serious trouble (Clinton hint).
I find it interesting how these allegations come out now..... My vote hasn't been affected.
40
posted on
10/02/2003 4:06:43 PM PDT
by
Mon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson