Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alia
I'm going to repeat myself here, with one of the fact sets I used with those who argued that moderates are more electable in California.

Candidate Votes Pct.  Spent ($MM)
Steve Westly Moderate Democrat 45.4 $10.6
Tom McClintock Conservative Republican   45.1 $2.0
 
Result? The conservative got no support from the GOP,
was outspent 5:1 by a moderate Democrat,
and nearly won anyway.
 
Candidate Votes Vote Pct.  Spent ($MM)
Cruz M. Bustamante Leftist Democrat 49.5 $4.6
Bruce Mc Pherson Moderate Republican 41.8 $2.8
 
Result? The “moderate” Republican darling of the GOP got lots of support,
was outspent only 1.6:1 by an extreme leftist with no credibility,
the "electable" GOP "moderate" LOST by a margin NINE TIMES larger than the unsupported conservative in the same election.

Sources: vote2002.ss.ca.gov
SOS Campaign Finance Page

So much for "moderates are more electable in California."

Consider Bill Jones recent campaign. Virtually all of the funds raised and ALL of the organizational effort in California last year went to the Bush campaign. Once a pro-life Jones with a record of a statewide victory as SOS beat conservative Howard Kaloogian in the primary, he took the expected dive in the general election getting zero support from the CAGOP, IMO, voluntarily.

The behavior of GOP "moderates" during the Simon campaign is the principal reason I have so little patience for Arnold supporters when they demand I support him. They put up Riordan, lost, screwed a conservative in Bill Simon, lost, resisted the recall petition drive, lost, and then inserted their "centrist" excuse for a Republican telling us to support him while accusing conservatives of splitting the vote! They were perfectly happy to keep Gray Davis until conservatives succeeded in the petition drive despite them and then get crappy when we don't fall in line behind them.

So, let's say conservatives supported Arnold. Would the GOP leadership EVER support another conservative candidate if we did? The record says, no way. They'll expect us to keep giving them money, keep doing the legwork, and keep accepting the consequences for their "social liberalism," which ends up costing the State a fortune and manufactures ever more Democrat dependents... for what?

74 posted on 07/03/2005 7:29:15 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson