Laughable ignorance? Chill out, man. We're all on the same team.
Go back to PoliSci 101 - If you don't own a majority and your opponent is on the far side of the spectrum, in this case liberal, you should run a moderate. That's all I'm saying.
I prefer conservatives. McClintock would have been a great governor but he would not have won.
As far as the Boxer seat, the WH did not give a shite about Fong. They would have about Marin.
Well, I'm sorry if I was a little rough, but I've been making the same argument for years. Even if you're genuinely sincere, you're still missing the mark.
"Go back to PoliSci 101 - If you don't own a majority and your opponent is on the far side of the spectrum, in this case liberal, you should run a moderate. That's all I'm saying."
And it sounds good on paper, but I could teach a course on PoliSci myself, and disprove the theory. I probably do it on here upwards of a dozen times a week. It doesn't work... mind you, it SHOULD because it sounds "reasonable", but yet, it doesn't. The next step is to try to figure out why that is the case. One big problem with "moderate" candidates, is that they can't draw contrasts, they aren't dynamic, and aren't particularly inspiring. The kinds of dynamic candidates we need don't often run, sometimes its because the party is too timid to run them... and if they do run, they actively undermine them. McClintock has been a prime example of that in CA. If the party weren't so scared of REAL leaders, McClintock would now be closing out his 2nd term -- as Governor. Sometimes, they'd just simply prefer to let the Democrat extremists have at these offices, it's crazy. And it doesn't just happen in California.
"As far as the Boxer seat, the WH did not give a shite about Fong."
Why would the WH have cared about Fong ? He ran in '98, Clinton was still there then.
"They would have about Marin."
Because the WH gets involved in a contest and coronates someone guarantees nothing. They pulled that stunt in Colorado and lost a safe Senate seat with Coors. They ALMOST cost us a seat in Oklahoma with the OK City Mayor who would surely have lost had he been the nominee. I might remind you that some of us actually were intrigued by a Marin candidacy and took a good long look at her, but after finding out about her, her positions, and seeing her, we soon realized she wasn't going to be winning anything... especially not against a megalomaniacal evil incumbent like Boxer. It'll take a very special candidate to take her down, someone who is ruthless and unafraid... and, yes, Conservative. A Milquetoast Moderate won't ever be able to vanquish Boxer when a debate would include nothing but "I agree's" coming from the "Republican" candidate in an attempt not to appear "extremist" and "divisive", when it is Boxer who needs to be clearly defined by our candidate as such. The best candidate we put up against her was Bruce Herschensohn 14 years ago, and he would likely have won -- but Boxer was schooled in the vicious Phil & John Burton "destroy your opponent at all costs" method, and she did just that (yet, Bruce still nearly pulled it out). Like I said, when we grow up and run a candidate willing to beat the crap out of this evil bitch, we'll take the seat back. Nice guys don't finish first when they run against the Boxers of this world... neither do nice girls. But the party hasn't learned that yet. Not against Boxer, and not against Feinstein.