Posted on 11/04/2010 6:35:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
At his post-victory news conference Wednesday morning, Governor elect Jerry Brown showed why he won the election with a million votes to spare. He's steeped in the issues, he listens to what is happening on the ground, and he's not afraid to mix it up.
Now, I don't agree with Brown on a number of issues. But in the course of the campaign, I rarely got the feeling that Meg Whitman was listening to anyone other than her consultants or that she was even curious. California needs a strong governor; Whitman showed them a wind-up doll.
Worse, the former eBay CEO spent most of the campaign ducking. She often ducked reporters' questions. She ducked all but one primary debate. She ducked her responsibility to look beyond the spreadsheet.
Now it may be that if Whitman had run a great campaign, she would have lost anyway. California is a solidly Democratic state. Voters here rejected the red wave that washed over other states, and it is possible that anti-tea party sentiment buoyed the Democrats to victory.
(I thought Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina ran a much better race than Whitman, yet Fiorina garnered a mere 67,000 more votes than Whitman -- and also lost big.)
We'll never know what would have happened if Whitman ran a great campaign because she didn't. Whitman's profligacy in pouring $141 million of her own money undercut her claim that she would be a cost-cutter. (When Whitman conceded the governor's race, she looked as if she were going to cry. I'd be bawling like a baby if I had spent $140 million to get trounced as soundly as she was.)
In September, Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo told The San Francisco Chronicle, "People were toying with the idea of voting for Whitman." Some Republicans will blame the Nicky Diaz Santillan story for Whitman's demise. But I think that by the time voters learned that Whitman had hired and fired an illegal immigrant housekeeper, they already had decided there was no "there there."
I don't see a way out for the California Republican Party.
"The party depended on Meg," Abel Maldonado, who lost his bid to hold onto the lieutenant governorship, told me. "There's no secret. The party's in a wheelchair and we have a respirator on it."
Whitman was rich, and for reasons unknown, she thought she would be a swell candidate for governor.
Republicans in the fellow big-shot club decided to throw raised buds in her path. They didn't care about her spotty voting record, history of donating to Democrats or the fact that she'd never run for anything. They saw themselves as big-picture people.
Consultants queued up with their hands out, proffering money-sucking strategies. Whether Whitman won or lost, they'd be cashing big checks through November. With all their clout behind her, Whitman essentially had won the GOP primary before a single vote was cast.
You watch. In four years, the folks behind Whitman Inc. will find another rich sucker who just discovered politics and wants to make a big-splash career move. And they won't care if that candidate is a drag on the ticket because they'll have got theirs.
True, they one the battle for the scramble to the center. But if Whtman and Fiorina had run as conservatives, at least they would be ready to reap the benifits of their future opponents failures which are sure to come.O’donell will do that. Wh\itman and Fiorina cannot. They are history.
This fight cannot be one in just one election cycle, it is a long battle.Ronald eagan showed us this, and now it must be done again, just as he did in California.
It doesn’t matter how much Jerry listens, he will just make matters worse.
Your own experience???
Ever campaign in the ‘hood?
Ever campaign at a union hall?
Ever campaign at an anti-war march?
Probably not. When you can prove that you did that and managed to convince a bunch of people why voting conservative is better than liberal then please feel free to chime in.
When voters are given the choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, they’ll pick the Democrat every time.
Haven't the last few elections convinced you that it is a waste of resources running against California RATS? The electorate there is not in tune with Republican values? Leave them be.
And yes, I realize that Arnold won but do you really think of him as a Republican? I don't.
I would be happy to.
Paul LePage, Governor-Elect of Maine
Pat Toomey, U.S. Senator-Elect from Pennsyvania
Don Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island
All solid conservatives, backed by tea-party groups in the primary. Want some more examples?
>> Try running liberals in deep Red states and see what happens. <<
"Deep red state" means communist to me, but I assume you're using mainstream-media speak for a liberal running in heavily Republican state. The Democrats do that all the time, they don't shoot themselves in the foot like the GOP and run a bunch of DINOs who sound like Jesse Helms in those states. That's how they got a majority in 2006 and 2008, by electing commies in states like Indiana. Need some examples?
Kathleen Selibus, ultra-liberal Governor of Kansas
Kent Conrad, ultra-liberal U.S. Senator from North Dakota
Jay Rockefeller, ultra-liberal U.S. Senator from West Virgina
Have I made my point? There is ZERO evidence that RINOs are "more electable" in majority-RAT states. Those who agree with the RATs agenda will just vote for the real RAT, not the RAT-lite candidate. You can look at states like Illinois or California over the last 20 years and you'll notice the conservative nominees did as good, or more often, BETTER than the RINO candidates when they ran for the same office. Most voters don't even base their vote around where the candidates stand on the issues. They should, and I research my candidates and vote based on the issues, but many voters just choose whoever sounds the nicest on TV.
The usual spinmeisters are blaming Bill Brady's loss for Governor here in Illinois around the idea that he was "too conservative", instead of the fact there will thousands of illegally cast ballots for Pat Quinn in Crook County. Look at the numbers. The "scary conservative" Bill Brady got 1,702,000 votes for Governor. The nice tolerant moderate, Mark Kirk, who "appealed to suburban women" got 1,653,000 votes for the U.S. Senate. The scary conservative got about 200,000 MORE votes in Illinois than the RINO got. He would have won if it weren't for vote fraud.
Plenty of socialists have won in lopsided GOP states, plenty of conservatives have won in overwhemingly Dem states. Facts are facts.
You forgot my state of Connecticut... :-(
You have not proven anything. Toomey was elected by a very slim margin and turnout in Philly was low. That’s not to say that PA is deep Blue state though. Liberal Lincoln Chafee is Gov. Elect of RI.
In 2006 the Dems ran candidates who sold themselves as more conservative in Red districts and won. If they ran as leftists then they likely don’t take those seats. If anything that shows that you have to tun candidates that reflect the composition of the voters that are likely to vote.
Sorry, but that is just wrong. You are blaming McClintock's loss on conservatism instead of where the blame lied -- with the State GOP who gave him exactly ZERO support. Let's take the State Controller race. I will steal from a prior analysis and post from Carry_Okie:
CONTROLLER Votes Pct. Spent ($MM) Steve Westly Moderate Dem 45.4 $10.6 Tom McClintock Conservative Rep 45.1 $2.0 Result? The conservative got NO support from the GOP, was outspent 5:1 by a moderate Democrat, and nearly won anyway. SECRETARY OF STATE Votes Pct. Spent ($MM) Cruz M. Bustamante Leftist Dem 49.5 $4.6 Bruce Mc Pherson Moderate Rep 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, and the "electable" GOP "moderate" LOST by a margin NINE TIMES larger than the unsupported conservative in the same election.
Imagine what could happen if we got rid of the SOBs in the State Party that only recruit and back liberals(R).
BUMP!
One day, they’ll get it. Or, maybe not. ;-)
The composition of voters is not static but dependent on the candidate. Meg Whitman types cause volatility in that factor because having two liberals to choose from does not motivate conservatives to vote. When 40% of registered voters stay home, what does that tell you? Conservatives want someone to vote FOR.
Meg is a seriously rich lady that held some appeal to the country clubbers but for average folks that wasn’t going to get it done.
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.