That’s fine and dandy, but if he or she is a conservative Republican running one-on-one against a liberal Democrat in November 2016 in California, he or she will have very slight odds of winning.
Obama got over 60% of the vote in CA in each of 2008 and 2012, and during the past six presidential elections the smallest victory margin for the Democrat in CA was when Kerry beat Bush by “only” 10%. And as for U.S. Senate elections in CA, the smallest victory margin for Boxer or Feinstein during the past 6 Senate elections was “only” 10% as well, in both 1998 (Boxer over Fong) and 2010 (Boxer over Fiorina)—and in presidential election years during the past two decades, the winning percentages for California Democrat U.S. Senate candidates have been 19% in 2000, 20% in 2004 and 25% in 2012.
And, unlike in elections prior to 2012, the Republican nominee won’t have the benefit of having third-party liberal candidates (from the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom Party) taking votes away from the liberal Democrat, since it would be a one-on-one general election. That’s why we need two—and only two—Republicans to run.
So if “we” have already selected a person to run for the Senate in 2016, may I suggest that you consider finding a second person to run as well. If the person whom you’re trying to convince to run takes into account his or her odds of winning when analyzing whether to take the plunge, knowing that there would be a decent chance that the general would be against another Republican instead of against a Democrat actually might help you convince him or her to run.
On the other hand, we have 10-12 million Californians working in the private sector.
No, California is lost for at least a generation.