I think most states vote this way, when the issues are as clear cut as they were in these referendums. For example, where voters have clear choices between conservative judges and liberal judges, the conservatives win hands down.
To me, this clearness of conservative content is why Gingrich won so big in 1994. The Republicans lost that focus in later elections which is why things have been so rough. Even Bush wobbles, exactly like his father did. He was able to bring the Senate back into the fold (but just barely) only by his resorting to campaigning for certain congressmen with a clearly conservative message.
Conservatives, of either party, will vote for the politician who stands up for the major conservative issues. Here, as has already been posted several times, the real issue is the economy and how liberal policies and politicians have destroyed it.
The question is will McClintock run this kind of clear hard hitting campaign? If the Republicans can't settle on one candidate and go with a simple message, then they need to STFU and yield to Arnold. The damage has already been done by so many of them registering to run in the first place. As I understand it all the names remain on the ballot, even if someone drops out. Thus issues become secondary and name recognition (or glamour) takes over.
Under this scenario (weak conservative message) and with Republicans splitting away from A.S., then the illegal immigrant and hard line liberal vote has a strong chance of delivering the win to Bustamente. This is the reason the liberal media have made darlings of high visibility conservative pundits: their comments destablize support for Schwarzenegger.
I think the media, rightly or wrongly, view A.S. as the only real threat to Democrat retention of state politics. They have no care whether A.S. is a real conservative or not, but his candidacy frightens them. So they will publicize any willing tool they can find to achieve their goal.
They can be wrong, as they were in '94, but it takes a motivated conservative electorate to prove them wrong, as happened in '94.
The other thing which I think will help is the complexity of the ballot. Navigating a ballot with 195 names on it will take some language and alphabetic skills, which most illegal aliens and entiltlement babies don't have. It would have been simpler to ask each voter to write in his candidate's name. Give each voter a pencil (or crayons for Democrats etc.) and tablulate the results. It wouldn't even have required all the potential candidates to register! A much simpler method all the way around.
So what I'm saying is that the Republicans need to get behind one candidate and then for all of them to articulate a stong conservative message. "A contract with California", so to speak. The media wouldn't know which way to turn.
I believe he can, and does. Read this op-ed from Jan of how to fix our problem, and read these 4 aspects of his actual PLATFORM, which-for those of you Arhnold supporters reading this, that means specifics he has promised to do.
Yes, Tom is the real deal. Ironically he might win because of Ahrnold Buffet, who added so much buzz, then took it away by hiding. Tom is so articulate that he will step up to the plate any time he can, and is on talk radio every day. I finally saw him on the cable news channels a couple times this week. He needs more publicity, but the campaign is the clearest I've ever seen.
As for the second part, about the conservatives needing to STFU, I put forth a different concept. Ahnold may be the wrong guy at the wrong time. If he raises taxes, in the position we're in, it may destroy us. Why would he do that, well we've postponed under Davis the deficit illegally using Bonds to float the debt. Well, do you honestly link the Marxist Legislature is going to do this Republican, conservative or friendly RINO, any favors! Of course not, and that's what the apologists for Ahnold Shriver-Bloomberg can't grasp. We have 1 year to make massive spending cuts, or we will be intentionally defaulting on our loans so as to pin the blame on the GOP. Ahrnold isn't up to the task because he's a consensus builder.
Maybe in 2006 in a sound economy that is the perfect thing for the GOP, but teetering on the edge of a knife, it honestly might be better for the sake of the Party if "N-Word" Bustamante tried to lead than it would any moderate with an 'R' in their name.
Yes. More than anything, there needs to be a clear program.