Bustamante Leads Schwarznegger in Recall Race [McClintock gettng 21% of GOP Votes]

LA Times (Registration Required) ^ | August 24, 2003 | staff writer

[prarie earth]

Much of (Arnolds) strategy is based on cross over appeal to non-Republican voters given his comparitvely moderate views on issues such as gun control, abortion and gay rights.

But less than two weeks into his first run for elected office, Schwarznegger has already become a politically polarizing figure.

Roughly seven in ten Democratic voters have an unfavorable impression of the action-movie star, while the same number of likely Republican voters expressed a favorable view.

The actor won the support of 39% of likely Republican voters, 20% of Independents, and 7% of Democrats polled.

McClintock recieved 21% of the Republican vote, Simon recieved 12% and Uberroth 10%.

[RS]

Can't buy a clue? Here's one: don't bother posting to me. Don't ping me. Don't send me FReepmail. I hold you in utter contempt. You don't exist.


I don't know who you are, this post is only because you mentioned me, in 5 years I have never "pinged" anyone, and I really don't give a shit what you think of me

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Wow, you read everything else and this is what you post on, and in such a pleasant manner, so typical of you (R)nold disuptors. haha

Boxer won by a 10-point margin over Matt Fong in '98

You are 100% correct. 4.4 mil to 3.5, although to be fair Matt Fung barely beat an unknown Darrel Issa in the primary and wasn't our best candidate, but 10% is 10% and I shouldn't have said it was close. I don't remember who I heard say that, but I should have confirmed it. Thank you for being there to help me out, my unemployed Texas buddie. Keep reading about the recall.

[strela]

Your apology is accepted. Do better next time.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Your apology is accepted. Do better next time.

I better! ;-)

[Robert_Paulson2]

Jumping in...
a characteristic of the "red meat" lovers around here.

I like mine with garlic... and rare.

[Owen]

Very well. And you neglected to address the state govt/legislature. So lets sum it up:

You assert California is a conservative state just yearning for a real conservative to vote for. As evidence of this you point at some ballot initiatives that you say are entirely conservative (though a later poster claimed they were worded in a manner that attracted attention from liberals too).

You choose to discount the evidence contrary to your position -- namely that the state has two Democrat senators, a predominantly Democrat US House delegation (and you use as evidence to discount that item the fact that TX has a majority Dem House delegation), a Dem governor and a majority Dem State legislature.

I think an impartial observer would weigh all this data and conclude a position in support of my original questions to McClintock supporters.

1. Is California a liberal state?

2. Is McClintock a conservative?

3. Given that 1 and 2 are true, how can he win?

Why is not half a loaf (Schwarzenegger could be relied on not to use the governor's prerogatives to aid the Dem presidential candidate next year) better than none?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You assert California is a conservative state just yearning for a real conservative to vote for. As evidence of this you point at some ballot initiatives that you say are entirely conservative

But not the votes, you simply don't vote for "antiGay" ballot initiatives and sneak that by people with the media against it-word to the wise, doesn't happen!

I'm insulted that you are back to your ad hominems after all I said-talk about neglecting, that is EXACTLY what you did.

I got a better question for you, do you honestly expect me to believe that the same conservatives, whether we agree they are the majority or not, will be turning out to vote for AS? I've at least established to you that they are sizeable, whether the "triangulation minions" on here choose to post but don't have the b@lls to address me directly or not. Get real. The good people in the "flyover counties" won't vote, like usual, for a pro-gay, pro abortion, possibly tax and spend Kennedy Republican. Now, try to follow this and think real hard this time; if they vote, but not for the RINO, but yes in #1-if their numbers don't outweigh AS, he wins.

What is all the whining about? Think it through, they aren't voting for him anyways, but its nice to cancel out all the no on recall, yes on racist vote. If you're guy really is the great GOP hope, (with negativity numbers he already has, and the CA papers today splashing that his Dad was a stormtrooper its only gonna get worse)he wins a close one.

[RS]

"Why don't you just run a Democrat if you're only trying to get the most votes above everything else? "

Gee- Democrats get the most votes ? Democracy works?
California is NOT a conservative state ?

Who would have thunk it ?

[Owen]

Well, of course you are right. If conservatives do not turn out to vote, there is no chance of defeating a Democrat. But how is that relevant? How many liberals in California are staying home because Gray Davis or Bustamunte are not liberal enough?

The issue is the question: Is California a liberal state? The evidence leans strongly in that direction. Given that it is, why would one expect a conservative to win?

It's not a matter of policy or triangulation or even philosophy. It's a matter of numbers. California liberals and moderates in total outnumber conservatives. Period.

You can't have what you want. No one likes to be told that, but because one does not like it does not mean it cannot be true. You can't have what you want. The best you can do is get something less disliked than alternatives. That is the way it is. That is generally the way it always is. The best you can do in California is someone who is not conservative, but is less liberal than the alternative.

Staying home is equivalent to awarding the Democrats a victory. Always.

Mathematics does not care if you punch a chad vigorously with enthusiasm or punch it reluctantly with no joy. There is nothing new under the sun here. Folks can make themselves feel good or take a selfless position that is for the greater good.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Of course, they LA Times is only publishing this information now that Davis is so far behind.....

But they didn't publish ANY polls until Bustamonte took the lead. Didn't make headlines when Davis was losing..... Or when (any) republican was leading.

Then, as soon as Bustamonte took the lead, then, they publish headlines.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Staying home is equivalent to awarding the Democrats a victory. Always.

Owen, you are trying to tell me that I am only talking about what I want, then you throw this out! Get real, I know that. But you are the one not dealing with reality, they have stayed home, and will continue to do so. That is the reality, not what they should or shouldn't do. Specifically for some "Hollywood phonie" is the the talk in the desert, he WILL NOT GET THEIR VOTE. I know that is difficult, if just the conservatives would vote, gosh darn it, but THEY WON'T. You have to deal with the situation at hand.

More importantly, while Shriver-Kennedy is merely getting 7% of the Democrate vote according to the polls (which is how he is supposed to win, remember how the story goes) along with an astounding 44% negativity rating, in an election with so many undecided, you better be pushing for a real conservative on the ballot if you don't want Davis to survive.

More importantly, you just don't get that REAL conservatism appeals to liberals. Why? How did Reagan win? More importantly, this McClintock that we aren't speaking directly of anymore was up for reelection in my district. My district (suburban LA)voted overwhelmingly for Algore (speaking of high negativity ratings) against Bush. Those same voters reelected "too conservative" Tom McClintock! How in the world did that happen? Well Tom isn't like a Sean Hannity blaring about the evil Demos and the holy GOP. He isn't doing anything but explaining exactly what he believes and why he will do it. Liberal or conservative, Demo or Republican, human beings yearn for that, whether they totally agree or not, they want a man leading them. Reagan won after the most negative 5 years of press coverage ever orchestrated by the then unchallenged liberal media, yet he won in one of the biggest landslides in United States history. Against a guy with no skeletons and the biggest minority ever, a woman VP. Impossible say the "experts" he must fool em into voting more.

Hear me now and undestand me later, conservatism matters. We have the ultimate trump card, if we are honest, have spirit, and can explain it, we beat everyone...only because we are right.

Have a little backbone in the face of all these "liberal" Californians. After all, that same ideologue won in the same "liberal" state during the "liberal" decade of the 1960s.

[Owen]

These past conservative triumphs in California were accomplished with what percentage of the populace liberal leaning Hispanics? To what extent have demographics changed in California in the past 20 years?

Are all the opponents to the current state legislators inadequately conservative, causing this alleged state majority of conservative voters to stay home and the perpetual election of liberals? Did these conservative voters approve of the result?

It's my understanding that the Schwarzenegger scenario is not support from the 7% of Democrats but from Independents and moderates, which if added to conservatives would yield victory. As for the desert not voting for him (no one should vote for him, they must vote against the opponent), what is the population mathematics breakdown of the state? Do more live in the desert or in the cities and suburbs?

You say the conservatives WON'T vote for him. You claim the liberals will vote for McClintock. I can't see why the second sentence is more likely than the first. More importantly, I can't see why it *should* be more likely than the first. Why would conservatives be more reluctant to vote for a moderate than liberals would be to vote for a conservative?