McClintock: 'In the race to the finish line'

CNN ^ | August 26, 2003 | CNN

[justa-hairyape]

Bustamante is going to have around 40%, much more than Arnold's 35% and McClintock's 10%.

Not likely IMHO. If the yes on recall wins, obviously the maximum no's are 49 %. Probably more like 40 % at best and 20 % at worse. Anyone who votes Yes on Recall will probably not vote for Bustamanti. Heck he is asking his own supporters to vote No on Recall and yes on him. There is no way that 100 % of the no on recall voters will vote for Bustamanti. Some wont vote and others may find someone on this loaded ballot to vote for. At best Bustamanti gets 30 %. Thats his maxima, unless of course the No on Recall wins and then of course its pointless. And then there is the Arnold factor. Arnolds maxima Is up around 40 %. He will be drawing some of those No on Recall voters. Expect a last minute major assault by the progressives on Arnold.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Bill Simon. And getting outspent 5-1 in the race. Bill Simon. Did I mention Bill Simon?"

Gee, on one hand I hear this - on the other I hear he even got more votes than Simon. It's never Tom's fault is it? If he got MORE votes than Simon, how was Simon his reason for losing?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Better than what I'm getting from TCL.

[Hildy]

I'll tell you what, If McClintock is ahead, Schwartzenegger should bow out and Vice Versa.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Why do you ask? :-D

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"BTW - does this mean that you have no examples of his ineptness? Hmmm..."

I say again. He got fewer votes than his opponent. Does anything else matter?

[Two-Bits]

Hey Girl, you are absolutely correct in your statements. I have found the following regarding the McClintock and Arnold debactle.

The majority of people backing McClintock on Free Republic have stated over and over excellent reasons why they back their Candidate. I have over the past asked honest and simple questions as to why I should vote for Arnold. The responses have been childish, mean, and ugly. There is never anyone who runs for office that I will agree with 100% but to vote for someone who may only believe in 10% of what I stand for will not get my vote whether he be a Republican, Democrat, or whatever.

.

We have seem enough damage done by Republicans in Name Only.

Arnold has proven to me thru his words where the majority of his stands are. 90% of what Arnold stands for I do not, hence he will not receive my vote at this time.

We have a candidate who is a true fiscal conversative (which has been proven) but also a conversative in his thinking.

People must vote their conscience. If anyone can vote for Arnold with a clear conscience then please do so but I too, will vote my conscience, it just will not be for Arnold.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Well, I like his attitude...

We have still got 42 days, six full weeks, until the election. And the momentum is all in my direction right now.

I like his attitude too. And he's a conservative Republican. Not a liberal RINO, like Rnold.

[cyncooper]

Are you under the false impression that nobody ever moves from state to state? Have you ever considered that some of us may move there someday, or have family there (we do) that we care about?

Really, this "it's not your state" nonsense is ridiculous.

[Registered]

Right on Hildy!

[Cathryn Crawford]

That is not proof of ineptness, TCL.

Now, why do you dislike McClintock so much?

[duckln]

It can and should be done. In a month from now, we can reassess the situation and decide what's best

Right on. Let's have the pro and cons discussed. Arnold and Bustamante are talking nonsense, McClintock is a 'consevative', and that's what Rush says is needed.

If in 4 weeks McC can't break through to the mush heads, then he may give it up. I hope he doesn't. If Bustamante wins because of Arnold, California next time around will go Republican in a landslide. IMO, Californians want Davis and the Democrats to change radically or leave, and neither Davis or Bustamante are doing either, and Arnold is doing a good imitation of both, ie a run of the mill 'tax' Democrat.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Would you like to give me a concrete example of his ineptness?"

History is pretty concrete and his history is he failed to get more votes than the person he ran against. I think that's one more example than you've given showing why you think he will win. Slowly I'm lowering my expectations. Hurry before I lose ALL hope in you.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I'm particularly fond of this one:

[Torie]

Let me help you with some of this. McClintock showed no ineptness in his campaign for Controller in 2002. Indeed, he got more votes than any other Pubbie, and lost by may on third of one percent, or 20,000 votes, despite being underfunded. Lower ballot statewide candidates that are not incumbents, or running against an incumbent, typically follow the vote patterns of the governor's race quite tightly in Califonia, and have since rocks cooled, because few know who they are.

The fact that McClintock ran even, while Simon lost 5%, says a lot about Tom. Indeed, the liberal San Francisco Chronicle supported him. Why? Because he was clearly the superior candidate on fiscal issues as compared to his Dem opponent, who kept yammering about social issues, and that is what the Controller's job is about. And that is what the governor's job is about in California at the present time. It isn't about gay rights, it isn't about transgendered males wearing dresses to work, it isn't about abortion, it isn't about drugs, it isn't about crime, it isn't even about driver's licenses for illegals. It is about SSSSSSSSSSSS.

[Rabid Dog]

Go to his website www.tommclintock.com and then click on his senate page. You will find answers to your questions. If you had been a little more polite earlier on the thread, I might be inclined to do the legwork for you. However, you are a newbie, you don't live in this state, you haven't been respectful, and the high expectations for discussion is a crock.

Furthermore, for a person who is Pro-Life and Pro-Guns, you sure have an ax to grind with Tom McClintock.

Some people here have the courage of their convictions. What sayeth you?

[w_over_w]

Because Will Rogers once said, "Arguing with a fool is like getting intimate with a drunk". Apropos? ;^)

[A CA Guy]

I know there is a debate the 17th, couple of days after that he has to know he can't win and McC has to have the class to leave and run another day.
If he doesn't go by the 19th, he will become McSpoiler forever!

[Cathryn Crawford]

Because Will Rogers once said, "Arguing with a fool is like getting intimate with a drunk". Apropos? ;^)

Yeah, I think it is. :-)

[Rabid Dog]

A hit bird flutters.