Posted on 09/05/2003 3:07:48 PM PDT by SierraWasp
Poll Names McClintock as Winner of the Debate
State Senator Tom McClintock came out on top in a poll that gauged public reaction to Wednesday's candidate debate.
A News10/SurveyUSA poll found that 30 percent of California voters felt McClintock won the debate. Twenty-two percent of those questioned said Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was number one, while 12 percent named Peter Ueberroth as the winner. Arianna Huffington was favored by nine percent of those surveyed, while three percent said Peter Camejo won.
As evidence that the election is still very much up for grabs, the survey found 24 percent of voters either undecided about the winner of the debate or with no favorite.
The poll showed that Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to skip the debate may have been costly. Fifty-five percent of voters felt it was the wrong thing to do, while 37 percent approved of the actor's absence. Eight percent had no opinion.
According to the survey, Gov. Gray Davis' half-hour appearance prior to the debate may not have improved his chances of avoiding recall. About a third of those surveyed, 36 percent, said the question-and-answer session caused their opinion of Davis to fall. Seventeen percent came away from the telecast with a better impression of the governor, while 46 percent said their opinion was unchanged.
,
The poll questioned 1,444 registered California voters in the hours immediately following the debate. Margin of error for the survey is %.1 percent.
Story last updated Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 5:38 PM
This is exactly what happened in Jersey City, New Jersey, a few years ago, when Bret Schundler was elected mayor with something like 17% of the vote just because he was the only Republican in an open election (to replace a mayor who went to prison, if I remember correctly). It was great to see a Republican win like that in a Democratic stronghold, but it was a very unusual quirk of the system nonetheless.
It's hard to avoid this kind of scenario under California's recall election rules, but each major party can exercise a certain amount of control over their potential candidates. In this election, I've got a couple of major points to make:
1. Bill Simon should never have bothered entering the race in the first place. Out of all the candidates, he's the one guy who had a chance to beat Davis already -- and he didn't succeed. If the GOP ran a single candidate in this recall, and that candidate was Simon, he would have lost again.
2. The California state Republican Party should sit down with each of the "major" GOP candidates (Arnold, McClintock, and Ueberroth) and lay down one very clear rule: Any candidate among you who stays in the race and loses to Bustamante will never get the GOP's support to run for office in California again.
With this second point in place, I think two things would happen: McClintock would decide if his "conservative principles" in this election are more important than his political career, and Arnold would make up his mind very quickly about whether he is serious about running, winning, and governing effectively.
I can understand why principled people make a firm stand in cases like this, but as someone who lives in a heavily Democratic state I understand what it's like for a truly conservative candidate to have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If McClintock couldn't win this race even if he were the only Republican candidate (and it looks this way), he ought to get out as quickly as possible and stop his little Ross Perot game.
That's exactly my point. If Simon who is a conservative couldn't win before, McClintock doesn't have much of a chance either.
At least Arnold can run as a political outsider -- his lack of political experience actually works in his favor in a recall race like this.
And I'll go one step further . . .
In a recall election involving a thoroughly unpopular governor in a state that is in the toilet economically, the ideal candidate to replace him is the following:
1. Someone who is not known as a politician -- because politicians created the mess in the first place.
2. Someone who has instant name recognition -- because there isn't much time to campaign.
3. Someone who smiles alot and speaks English with a "trademark" accent -- because anyone he runs against will always look like a sleazy, smooth-talking politician in comparison.
August 07, 2003
Now we've got a horse race
Now that Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced he's running for governor we've got a serious contest going, which only happens in California when pop culture and politics are fully overlapped. Arnie's being in the race means that people will get excited over it, feeling like they now have to take a position on his candidacy one way or another instead of going on ignoring politics as we obsess over the latest movie release, whether SPF-20 really makes you safe, and whether botox is really worth the bother. We live in a world of trivia and pop, and only care about politics when it comes into this world.
While he's never held office, Arnie's clearly been planning a run for many years, maybe as long as he's been married to Maria Shriver. He's got his own set of consultants already, enough money to finance his own campaign (if he needs to) and a good, positive, and well-informed message: "Gray sold California to the special interests (read: unions) and I'm here to take it back. I don't care what you do in your private life, and I don't want to impose my values on you. I want a state government that works and doesn't break the backs of the average taxpaying citizen, and a society that offers opportunity and hope as it did to me as a humble but legal immigrant." Echoes of "shining city on a hill".
The best outcome from all this would be a whole generation of Californians getting turned-on to politics, at least a little. Increased awareness of what goes on in Sacramento automatically translates into more rational politics, mainly because it couldn't get any worse. LINK
PRince Ambrose is correct and you are wrong...
SURVEYUSA WAS THE 2nd most RELIABLE POLL IN 2002.....just tiny off from MAson Dixon.........\
ZOGABBY............. was the worst pollester of 2002 and contines his CRAP in 2003
No, Tom's not perfect and his support of Prop 215 which is turning out to be a scheme to skirt the law in my community and turn it into an aging Hippy retirement/drug/welfare culture along with his little visit with the Gaming Indians at the same time as Bustamante are a concern to me.
But I can find things I dislike about each and everyone of the flock of candidates, so I still "can't git no satisfaction!" I certainly know which one I feel I can trust the most to do the most right things!!!
Of course no one of us ever finds a candidate who is perfect (unless one happens to be the candidate!) So, as you say, we have to pick a candidate we can trust.
I'd prefer a candidate who has the leadership skills to get most of his programs through instead of one who agreed with me more, but couldn't accomplish much.
We all have to prioritize, because none of us are ever going to have everything the way we want it. I'd rather have 50% of what I want than 0% of it.
So, when will it not be a silly debate??
When Gary Coleman shows up?
I think he should have showed up to at least show he has command if not at least some familiarity with the issues.
I think McClintock kicked butt on it and Arnold is looking more like an empty suit every day. His staged appearances and inability to handle tough questions off the cut (e.g. in the debate) show that he's 98% image.
You make good comments and arguments, however, this one is so presumptive, prejudicial and persists in worshipping an ill prepared celebrity (as opposed to Reagan) to a mystical level. I know it's what you "believe" but I don't so don't try to evangelize me that way.
Pragmatism and expediency is not something I value in either public policy or a public official. Now, I'm not going to use rhetoric (persuasive speech) on you, but I wish you'd be a little more objective and at least wait and see what happens on the 9/24 debate and the polling that follows that.
Meanwhile, I'm not willing to choose leadership that doesn't even know where the restrooms or cloakrooms are in CA's Crapitol, until I have NO other choice!!! No one has convinced me yet that Diane Feinstein and others such as a veritable army of union activists, isn't able to "turn it around" for Davis, making all this "discontent" here on FR absolutely mute!!!
You and I agree on this one. The clintons are working with davis. You can hear it in his recent speeches. They sound like they were written by bill.
And I have little doubt about where all of the stories about Arnold's 1970's body building career are coming from.
Yes, and ALL the Demonicrats, including EVERY despicable leftist/socialist among 'em KNOW that this is the best way to demoralize and demonize conservatives of EVERY stripe!!!
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.