[BenW]

A few threads have popped up around here about the two major political parties not representing their voters. The story I linked to below is a prime example. What the Calif. GOP strategist says about Republicans wanting Tom McClintock to basically "get out of the way" is simply astounding and shows just how out of touch California Republican leadership is with California Republican voters.

I was going to wait until the end of the week to send in my absentee ballot just in the slim case that McClintock might have dropped out at the last minute (so as not to cast my vote on a no longer running candidate). After reading this story, the last straw on my camel broke. I just dropped my ballot with my McClintock vote in the mailbox.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98536,00.html

[Gray Peterson]

Given current polling numbers, Arnold is way ahead of Bustamente. As long as the recall is successful, it's likely Arnie's a shoo in.

[GW]

Polls are like statistics--You can bend them to say anything you want.
Although I do like the ones that say Davis will be recalled and Bustamante will lose.

[El Rojo]

If Arnold makes it into office, I don't think you can claim that the Republican party leaders are idiots. You might not agree with the candidate they are advocating for and you might think he isn't too far off of the left; however, the fact that he gets electing in a special recall election in a heavily liberal state with any sort of his votes reaching 40%, I hardly call that stupid leadership. Yeah Arnold is not my first choice, but hey, anything is better than what we have now or Bustermante. And you can talk all of the principle and whatever else you want, but in this state it comes down to reality. There are more idiot liberals here than good common sensed conservatives that know that it is better to spend your own money and not "donate" it back to the state and that it is a good thing to have more guns than house hold knives. McClintock is not really electable, Arnold is. I was completely happy with todays poll numbers and even more happy they came from a CNN/Gallop poll.

[GW]

Is "electable" what you want? Or someone who will defend your rights?
Compromise and voting for the lesser of 2 evils is how we got into this sorry mess our state has become.
What if, for a change, we all vote for who we believe to be the BEST man?
If you believe Arnold stands for what you believe in, if you REALLY believe that, then by all means vote for him. If, however, you think McClintock is the better man, but choose to vote for Arnold because he has the better chance of winning, then you are betraying yourself and your values.
"Electable" or not, I'll vote McClintock
Be true to what you believe in.

[Chaingun]

The Repubs lost the last election to Davis, they can't loose this one. They are backing the Repub most likely to win. Talk about idiots, what if neither of the Repubs' canidates wins, that's just plain stupid.

I plan to vote for McClintock, but would have voted for Arnold if BustaMeCHE was leading in the polls.

[WvaBill]

In 6 Presidential and Gubenatorial elections, I have voted with the majority in my state exactly once. I usually vote for either a Republican or Libertarian in a Yellow Dog Democrat State. I don't even get a decent chance to vote for a primary candidate with a chance due to Cloosed primaries.

We get stuck with Robert "Send the Federal Money To WV" Byrd. And who can forget Sen. Rockefeller...ban sales of assalt weapons, but I will keep mine because it is a treasured gift. A politician buying votes with tax money and one who inherited all his money without an honest job...from Peace Corps to Government office. Neither have ever gotten my vote.

Tell me about electability>

[El Rojo]

If you vote for McClintock with the clear understanding that your vote will split the party and elect a democrat, how can you justify you are voting your principle? Is your principle that you want the democrat to win? How can any vote that is for a candidate that you clearly know can't win equal a good vote? Especially if you could vote for a better than the other guy candidate?

I respect voting your principle. However, the world is not black and white. It is gray. If you know your vote will help the other side, you are not really voting any different than voting for the liberal.

In this race, it looks like you can all vote for McClintock and Arnold might still get in. When it is all said and done, winner takes all. There is no second place or points for having 15-20% of the vote. Gray or Bustermante stay in, we are royally screwed. Arnold gets in, we have some room to work with. McClintock gets in, we are looking really good. Now think about the make up of this state. Largely liberal. Even though no one liked Grey Davis, he still won! When faced with a conservative vs. horrible liberal that squandered away our money, they still chose the liberal!!! Does anyone think that they are going to pass up Davis again or pass up a latino Bustermante to vote for McClintock? Do you think the moderates that mainly vote based upon what the media tells them or whatever looks cool are going to take the serious and intellectual McClintock seriously when compared to the "hipper" Arnold?

If there were ever a time to just vote your "principle" this might be it. We can probably afford to here. However, to say you are voting your principle or that it is "the right thing" when you know that your vote will be taking away a vote for the most likely to win bettter of the two and pretty much insuring that the worst possible candidate wins, I hardly find that "voting your conscience" I call that voting for the liberal and a waste of a vote. If you truly believe that McClintock can win and that he has a chance, go for it. I respect that. If you know your vote is going to split the party and put a dem back in office, I don't know how you can call that "doing the right thing".

[riverdog]

When polls say that Arnold has 40% of the vote, Busta has 25% and McC has 18%, that is a Then poll compared to a Now election. I will vote for whichever Republican has the best chance to remove the Democrats from the Governor's office. It doesn't matter because either Schwarzenegger or McClintock is better than Davis or Bust.

Squandering a chance to remove the Democrats from office by voting "principle" is foolish. For a career politician like McClintock to split the vote and play the spoiler is arrogant and selfish -- just like Perot in '92. The writing is on the wall and he won't read it.

I'm voting for Schwarzenegger because he can win and at least get California back to the middle. You can hope for McClintock 'til the cows come home ...

[jimpeel]

McClintock stays in; Davis stays in. Vote is split and Bustamante becomes governor.

McClintock bails, Davis abdicates. Election is cancelled and Bustamante becomes governor.

[tcdrennen]

McClintock bails, Davis abdicates. Election is cancelled and Bustamante becomes governor.
Not so- if Doofus resigns, Boostyertaxes becomes Gov. UNTIL OCTOBER 7. The election still goes on, though the Recall question becomes moot; Cruzify-us would have to win to remain Gov.

[Jim March]

The question is, what do you want to happen, and how does that correspond to what's possible?

No matter which way you vote, you increase the odds of a particular result happening. To pretend otherwise is willful blindness.

BUT: if you can't get a tolerable (by your standards) result at all, then it's still worth voting to achieve a "secondary goal": convince the politicians that a "pro-freedom vote" exists.

Normally, you do that (making the best of a bad situation) by voting Libertarian. In this case, a vote for McClintock *might* be read that way.

But unfortunately, since McClintock is the only "pro-lifer" among the top runners, your vote for him will most likely be interpreted as coming from the hardcore religious right perspective.

That's why McClintock isn't likely to get MY vote.

Listen: McClintock knows that even if elected governor, he's not going to be able to ban abortion. The courts and legislature won't allow it. So his stance has NO practical value other than to alienate a large number of voters.

He *knows* that. He chose to do that regardless. That's his choice, I respect it, and if he had any shot at the office I'd support him getting in.

He made the choice that will prevent him from winning, and any truly basic polling told him that.

So I can't even use him as a protest vote, because my "protest" is likely to be misread as coming from a hardcore religious perspective, which I'm anything but. I'm more attuned to the "keep your filthy nose out of my bedroom/gun stash/doctor's office/HOME, ya sumbich politician" direction...

:scrutiny:

I won't ever trust anybody who wants to stick their nose where it don't belong.

[4570Rick]

I won't ever trust anybody who wants to stick their nose where it don't belong.




Me 1967...Groovy man

Me 1977...Right on man

Me 1987...Fer sure

Me 1997...Damn Straight

today...I don't trust anyone elected to public office...anywhere...EVER:cuss:

[rick_reno]

Assuming Arnold gets elected, it's not going to change Kalif. politics in any fundamental way. The same would hold true for McClintock. Neither one of these two can ride into Sacramento on a white horse and restore your gun rights or fix the budget. There is the problem of the legislature, and that is the heart of the problem.

The election is about helping Bush in 2004. Having a Republican governor, even if in name only (Arnold is a good example of this) will help Bush get another term. If the highest state office stays in Democratic hands, be it Boozamonte or Davis you can be sure they'll be doing everything they can to help defeat Bush. It's looking lmore and more ike Bush will need all the help he can get in 2004 - a vote for McClintock might be the "right" thing and feel good - but all you're doing is putting Boozamonte in the captains chair.

[BenW]

Assuming Arnold gets elected, it's not going to change Kalif. politics in any fundamental way. The same would hold true for McClintock.
I'm looking at this from a slightly different perspective. One of the reasons I think Arnold would be bad is that I don't believe that he will be able to make any real difference. Republicans will be held responsible and the heat will be taken off Democrats with Davis spouting "I told you so." I truly believe that McClintock is capable of making noticeable improvements in the short time available because of his experience. I wouldn't expect him to be able to turn around the anti-gun situation much, but I certainly think he could significantly improve our economic situation to a point that the nation would notice, because he knows how to work around our current Legislature.

For those saying we should vote for Arnold over McClintock for political expediancy, I'm not sure how this would be different than voting for Reardon over Simon in the last election. I seem to remember everyone on this forum saying we needed to keep Reardon out of the running at all costs because he's a RINO.It seems like the same situation now, only McClintock is a much better candidate than Simon was. I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck -- I really am curious about the difference.

I also don't want to start any flame wars. I think everyone should vote their concscience and the rest of us should respect that, whether it's voting "the good of the party" line or the "principled candidate" line. For myself, I can't help but vote for McClintock if for no other reason than that during the debate, in his 2 minute final address, he promised to uphold the entire Bill of Rights, and specifically mentioned the Second Amendment.

[rick_reno]

One of the reasons I think Arnold would be bad is that I don't believe that he will be able to make any real difference. Republicans will be held responsible and the heat will be taken off Democrats with Davis spouting "I told you so." I truly believe that McClintock is capable of making noticeable improvements in the short time available because of his experience.

If either of the Republicans manages to win this thing, the Democratic legislature will be impeding their every move - and it won't make any difference if it's Arnold or McClintock. I don't care which one of them wins the election, either one would be better than that burrito in a suit (Crud Boozamonte) or that slimy crook Red Davis. No one is going to be able to make significant change for the better in Kalif. until that legislature is dealt with.

[railroader]

BenW,
When you compare Riordan and Simon with Arnold and Mcclintock one thing for certain is Riordan is totally anti-gun. If you think california gun laws are bad, Los Angeles gun laws are worse because of when Riordan was mayor. I have heard Arnold say on the radio that he isn't looking to pass new gun laws, I think Riordan would in a heartbeat. By the way I'm still hope Mcclintock can come up in the polls before the election, and I will vote for him. If not I've got to go with Arnold as the other options are unacceptable. Mark

[GW]

I understand your position very well as I have voted that way (too) many times in the past. I'm also saying that you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy when you say X cannot win, so I'll vote for Y, even though I believe X is the better candidate.
At best, Arnold is a compromise
I also say that compromises are the good intentions that have paved our road to hell.
I want the Republican party to acknowledge what I want as a gunowner in this state. If they are going to blow us off again then they can accept the consequences of their decision If Arnold loses, so be it. He does not represent what I believe in anyway.
McClintock does, so I'll stick with him
If he's running to the end, then I'll be voting for him in the end.


I commend Tom McClintock for having the courage to say what he did about his support for the Second Amendment

[DRC]

I've heard a few strategists and commentators throwing out the idea that Tom McClintock should step aside if the Republicans are to have a chance at winning this recall-election. McClintock is the right choice regardless of face and name recognition. Californians went to the trouble to recall Davis so hopefully they have taken the time to figure out who the best candidate is and vote for them. They know their state has problems and voting for Arnold might fix a few but won't permanantly solve anything.

California Republican strategists have backed the wrong man.

DRC