I seriously doubt it. But I assure you that Simon's securities problems go far deeper than this. At least Riordan had a chance of being elected.
How many times to we have to nominate liberal Republicans and lose again, and again and again?
In principle, you're right. I supported Schundler over Franks, for example. But Simon, for purely personal reasons, is singurely unelectable.
Most importantly why would you want someone MORE liberal than Davis to be governor?
I wouldn't.
I wouldn't.
Sounds like it to me. You just went on and on about how you wanted Riordan to be the nominee and win.
As for Simon being unelectable, he's up 8 points in a poll taken last weekend and up 9 points in a poll commissioned by Democrats 2 weeks ago.
I'll talk to you in November. No....I think I'll just ignore you. Your is a stock line that has been used on conservatives since before Reagan.
No, Riordan blew his chance early this year. He lost the primary election in March by 18%, even though it was a "modified open primary," in which the large block of voters not registered with a political party could vote partisan ballots, and he showed that he didn't know how to campaign.
He also failed to differentiate himself from Davis on liberal social and fiscal issues. Bill Simon is a much better candidate, and he is the one with the real chance of being elected.
Simon: 49%,
Riordan: 31%,
Jones: 17%, and
Others: 2% total in the March 2002 California primary.