Posted on 10/26/2010 4:24:20 PM PDT by Nachum
Your dead wrong.
The CA Gov can veto all bills from the state house just like any other state with a Gov veto.
Please support nihilism in your state and we will how well it works out first!
good point .
Never trust that snake Maria S !
Agree whole-heartedly.
Everyone knows conservatives can’t win - you must be more pragmatic.
/s
Unfortunately, no conservatives had an extra $150 million sitting around to even think about running in this election.
Another out-of-stater who knows nothing about the makeup of the voters in Calif.
The democrats outnumber Republicans by 2.3 million.
And these democrats aren't a bunch of middle of the road/Reagan democrats - they are mostly Obama wannabees.
Another Reagan would have no chance here anymore, only a Romney type.
Well, let the democrats take the blame when the state declares bankruptcy. At least they can't blame it on Bush.
If her attack ads weren’t hurting him, why would he be trying to cut a deal to get her to pull them?
It’s all for show. He wins either way now.
How do you solve a problem like Maria???
You said it so well!!
I drove around up in those parts this summer where them guys are campainin and read alla their great signs!!!
The problem with California is that LA and San Francisco have all the votes. Both are flaming liberal. Pelosi will win her race with 70 plus percent of the vote without any campaigning.
Brown’s a democrat so he is lying, period. His direct campaign may drop some negative ads but his surrogates (unions) will continue.
Ras has this race neck and neck so don’t get all hysterical because some liberal push poll toting up illegals and college students tells you it’s over...mmmkay?
I'd like to think an "out of stater" like me would be familar with the situation since I live in Illinois and the Democrats outnumber us by similar margins. They have held all the statewide offices for the last 8 years, both houses of the Illinois General Assembly (with a veto proof majority in the state senate), and 12 out of 19 congressional districts. Chicago is so heavily Democrat that only 1 out of 59 state legislative districts in Chicago is held by a Republican, and only 1 out of 50 alderman on the Chicago city council is a Republican. And while we have some centrist and conservative Democrats in this state, most are Obama wannabes. This is, after all, the state where he got his political start. The U.S. Senate nominee is Obama's old basketball buddy.
Our nominee for Governor is an unabashedly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional families, lower taxes, less spending, limited government Reagan conservative that is backed by the tea party. Plus he has the voting record in the Illinois Senate to prove he's fought for those principles.
He's been polling ahead of our incumbent Democrat Governor (who has so-so approval ratings) by a comfortable margin since winning the primary way back in Februrary.
Meanwhile, our Democrat wannabe RINO nominee for the U.S. Senate is neck-and-neck in the polls with an EXTREMELY crooked (as in likely-to-be-indicted) and unpopular Chicago machine Democrat.
Interesting, wouldn't you say?
BB - You’ve been posting on the intricacies of California politics for how many years now? At least 7 that I remember. Don’t let the “out-of-stater” label discourage you from posting here.
This is the same old argument that exists everywhere. Some think the only way for Republicans to win is to run liberals (”pragmatists” or “moderates”) on the ballot, calling it a “blue state” where “conservatives can’t win.” Yet, if that were true, how did Schwarzenegger/McClintock combined take 70% of the vote running on a completely conservative platform? The elections that have come closest have been the more conservative candidates: Simon, Herschenson. Unfortunately, those candidates get little support from the party “leadership” — a hierarchy that would prefer to run out-of-state billionaire homosexuals like Michael Huffington for office rather than support a conservative.
Same old, same old.
Perhaps we could permanently ban Pete Wilson, Bob White, Karl Rove, and Gerald Parsky from California politics.
Hey — I can dream, can’t I?
Yep, they even claim that “only RINOs can win” in state that are heavily Republican. Take Alaska. That state routinely votes about 2/3rds Republican and Democrats only win statewide under the most extraordinary circumstances — like Ted Stevens (R) getting indicted weeks before the 2008 Obama landslide, or two conservatives Republicans on the ballot in the general election, splitting the vote in 1994. Otherwise, the state is Massachuttes is reverse. Yet some “conservatives” argued RINO Lisa Murkowski was the best (and only) Republican we could run. Incredible.
You’re correct that the “RINOs are more electable” argument holds absolutely no merit when you look at the actual election results and compare how well RINOs have fared against Democrats vs. conservatives running against Democrats in the same state. Like California, conservatives have actually fared better than RINOs in statewide races over the last 20 years. Aside from Alan Keyes in 2004 (and again, he was a last minute replacement candidate imported in from another state), all our conservative nominees for Senate and Governor have had respectable showings. The best our RINOs have gotten for Senator or Governor over the last 20 years was 43% for Rich Williamson in ‘92. The last two “electable” RINO nominees have had absolutely dismal numbers, including one that had held a statewide office for 12 years (she got LESS votes than Keyes while running against the ultra-sleazy Rod Blagojevich!). And I don’t count the RINOs governors in the 80s and 90s, since they ran on a conservative platform but then drifted leftward. I’m going with the candidates who ran on a Dem-lite platform to be “electable”
In order to justify the claim that RINOs get more votes than conservatives in “blue state Illinois”, you’d have to go all the way back to the mid 1970s voting patterns. These pro-RINO posters are living in the past and cling to the pre-Reagan era.
In any case, here’s a basic breakdown of the numbers:
GOVERNOR 2006
Rod Blagojevich (RAT) 49%
Judy Baar Topinka (RINO) 37%
GOVERNOR 2002
Rod Blagojevich (RAT) 52%
Jim Ryan (establishment approved conservative, think Bill Jones), 47%
U.S. SENATE 2008
Dick Durbin (RAT) 67%
Steve Sauerberg (RINO) 28%
U.S. SENATE 2002
Dick Durbin (RAT) 60 %
Jim Durkin (Conservative) 38%
U.S. SENATE 1998
Carol Moseley-Braun (RAT) 47%
Peter Fitzgerald (Conservative) 51%
U.S. SENATE 1996
Dick Durbin (RAT) 54%
Al Salvi (Conservative) 54%
U.S. SENATE 1992
Carol Moseley-Braun (RAT) 53%
Rich Williamson (RINO) 43%
U.S. SENATE 1990
Paul Simon (RAT) 65%
Lynn Martin (RINO) 35%
2010’s data is almost certain to continue the trend next week. Brady is polling ahead of Kirk in every demographic.
Ah. Savor the courage. The heart of a conservative lion.
This was nothing less than Matt Lauer challenging Whitman to stop telling the truth about Moonbeam, and she refused. Good for MEG!!!
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.