To: A CA Guy
Bustamonte could not have won not matter how much they split the vote. The combined Republicans got 63%, Bustamonte only got 31%.
88 posted on
04/25/2005 8:18:14 PM PDT by
AVNevis
(www.cahsconservative.blogspot.com Great Political Discussion from the eyes of a High School Student)
To: AVNevis
I find the animus genuinely puzzling, and I am the first to dump on read meat GOP nutters. McClintock is NOT one of those.
89 posted on
04/25/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by
Torie
(Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
To: AVNevis
Bustamonte only got 31% because of the popular candidate that Arnold is.
No one knows the results of an election until the vote is counted.
At a time when no vote had taken place and McClintock knew he was both a loser and splitting the vote, that was IMO spoiling the election to the benefit of the Democrats.
We were darn lucky in California that Arnold was so powerful a candidate that he could survive a Democrat and a backstabbing wanna-be McC.
McC has lost my trust due to his actions, before that I liked him but just thought he needed to market himself better.
Now, I believe he is bad for the party, bad for the people and too in love with potential power to ever be trusted again.
90 posted on
04/25/2005 8:53:41 PM PDT by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: AVNevis
Bustamonte could not have won not matter how much they split the vote. The combined Republicans got 63%, Bustamonte only got 31%.
Up against McClinkook, Bustamove would have (IMO) gotten a LOT more of the "Moderate" vote and probably would have won.
I'm certain McClincockeyed wouldn't have gotten the moderate vote Arnold got anyway.
145 posted on
04/26/2005 6:39:23 PM PDT by
Dean Baker
(Two wrongs may not make a right, but three lefts do.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson