August 29, 2002

Davis More Popular With His...

Davis More Popular With His Base Than Simon: Today's George Skelton column in the L.A. Times quotes a survey by nonpartisan pollster Mark Baldassare showing Singapore Gray ahead of $78 Million Fraud Bill among likely voters, 41% to 30%.

And it gets even worse for the Republican nominee: Fewer Republican voters (33%) are satisfied with their choices for governor than are Democrats (41%).

This runs counter to the thesis that so many liberal Democrats are disappointed with Davis that they'll markedly help Simon by boycotting the governor on election day. Simon has even more disappointed Republicans to worry about.

"Many people who dislike Davis don't feel Simon would necessarily do a better job," Baldassare says.

One indication of that is this finding: Of the voters who disapprove of Davis' job performance, only 53% support Simon. A mere 43% approve of the way Davis has handled his job, while 52% disapprove--basically the same as six months ago.

Does this show that A) Republicans blew it nominating the most conservative of its two candidates in a non-conservative state, B) that left-leaners would vote for Attila the Hun if he was pro-choice and leaned green, or C) all of the above?

Posted by at August 29, 2002 11:06 AM
Comments

If the "Attila the Hun" reference is a suggestion that Davis is "right", what are you smoking?

Yes, he'll allow executions[1], he seems to take campaign contributions in return for minor favors, and he panders to public-employee unions (but I repeat myself). However, all of those things are squarely in the "left" mainstream.

[1] I don't know if he's actually pro-death penalty, unwilling to go against the CA electorate, or merely preserving his presidential political viability.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 29, 2002 11:42 AM

"Attila the Hun" just meant "creepy & undemocratic bad guy who shouldn't be in charge of anything, except perhaps repelling Turks from the Trans-carpathia basin" ....

Posted by: Matt Welch at August 29, 2002 12:01 PM

I'll choose D.) That Matt Welch can no longer entertain the idea of voting for Simon.

Hope to see you at Greg's opening.
xoxo

Posted by: Brian Linse at August 29, 2002 02:52 PM

The fact that he's conservative isn't Simon's problem. His problem is that he's an inexperienced politician, and less than ept as a campaigner. The lawsuit problem could have been finessed if he'd gotten it out there sooner, and disclosed it himself before the verdict.

Do a thought experiment. Clone Ronald Reagan, make him the same age as Simon, with the same political positions. Even in today's Democratic California, do you think he wouldn't beat Davis like a rented mule?

Posted by: Rand Simberg at August 29, 2002 04:20 PM

>> His problem is that he's an inexperienced politician, and less than ept as a campaigner.

Which Repub is/was a good campaigner? Not
"good for a Repub", good on the Democrat scale?

Davis has been banking lipstick and kneepads for this election for the last 15 years.

Simon seems to think that showing up is enough, and then doesn't bother to do that.

Democrats like elections - Repubs don't.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 29, 2002 06:40 PM

Which Republican was a good campaigner?

Reagan. Dubya.

Goldwater.

OK, Barry didn't win, but he was a hell of a campaigner... ;-)

Posted by: Rand Simberg at August 29, 2002 07:19 PM

Only 33% of Republicans are happy with their choices for govenor? 50% of Republicans voted for this jackass in March. Where's the other 17%? I don't know who deserves more of the blame, Riordon for running a lousy campaign or Guiliani for helping Simon. Probably, it's the Republicans themselves for not paying attention for whom they were voting. Then there is the idiots at some conservative group who backed Simon. They let their hatred of Gerald Parsky interfere with sound judgement, not that they had shown any in the past. Gerald Parsky was right! The group had run an article suggesting Gerald was unethical. The facts now show it was and has been the Simons with poor business ethics. I am a Republican and this has driven me nuts and yes I did vote for Riordon.

Posted by: Bob at August 29, 2002 09:09 PM

>> Then there is the idiots at some conservative group who backed Simon. They let their hatred of Gerald Parsky interfere with sound judgement

Is Gerald Parsky the guy who sold you your tinfoil hat?

(I'd be surprised if 10% of the electorate knows who Parsky is, so it's going to be tough to argue that a significant fraction of Simon's support was motivated by ousting him.)

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 30, 2002 07:23 AM

Listen to Rand, Matt, he has this whole thing nailed. One very important point though- Reagan had the kitchen cabinet, a coterie of wealthy businessmen, who had the willingness and wherewhithal to finance him with no legal restrictions. I imagine that if any one of them had run, the results would have about like they are now with Simon. Campaign Finance Reform is the real culprit. As for Riordan, lets not forget he had the nomination in the bag before mismanaging his campaign, relying on his wife and other liberal Democrats, and pretending the voters whose vote he sought were out in left field. None of this had much if anything to do with ideology.

So I agree things look grim and Simon looks bad on the lawsuit. But stranger things have happened than a challenger coming from behind by 10% points. Davis is a scurilous, unprincipled, big spending, despicable, extortionist who makes one feel like we're living in Arkansas or some damn banana republic.

With regards to Riordan, California no doubt would be better governed under the former mayor. But a Riordan victory would emasculate Republicans even further in California, and moderate liberals like yourself might want to be careful what you wish for if that were to happen. As for Parsky, if Bush/Rove had more guts they'd tell him to go f himself and we could move on.

Posted by: Lloyd Albanol at August 30, 2002 12:29 PM

My tinfoil hat? Andy, I will give you a clue. Read this and judge who was a slime ball:

http://www.cppf.org/CPR/Articles/ReorgPart4901.html

CPPF are fuckin morons. The Simons has been will always will be the slime balls. The public doesn't know who Parksy is but it would be hell of a lot better if they did!!! Republicans would have a chance if they listened to him. Wasn't Gerry chairman of the Bush campaign in CA? He is still a top the CA Gop's list of prominent people.

Lloyd, it is great to tell somebody to go fuck themselves, but most of us live in the the real world. Unlike most people who write about politics in this state, I have been around it quite a lot(this include Matt(although Matt is pretty in touch) and Jill Stewart to name a few). Riordon never put out an effort to win votes outside of Los Angeles. Would have people in San Juaquin Valley have voted for him? Sure, if he would articulated a response to the exodus or to gun rights, he would have got their votes. He never did. You state that Riordon would emasculate the GOP? Would that give Chris Cox a chance to unseat Boxer in 2004. Wouldn't a Riordon victory give him a much better chance?

Posted by: BOB at August 30, 2002 11:31 PM

>> My tinfoil hat? Andy, I will give you a clue.

I've no doubt that someone named Parsky exists.

My point is that you can't blame/credit Simon's primary victory on affection/dislike for him.

I previously pointed out that the electorate doesn't know who he is, so it's tough to argue that he was relevant.

As far as campaigns go, if you pay attention, you'll notice that near/at the core of every campaign is one or more people who have it in for someone. Occasionally, that someone is the opposing candidate and occasionally that someone is a heretic/rival who is nominally on the same team.

While it's tough to win without folks who have that "fire in the belly", it's almost irrelevant why they have it? See if you can figure out why.

And, you can't reasonably bitch that "if the Judean People's Front would only put themselves in the service of the People's Front of Judea, we'd have the Romans licked in no time". Why?

Because they're behaving just like you are.

On the assumption that you consider yourself a Republican activist, I can put it another way. You've decided that defeating Davis isn't your top priority. That's your call, but you don't get to blame it on Simon, Parsky, anti-Parsky, or what have you.

>> Sure, if he would articulated a response to the exodus or to gun rights, he would have got their votes.

Really? Could he have made an argument to them, on those issues, other than "not as bad as Davis?" (I read what his campaign said on those issues and still don't know why he thought that his positions were attractive to anyone.)

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 31, 2002 08:30 AM

OK. I was intoxicated last night when I wrote that.

"You've decided that defeating Davis isn't your top priority."

Why do you think I'm pissed(not drunk like in the the British slang, although I was last night). Simon is an idiot and not very conservative. Are you suggesting I just shut the hell up? Don't bad mouth the party's candidate?

The people don't know who Parsky is but CPPF does and wrote a piece about him. It was wildly off the mark. CPPF failed conservatives by backing a CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT THEIR BEST INTEREST.

Posted by: Bob at August 31, 2002 11:26 AM

>> Why do you think I'm pissed(not drunk like in the the British slang, although I was last night).

Hadn't thought about it. Now that I you mention it, I don't care.

>> Are you suggesting I just shut the hell up? Don't bad mouth the party's candidate?

Not at all. I was just pointing out that the substance of your rant is loopy.

Now you're demonstrating that your kettle is black. "They" owe some sort of loyalty to your vision, but you don't owe anything to theirs. (Neither of you owe it, so you're half right.)

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 31, 2002 03:20 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






they have it? See if you can figure out why.

And, you can't reasonably bitch that "if the Judean People's Front would only put themselves in the service of the People's Front of Judea, we'd have the Romans licked in no time". Why?

Because they're behaving just like you are.

On the assumption that you consider yourself a Republican activist, I can put it another way. You've decided that defeating Davis isn't your top priority. That's your call, but you don't get to blame it on Simon, Parsky, anti-Parsky, or what have you.

>> Sure, if he would articulated a response to the exodus or to gun rights, he would have got their votes.

Really? Could he have made an argument to them, on those issues, other than "not as bad as Davis?" (I read what his campaign said on those issues and still don't know why he thought that his positions were attractive to anyone.)

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 31, 2002 08:30 AM

OK. I was intoxicated last night when I wrote that.

"You've decided that defeating Davis isn't your top priority."

Why do you think I'm pissed(not drunk like in the the British slang, although I was last night). Simon is an idiot and not very conservative. Are you suggesting I just shut the hell up? Don't bad mouth the party's candidate?

The people don't know who Parsky is but CPPF does and wrote a piece about him. It was wildly off the mark. CPPF failed conservatives by backing a CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT THEIR BEST INTEREST.

Posted by: Bob at August 31, 2002 11:26 AM

>> Why do you think I'm pissed(not drunk like in the the British slang, although I was last night).

Hadn't thought about it. Now that I you mention it, I don't care.

>> Are you suggesting I just shut the hell up? Don't bad mouth the party's candidate?

Not at all. I was just pointing out that the substance of your rant is loopy.

Now you're demonstrating that your kettle is black. "They" owe some sort of loyalty to your vision, but you don't owe anything to theirs. (Neither of you owe it, so you're half right.)

Posted by: Andy Freeman at August 31, 2002 03:20 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body> ments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; }ml> e { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body>