Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

CA-Gov: Brown Beats All Republicans, Newsom Loses To All

by: Crisitunity

Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM EDT


Rasmussen (9/24, likely voters):

Jerry Brown (D): 44
Meg Whitman (R): 35
Some other: 3
Not sure: 18

Jerry Brown (D): 45
Steve Poizner (R): 32
Some other: 5
Not sure: 18

Jerry Brown (D): 44
Tom Campbell (R): 34
Some other: 6
Not sure: 16

Gavin Newsom (D): 36
Meg Whitman (R): 41
Some other: 5
Not sure: 18

Gavin Newsom (D): 36
Steve Poizner (R): 40
Some other: 6
Not sure: 18

Gavin Newsom (D): 36
Tom Campbell (R): 42
Some other: 6
Not sure: 17
(MoE: ±4.5%)

I certainly would have predicted that ex-Governor Jerry Brown was doing somewhat better than San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom vis-a-vis their Republican competition, but I wouldn't have guessed the disparity was so great that Brown is putting up double-digit victory margins while Newsom is losing to all three Republicans... yet that's what Rasmussen is telling us. Brown wins by a margin ranging from 9 to 13, while Newsom loses by a margin ranging from 4 to 6. The differences in performance among the three Republicans -- all, superficially, moderate Silicon Valley types -- are negligible.

Rasmussen doesn't give us any primary numbers, but all polls of the primary so far have Brown up, although some by a narrow margin and some with a wide edge (although no polling has been done since Newsom scored a Bill Clinton endorsement). Ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman has been accorded front-runner status on the GOP side, but it would be interesting to see if that's been affected by the recent pounding she's taken by the media over her almost-non-existent voting history. (In fact, it's worth noting that this sample was taken on the 24th, before the Sacramento Bee's story broke... and now the launch of Steve Poizner's new ad hammering on that point.)

RaceTracker: CA-Gov
Crisitunity :: CA-Gov: Brown Beats All Republicans, Newsom Loses To All
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
CA-Gov: Brown Beats All Republicans, Newsom Loses To All | 88 comments
I have a hard time
believing that Clinton's endorsement will move much in the way of numbers.  Endorsements from a Clinton-level figure can be really useful for a low-profile candidate (and even then, only in limited ways), but Newsom's widely known, and has been the #2 in the race for months now.
I've always wondered
how much endorsements really affect the outcome of a close election. Obviously Obama endorsing or campaigning for someone now would be a big deal, but Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, not as much.

I guess the real question is, do those who are still undecided shortly before an election actually take other politicians' endorsements into account? My inclination is that very few do.

[ Parent ]
There's some bad blood between Clinton and Brown
Back in 1992, Brown started criticizing Hillary and some of her work her law firm performed for the state of Arkansas.  Brown was very animated about both Clinton's character.  I don't know if it is true, but I heard that Clinton told Brown in confidence "If you mess with Hillary again, I'll kick your ass".  I somewhat believe that Clinton would say that because Clinton already admitted that he has a pretty bad temper.

I don't see this endorsement moving the state in any direction.  I wish it would because I'm not to enthused about Jerry Brown.  He was a loose cannon back in the day and while he may have matured a lot, he is not someone who I really trust.

[ Parent ]
He also continued in the race
Long after it was clear Clinton was the nominee.
[ Parent ]
I can see Clinton saying it too
Hes pretty calm, cool and collected when speaking in public but in private i can believe he had a temper.
[ Parent ]
Democrats should see if they can encourage
a hard right Tom McClintock type to run in the GOP primary.  With Whitman, Poizner, and Campbell so alike, I think a hard-right candidate could easily win the primary.
Chuck DeVore is the only guy I can think of
who is in the race that is the the farthest right.  He doesn't stand a chance.

Bill Hedrick for Congress
[ Parent ]
Oh wait, DeVore is in the Senate race isnt he
never mind me.

Bill Hedrick for Congress
[ Parent ]
If Democrats encouraged that
why do you think the Republicans would be susceptible to such obviously ill-intentioned encouragement? I think I'm missing the details in this scenario.
[ Parent ]
Because teabaggers and birthers
wouldn't get it anyway.  And California Repubs (outside the Bay Area) are about as right-wing as it gets outside the South.  They're really nuts.
[ Parent ]
I still don't get it
How do the Democrats promote a Republican candidate without the Republicans knowing about it?
[ Parent ]
The way the Gray Davis did in 2002
attack the moderates for being "liberals" out of touch with the mainstream of the Repub Party.  Davis hammered Richard Riordan before the primary as a liberal and that nominated Bill Simon and reelected Davis.
[ Parent ]
I've seen this in my district (NJ-7)
The DCCC sent out mailers attacking GOP nominee (and now Congressman) Leonard Lance for not being conservative enough. Things didn't work out too well for Linda Stender, though.
[ Parent ]
The mailers helped him get elected
I would think.
[ Parent ]
The way I remember it
Davis hammered Riordan for being on both sides of several different issues. In Davis's ad, Riordan's face went out of focus as his allegedly contradictory stands were revealed. That was a cleverly non-partisan tack. Nobody--right or left--likes two-faced candidates.

Although successful in the short run, Davis's effort to influence the outcome of the Republican primary increased the general disrespect in which he was held and probably contributed to his ultimate recall. Still, despite being a sleazeball, Davis was in many ways a decent governor, especially compared with those before and after him.

By the way, my impression is that Meg Whitman has been veering right in recent months, though I can't provide the specifics off-hand. I think she'll be the right-wing candidate of the three, if she can figure out a way to survive all of her recent missteps.

[ Parent ]
Davis was a terrible Governor
who deserves a D+.  The only reason why he looks good in comparison is because Pete Wilson and Arnold deserve F's.  
[ Parent ]
No, the CA GOP is really dumb
See 2002 Governor's election.  The Republicans had the race basically handed to them, but lost by nominating a nut job.  There was a widely respective moderate republican (Riordan) who Gray Davis ran ads attacking as too Liberal, which caused his poll numbers to plummet.
[ Parent ]
Brown's got the Democratic nomination
barring any stupid mistakes on his part.  Newsom can't consolidate the Bay Area vote, and the fact that the majority of the Democratic electorate are 55 or older will make a huge difference.

The GOP side will be interesting.  Whitman may have frontrunner status, but she has refused to debate her opponents or do anything outside of extremely controlled campaign settings.  To me, that shows a lack of confidence in her abilities as a politician and she's been steadily annoying the Republican electorate by acting as if she's entitled to the nomination.  Also, even though she's far outraised Campbell, he still is polling close to her amongst Republican LV's, and she can't seem to be able to put him away.  I'd also venture that these polls won't help her either - after all, her proponents have argued  that her "electability" was to be one of her biggest assets.  If she can't prove that she can make any bigger of a difference than her opponents in taking down Brown than she's in trouble.  

My prediction is that Campbell beats Whitman in an upset as Poizner continues to nuke her on the airwaves and she makes a few high-profile mistakes (any controlled candidate is bound to make some).  In the general, Campbell would have a great profile to take on Brown (pro-business, experienced but not a career politician or as affiliated with the national GOP like Whitman, and anti-Prop 9) but I don't think he'd be able to raise the money or build his name ID enough to beat him.  Brown wins, but Campbell makes it within 6-7 points.

Of course, I could be completely off but it's fun to make such predictions!

Crap meant Prop 8
Damn typos...
[ Parent ]
I would not be surprised
if Campbell manages to pull off an upset victory in the Republican primary. Well put.
[ Parent ]
I hope not
I hope the worst possible Repub wins this race.  And I really could care less whom the Democrat is in California, as long as he/she is a partisan.  I would have even accepted Dianne Feinstein.

The difference is 5-8 progressive Democrats in the House.

[ Parent ]
This might be right
But Campbell was really, really moderate back in the day. Moderate as in sane. If he still is, I'm curious to see what the loony right does in response.
[ Parent ]
This is the biggest race in the country
for redistricting.  A Democratic victory here means an additional 5-8 Democratic seats in 2012.
The republican brand is so damn tarnished in this state
I'd really doubt if Newsome were to be nominated, that he would lose to any of those republicans.

Again, this is Rasmussen, take this polling with a grain of salt.

Bill Hedrick for Congress

[ Parent ]
Oh wait, DeVore is in the Senate race isnt he
Never mind me.

Bill Hedrick for Congress
[ Parent ]
Of course, I reply to the the wrong comment...
[ Parent ]
Newsom couldn't beat anybody
The worry with this race has been that if Villaraigosa and Newsom ripped Brown apart that one of them might get the nomination, and then lose to a Republican.  With Villaraigosa out, Newsom has no chance (short of Brown passing away or something like that).

Brown is a mediocre candidate.  Newsom is a pitiful one.  For the time being, California has the worst democratic bench in the universe.

[ Parent ]
Oh come now,
2006 was pretty pitiful, I didn't like Westly or Angelides.

Bill Hedrick for Congress
[ Parent ]
2006 was the worst choice
But Newsom is the equivalent of Westly and Angelides.

None of the three will hold statewide office.

Brown is like Charlemagne in contrast.

[ Parent ]
Newsom
Doesn't stand a chance. He's DOA if he manages to beat Brown. Him and Kamala Harris are complete idiots and give San Francisco and the California Democratic Party a bad name. If god forbid they end up on the ballot on November 2010, I'll either not vote or vote Republican. I cannot fathom the thought of seeing Newsom in the governor's mansion and Harris in the attorney general's office.

[ Parent ]
You want to give up 5-8 progressive Democratic seats in the House?
If god forbid they end up on the ballot on November 2010, I'll either not vote or vote Republican. I cannot fathom the thought of seeing Newsom in the governor's mansion and Harris in the attorney general's office.

The California Governorship is the most important race for redistricting.  I would vote for a huge pile of shit if it ran as a Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Ditto. n/t


Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)
[ Parent ]
Not a sure thing
That the Congressional Dems will even go along with such a plan. They may want the status quo, just so they can be in 'very safe' as opposed to 'slightly safe' seats.
[ Parent ]
The White House and Pelosi will twist arms
like they did in Massachusetts.
[ Parent ]
Again, this is totally anti-reality
A Democratic Governor will almost certainly means LESS Democratic members of Congress not more.

The chances of 5 additional democrats with a democrat winning the Governorship are absolute zero.

The best case scenario for more Democrats in the House would be for Campbell to win, because he is the most likely to oppose any incumbent protection plan.

If districts are drawn fairly, we pick up seats.  If Democrats are in control again like they were in 2000, we likely pick up only one seat.  Two at most (not counting a retirement of Gallegy or Bono-Mack or some scandal).

[ Parent ]
California was drawn to be incumbent protection because the Democrats had a large number of first-term represenatives
And why exactly would Campbell not keep an incumbent-protection map? That's the only thing keeping the Republicans from losing a bunch of seats, why exactly would he piss off a whole lotta Republican congressmen (some of whom would probably primary his ass in that scenario).

Your go-to source for great sarcasm
[ Parent ]
Because like Arnold, Campbell is not a hack
Arnold worked hard to get an independant redistricting body.  He lost.  Campbell should work for the same thing, and reject partisan gerrymanders for the same reason -- moderate Republicans hate these districts more than anyone because they can't win primaries in them.

In tossup districts, moderate Republicans do very well.

[ Parent ]
Again not true
It is not the case when Speaker Pelosi's job relies on having more Democrats from California.  It was similar to why Delay pushed so hard for more seats in Texas.
[ Parent ]
That's just fantasy
How can you even assert that?  Pelosi doesn't need more Democrats from CA to keep her job!

Again, this is slam dunk history.  The people in power now were basically responsible for this mess that was made then.  It's absurd to suggest a single incumbent Dem is going to say "cut 10% off my 60/40 margin so I can campaign my ass off at county fairs all summer".

[ Parent ]
Could you explain why you dislike Newsom so much?

[ Parent ]
Too fiscally conservative for the state
and is trying to use his support for gay marriage to mask that fiscal conservatism to try to win over young voters.

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)
[ Parent ]
Imagine Dianne Feinstein
Similar politics, similar pedigree (both as conservative mayors of SF).
[ Parent ]
He's
been a horrible mayor in my opinion. I read the San Francisco's Chronicle's site often and read about all the crazy stuff he's done. But my main beef with him is over San Francisco's main transit system (MUNI). It sucks and Newsom and the board of supervisors haven't done anything that I've seen to fix it. MUNI's being going down hill in recent years. Especially the light rail system which has become the joke of the city.  
[ Parent ]
Oh, spare us
Really, you're going to base your opinions of Newsom solely on the Muni and what the Chron says?  The Chron hates Newsom because he's a pro-business Democrat (gasp! shocker! what a mortal sin!) in the heart of Cindy Sheehan-loving San Francisco.  Just because he's not a die-hard ultra-leftist doesn't make him a bad mayor, and the Chron has it out for him for that reason.  Are you really shocked that the most liberal newspaper in the state, in the most liberal city in the country, doesn't like a pro-business Dem?  They savaged Tom Ammiano, a Harvey Milk-era GLBT activist and San Fran Supervisor for Christ's sake.  Also, to claim that he supports gay marriage to "mask" his fiscal record is bullshit - just because he's center-left on econ issues doesn't mean he isn't entitled to be liberal on social issues (sorry double negative).  It's this type of pigeonholing, "all-left or nothing" San Fran mentality that drives me nuts.

And the Muni?  You're really going to hate a guy just because of a public transit issue?  WTF?  The Muni has been terrible for years, and the public transit workers union is one of the most powerful in the city, foiling many a previous mayors' attempts.  It's not worth the fight, and mark my words the next mayor will handle it exactly the same way as Newsom has.

I'm tired of this knee-jerk hatred for Newsom in the blogosphere.  He's been a more than competent mayor of the city, and San Francisco's finances are remarkably in order given how bad the crisis is and how close San Diego and Los Angeles are to insolvency.  If he were mayor of LA or Sacramento folks would be singing a different tune.  But, alas, he presides over the one city whose Democratic constituency will never be satsfied.

[ Parent ]
I wish my brother were here
to say how much he and other people in the Mission hate Newsom for totally supporting gentrification and doing nothing for the poor or to ameliorate the problem of homelessness. I can't speak authoritatively to the details, but I have sure heard the complaints. Pro-business is one thing; pro-developer and anti-poor is another.
[ Parent ]
And the fact
that Jerry Brown beats Newsom in his own freakin' city says a lot.

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)
[ Parent ]
Oakland
You forget that Brown was a very effective and popular mayor in the SF bordering city of Oakland.  Newsom loses SF because Brown is just as well known there and nobody in SF is going to vote for Newsom because he is "their guy".  

We can't stop here; this is bat country. -HST
[ Parent ]
Being a little harsh much?
It is perfectly legit to dislike a candidate because they wont fix the transit system.  It is perfectly legit to dislike a candidate because they are a pro-business Dem, particularly when they represent a constituency that is more liberal than that.

I think the point being made is an important one throughout.  Most people's knee jerk reaction to Newsom is that he is a big, San Fran gay loving liberal, when he isnt.  And him using his support for gay marriage is a means to suppress his conservatism on other issues.  This obviously may not be purposeful but people dont know him for much else besides his two big liberal aspects, gay marriage and San Fran.

[ Parent ]
Sorry for my venting
Okay, disliking him because he supports gentrification or doesn't do enough for the poor are perfectly legit arguments.  Disliking him for his temper tantrums and his questionable maturity (as I have before) I think is also fine.  But for weeks now I've heard so many people give vague, generic reasons for not liking Newsom (and I've heard the "I've read bad stuff about him in the Chron" more than a few times) when Jerry Brown has many of the same issues just drives me insane.  I don't like how people so quickly throw around the "oh, x politician is horrible" when they've never really given reason as to why.  I think it takes several issues to pass someone off as a horrible leader, and San Fran has certainly done worse in the past (and, in my opinion, would have done much worse had Matt Gonzales won in 2003).

I'm not a diehard Newsom fan, but I do think there needs to be more space for the socially liberal, fiscally conservative crowd in the Democratic Party.  Why do people think it's some cynical ploy that he's pro-gay?  Why can't he be both pro-business and pro-gay?  They aren't mutually exclusive, and as a gay professional I say they shouldn't be.  The dumping on Newsom is excessive in most cases, and much of it I think has more to do with ideology than job performance, which I think merits a distinction.  He did close the budget gap in 2004, he has consolidated the city bureaucracy, and he reduced unemployment in his first term more than Willie Brown ever did.  Do I think he's qualified to be Governor?  I still am undecided about who to vote for so I'm not sure.  But I'm totally puzzled as to why he gets such harsh treatment in the blogosphere when other California politicians like Villaraigosa have done way worse.  As an LA resident, I'd switch to have Newsom in a heartbeat but even when he considered running for Governor I never saw Villaraigosa get the same type of attacks.

[ Parent ]
Reply
I do think there needs to be more space for the socially liberal, fiscally conservative crowd in the Democratic Party.

Yes, but arguably not in San Francisco and possibly not in the California State House, either.


Why do people think it's some cynical ploy that he's pro-gay?  Why can't he be both pro-business and pro-gay?  They aren't mutually exclusive, and as a gay professional I say they shouldn't be.

Agreed, but could he be using his support for gay rights to try to seem otherwise more liberal than he is, in the context of a contested Democratic primary? I think that's what I'm hearing from others' objections in this thread.

[ Parent ]
The Chronicle
The reporters that work for the Chronicle are top-notch and Muni is less expensive and runs much more frequently (to nearly everywhere in the city) than in any other in the state and most others in the county.  I am and will be a Brown supporter, but it drives me nuts to hear so called "centrists" (not you DFLer) parroting right-wing talking points about one of my favorite cities.  The fact that San Francisco's residents are truly progressive and won't be satisfied by platitudes and half-measures is something to be celebrated; I only wish other cities across America had such a well-informed and progressive electorate.  

We can't stop here; this is bat country. -HST
[ Parent ]
I've got family in San Fran
so I know that San Fanciscans get testy about those caricatures as well.  I understand if folks disagree with Newsom, but as an executive of a city he hasn't be horrible, and that's what gets me.  Someone could still be doing a decent job of running the place even if you don't philosophically agree with the candidate.  And I get bothered when everyone assumes there's an ulterior motive anytime a candidate comes out in favor of marriage equality - the same crap was pulled on Gillibrand when she became Senator.  
[ Parent ]
Re: Newsom
The problem with his gay marriage stand isn't that it masks "pro-corporate" leanings, it is that he hasn't even been effective as a marriage equality spokesman.  He had a high-profile affair with a staffers wife and has been using rhetoric about the environment and marriage equality as a crutch.  He hasn't really done anything to advance our cause on those issues that he grandstands about.  All people end up seeing is a mayor that likes to take a lot about gay rights and environmentalism, doesn't take any real action on those issues that affects real change, and then is to the right of them on fiscal issues.
Brown is a known quantity, has many of the same positions on equality, but is much more in-line with California and the Bay Area in particular on fiscal issues.  On top of that he has a record of being effective.

We can't stop here; this is bat country. -HST
[ Parent ]
SF and Newsom
I have also heard Newsom is popular in SF. Maybe not moreso than the AG/Ex Gov/fellow Bay Area liberal Jerry Brown (which would explain the oft-stated poll numbers showing Brown beating Newsom in SF) but popular nonetheless. And he is probably evidence that SF Dems are more open than people give them credit for. Afterall he beat the more liberal Matt Gonzalez a few years ago. If SF Dems wanted to push aside all non-ultra liberals than Newsom would have lost that race and would, at the least, not be a popular mayor.  
[ Parent ]
What's your beef with Kamala Harris?
I'm not aware of any real fuckups coming out of the DAs office recently...  excepting possibly the sanctuary city brouhaha.  I'm not aware of Harris being involved in that though.
[ Parent ]
Governors races
In Governors races a nominee from a very unpopular party can still pull it off. Hence why Republicans are able to win in places like MA, RI, CT, HI and NY and Dems in places like WY, AK, KS, NE, etc.
[ Parent ]
LOL, no
If the state was aggressively, or even moderately, redistricted with partisianship in mind, Dems could pick up several seats.  But, just like in 2000, the great liklihood is it will not.  We'll get another putrid "incumbent protection" plan to protect the no-backbone incumbents in office now.

Will a Democratis Governor make it more likely that Capps' 68/32 and Gallegy's 58/42 districts be recon configured to come up with two 55/45 Dem districts?  Hell no.  It won't happen.

The sad truth of it is the most likely way to make more than one pickup in California is for a Republican to win the Governorship, and have a non-partisan body do redistricting.

[ Parent ]
Had either a non-partisan body
or even the GOP done redistricting in 2002, we would have probably have had 40 seats in California.  The map that we got turned out to effectively be a GOP gerrymander.
[ Parent ]
There is one difference
instead of President Bush and Minority Leader Gephardt, we have President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi and the White House might put pressure on the leaders of the Assembly, state Senate, and the Governor to gerrymander the state appropriately.  Pelosi may figure that she needs those extra seats to remain Speaker for the rest of the decade, and then the whole damn game changes.

[ Parent ]
It would be kind of awkward
For her to say to CA Dems that could have a race on their hands (but probably not other than in a tidal wave year) that they should 'sacrifice for the good of the team'....when she wouldnt have to sacrifice one bit given where she represents.
[ Parent ]
Creative redistricting
As it would take some pretty damn creative redistricting for her to be put in anything less than a 'very safe Dem' seat.  
[ Parent ]
It is doable
the eastern parts of Contra Costa or Alameda Co could be given to her.  Or some GOP areas of Santa Clara Co.
[ Parent ]
Bay Area geography
You would have to draw a pencil thin line through the Bay Area to give Nancy those still Democratic leaning areas.  The Bay Area is much more dense than most other metro areas (actually the second most dense in the country behind NY).  Any district anywhere near San Francisco would be 80-90% dem.  Many Bay Area cities bordering San Francisco like Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, and Vallejo are actually more democratic than SF.  Even these so called GOP areas like Antioch, Livermore, and Fairfield were still nearly 2-to-1 Obama.

We can't stop here; this is bat country. -HST
[ Parent ]
Well then
I would attach the worst rural areas in Northern California and draw that into San Francisco for Pelosi's seat.
[ Parent ]
again
Again cutting into even somewhat rural areas would require moving through very liberal suburbs (i.e. Marin and Sonoma counties) for dozens of miles.  The result would have to be a tiny line.  Bay Area districts simply cannot be drawn to be even slightly competitive.  Ca-11 is probably the closest to it and it is deep outside of San Francisco, was drawn for a republican (Pombo), and became a dem swingish seat that was won for Obama.  Pelosi, Lee, Miller, Stark, and Woolsey are simply going to have super-safe Dem seats no matter how they are configured.

We can't stop here; this is bat country. -HST
[ Parent ]
Pelosi could offer
to have her district take in GOP areas in the Bay Area.  Not that there is much, but she could make that offer.  After all, Pelosi is considered too conservative in her current district.
[ Parent ]
Pelosi
Ideologically she seems to be as liberal as Barbara Boxer but obviously, when it comes to her leadership tactics, she is not an ideologue and partisan and what have you. Shes certainly no Tom DeLay (although DeLay's duties were different when he was Maj. Leader and Maj. Whip). So Pelosi the Rep. and Pelosi the Speaker are two very different animals, Id suspect.
[ Parent ]
Leadership almost always get deference though
And it's not hypocritical if you come from the vantage point that it is important that your Party Leader shouldn't be at risk of losing his/her seat while trying to run the caucus, just look at Harry Reid and Tom Daschle and you'll get an idea.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm
[ Parent ]
I know I say this every CA-Gov thread
but our candidates are terrible. I really don't know which one is worse.
No surprises here whatsoever
I'm firmly believed all along that it's Jerry Brown or bust for CA Dems in '10. If Meg Whitman can get her act together, I imagine she probably would serve as the strongest competition; the other guys don't stand a chance. On the flip side, I think anyone can beat Gavin Newsom. But, unless he gets more high-profile endorsements and/or he can conjure up a solid case against Brown and/or Bill Clinton aggressively stumps with him, I think it's Brown's nod to lose.

Frankly, I'm feeling a Brown/Poizner race at the moment, just because Whitman's campaign isn't get off on the right foot.  

Lots of Whitman negatives after poll taken
She didn't register to vote till 2002, and voted ocassionally since.

That just can't win, and she faces more than a year of negative ads against her lax citizenship.

The Republicans will dispatch her, which actually makes the wingnut opening more possible, as Campbell will strike the crazy base as Fidel Castro, and Poizner as blah.

Great news for Poizner.  If Whitman really fades, he can run to the right of Campbell and basically win easily.

To win Campbell needed Poizner and Whitman to run to the right and hurl mud at each other.

[ Parent ]
Poizner is no more to the right
than Whitman.  
I think a conservative Assemblyman or a self funding wingnut could enter this race, appeal to teabaggers and have a good chance of winning this race.
[ Parent ]
I always assumed Whitman's billions
would be able to get her the Repub nomination (though not the general election in blue CA, of course).
But now I'm not so sure after:
1. her miserable press conference performance regarding not being registered to vote (one of her first non-scripted non-controlled events), and
2. significant growing opposition from the rightwing in CA.
There may be enough wealthy rightwingers in CA that there's one who well might think, "Hell, I'm not a politician either, I could take her on"
 
Doesn't Poizner also have a billion?
As I said above, the GOP race is between 3 perceived moderates.  There is a wide open gap for a hardcore wingnut, especially since the GOP base outside the Bay Area is populated greatly with them.

Maybe Tom McClintock or Tony Strickland should enter this race.

[ Parent ]
Err
Tom McClintock is probably enjoying the house right now, and Tony Strickland is one of the chairs on Meg Whitman's campaign.
[ Parent ]
I don't get what's so bad about Jerry Brown
Brown was a great politician back in the day, and he certainly seems to know what he's doing.  Sure, he's not as liberal as he once was, but he's still a lot better than Ahnuld.  Except for the impossibility of his running for President from this position, I don't see why he's not considered an excellent candidate.
Because he does not understand the state's fundamental problems
and has already committed himself to "no new revenues."

Newsom's not really any better though.

[ Parent ]
Jerry Brown
Because my knowledge of California politics is not very deep, what do you mean when you say he does not understand the state's fundamental problems?
[ Parent ]
Brown fails to realize
That there are too many structural problems in the budget.  The property tax code needs to be revamped, the proposition/ballot measure system has given the Legislature no power over spending, and it takes a 2/3 vote to do any tax changes.  CA needs dramatic change, which is precisely what Brown said he will not do.
[ Parent ]
So two perspectives
Politically he is very strong - experience, fundraising, appeal etc. Policy not so good.
[ Parent ]
To all who think a GOP wingnut will emerge
It won't happen.  Folks have been saying for months that a SoCal conservative would emerge.  Nothing has emerged and there are no signs it will change.  It is 9 months to the primary and given how much money is being tossed around in this race you would have to jump in now to try to catch up.  But the GOP bench is thin: the largest city they control is San Diego, which is too small to launch a statewide bid, Poizner is their highest ranking elected official, and Kevin McCarthy is their only congressman that could be considered a "rising star." Plus, the real estate crash wiped out a lot of personal wealth for would-be self-funders.  I think this field is set.
I wish a teabagger would run
I think even a grassroots wingnut could get some serious support.
[ Parent ]
are there any significant numbers of teabaggers in the OC?
or the central valley?
[ Parent ]
Central Valley, I bet
I watched that Hannity special, a few weeks ago, when he was in the Central Valley talking about that water issue. Where the federal govt turned off the water, to save an endangered fish, and how many of the farmers want it back on (although it is debatable that that is even a major reason for the drought and that it could be because of farmers selling to developers). And Hannity was interviewing a few congressmen (Radanovich, Nunes and Costa) and the crowd really booed Costa whenever he spoke. Maybe they have a good reason to be pissed at him, i really dont know, but it was extremely rude...considering that he was on their freakin side on this issue. Maybe he wasnt "good enough on this issue", to them (i.e. not in the press, 24/7, yelling at his own party leaders such as Obama. which is unrealistic expectations since hes, um, a Democrat). But its just an example of how they are probably that steriotypical teabagger crowd.  
[ Parent ]
There probably are
teabag folks out there, but you have to realize this is California.  The campaign finance and election regulations are insane, convoluted, and make it damn near impossible for a "grassroots" campaign to be launched.  No one in California starts a serious statewide bid without retaining a law firm to guide them through, and you need a serious commitment (read: tens of millions of dollars) up front to be taken seriously.  I just don't see that happening.  Ironically, Whitman may scare away any would-be teabagging grasroots candidate because she has so much money at her disposal.  It's the same reason why, despite intra-party dissatisfaction with him, no serious Republican primaried Schwarzenegger in 2006.
[ Parent ]
There's always Darrell Issa...
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
[ Parent ]
Devin Nunez
Seems to be impressive whenever ive seen him on TV and probably not any less conservative than McCarthy. But still, no future in statewide politics unless he completely pulls a reverse Mitt Romney. But in the House he could be a rising star, who knows.
[ Parent ]
True
but McCarthy seems like the only one in the GOP delegation that I could see running statewide one day.
[ Parent ]
CA-Gov: Brown Beats All Republicans, Newsom Loses To All | 88 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Contributing Editor: Crisitunity

SSP's Twitter Feed

SSP on Facebook

SSP's Frappr Map

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

Subscribe to SSP's RSS feed: Subscribe via FeedBurner

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Political Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
Senate Guru
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox