Marco Rubio’s Closing Statement and Scattered News On the Rising Wave
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
Marco Rubio makes a brilliant ad explaining why he should win. His arguments are applicable to every single race. It is really excellent and worth a view.
And there are real signs of hope. First, a new PPP poll says that Boxer is up nine points over Fiorina. Why is that good news? Because it is so blatantly skewed it’s not funny. As revealed by Katrina Trinko at Battle ’10, the poll depends on six percent more democrats voting this time than in 2006, a very good year for Democrats. So most likely Fiorina is ahead.
You can say the same thing about an LA Times Poll that Tony Quinn ably tears apart for us:
While the party registration of likely voters is 44 percent Democratic and 36 percent Republican (about right), the likely voter self identification is 43 percent Democratic, 28 percent Republican and 28 percent independent. That is a heavier Democratic bias than 2008 – does anyone expect the Democratic turnout in 2010 to EXCEED 2008? Hardly likely, given the mood of the electorate.
In other news, Fiorina has gone to the hospital. That seems like poor timing. But publicity is a funny thing. A few years back Appalachian School of Law had a student go nuts and start shooting up the place during finals. The next year applications soared. Why? Because potential applicants saw this professor or that on air, and it is revealed that they went to Harvard or some other prestigious school, making the school more attractive in their eyes.
So Fiorina might be out of commission for a few days, and that is not good. But at the same time, this story is highlighting the fact she had the very sympathetic disease of breast cancer, and perversely, that might help her.
Meanwhile, The Campaign Spot’s anonymous source of wisdom, Obi Wan Kenobi, offers two discussions on the possibility of a superwave, here and here. Read it, enjoy it, but for the love of God, don’t get cocky. But a little cautious optimism is just fine.
But for God’s sake, vote. Don’t go thinking that we have it in the bag, so you can sit this out. Remember this cautionary tale.
As for Rubio, some have called this the first ad of the 2012 presidential campaign. Honestly, I like what I see, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, okay? I don’t want to see him running for president in 2012. The last thing we need is two presidents in a row who were not ready for the job.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
But for God’s sake, vote
Did that yesterday, and I intend to do it again today, and tomorrow, and each and every day until 11/2.
Andy Stern (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 10:19 amIt’s a great ad!
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 10:28 amBut, I will pick a nit:
At the beginning, we see a shot of a statue of a soldier.
It is unfortunate that they couldn’t find a statue of an American G.I. to use, instead of the Tommy pictured.
How do I know he’s a Tommy?
He’s carrying a #1/Mk-III SMLE rifle that was standard issue for British/Commonwealth troops;
An American would be holding either a Springfield-03, or a Mdl-1917 Enfield.
It’s interesting how the left is replying to this ad with ‘he’s just an opportunist’ and without actually answering his claims. Rubio is right… our intrusive and bloated government is a historic challenge.
We’re going to have a lot of newcomers to the national scene from the GOP who appear to be excellent. Rubio, however, is smart and knows how to spend time on his career. He worked his way up the state leg, and he’s not going to run in 2012.
The real worry I have is that he may support Huckabee in 2012. But let’s not worry about it yet. Rubio is a great candidate and we can worry about 2012 in 7 days.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 10:31 amI’m not so sure that it’s a baised poll.
The most recent report of voter registration http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/60day-gen-10/ says:
44.3% Dem
30.9% Rep
20.2% DTS
4.6% minor parties
The gap between Dem registration and Rep registration has been widening over time; in 2006, it was 42.7% Dem/34.3% Rep/18.6% DTS (see http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/60day-gen-10/hist-reg-stats.pdf).
So it makes sense that registered Republicans would vote in smaller numbers today than in 2006; there are fewer of them – and even if they’re more motivated, there are fewer of them. 🙂
——–
There’ve been a number of polls out in the last couple of days.
PPP shows Boxer 52/Fiorina 43 and has a 47/34 Dem/Rep split.
Suffolk (who admittedly has no history in California and therefore is of unknown reliability) has Boxer 52/Fiorina 43, with a 45/31 Dem/Rep split.
Fox has Boxer 48/Fiorina 44 (with crosstabs I can’t find on the Fox site).
Rasmussen has the race closest at Boxer 48/ Fiorina 46, with crosstabs that I can’t access because I won’t pay Rasmussen for them (and think it’s basically malpractice for a pollster to not make them available along with the poll).
USC/LAT has Boxer 48 / Fiorina 40, with a 43 Dem / 36 Rep split.
any one of these could be biased. But it pretty much requires massive self-delusion to think they’re all biased.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:02 amAlso, Field – generally speaking the most reliable pollster in California – had Boxer 47 / Fiorina 41 a month ago, with a 44/35 Dem/Rep split. They haven’t put a poll out recently, but I’d expect one later this week or this weekend.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:08 amHey, if you want to study the entrails of his internals, you got to pay the subscription;
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:09 amafter all, he does this to make a living.
Otherwise, just be satisfied with the announced results.
Malpractice would be his not giving you something that you have paid for.
It will be interesting if it turns out to be a close race.
Only Rasmussen seems to think it will be, with Fox the only one remotely close. I guess we’ll find out in a few days.
My guess is that Rasmussen is much more accurate than the 8 point spread polls. Of course, that still means Boxer and Brown are winning.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:10 amAD – you can’t possibly evaluate the validity of a poll’s results without crosstabs. Which is why almost every other pollster in the marketplace gives them out with the results.
Basically, Rasmussen might be really accurate, or he might be selling snake oil, and he’s refusing to disclose the information which would allow you to tell.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:11 amDustin: I’ve been following the downticket races, and pretty much the only one where the polls show a Republican winning is Attorney General (where the key issue seems to be the death penalty).
The polling on Prop. 19 seems to be all over the place, and is wildly strange.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:13 amEveryone:
When I was at the march tea party, I saw a woman of Cuban descent holding a sign that said something like, “I left my home country for this?”
AD #2
You, sir, are a master of nitpickery.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:15 amDustin: I can’t judge. I live in a community which viscerally loathes Fiorina (because of her time at HP), which means that it’s very hard for me to get a sense on what the general tenor of the state is, because almost everyone I know has picked up that visceral loathing.
My sense on Whitman is that she’s spent enough money to have enough ads that she’s become an irritant – that is to say, by blanketing the state’s airwaves with her message, she’s triggered an “enough already, go away” feeling.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:22 amI recall that Aphrael, and I appreciate you going into some detail explaining how folks around you feel about her. At least you’re honest about this being a visceral loathing in your specific area, but it’s a real issue affecting the race.
Your Whitman synopsis is discouraging, but oh-so-realistic.
We’ll see in a few days.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:27 amI’ve dealt with HP products, during and since her tenure, didn’t the last CEO have to quit over sexual harrassment issues. I go with Rasmussen because they have been more consistently right, since they took over from Zogby which had been the most accurate till 2002 or so
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:28 amian – http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings suggests that Rasmussen falls just behind PPP, and substantially behind Field and SurveyUSA, in accuracy.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:35 amsillie cudlips.
you think you are ridin’ A-frame, but its really just bake.
Don’t count us out until the cellphone nation votes……after Stewarts rally.
🙂
less say you win the house….what happens next?
2012 with no candidate. Palin’s favorables are lower than COD’s.
Romney is a MORMON, lol.
and the demographic timer goes tick…tick….tick…..
wheeler's cat (e71e74) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:37 amI like HP keyboards, but taking their laptops apart is a total nightmare. I don’t blame Fiorina for it, but I’m sticking to Lenovo.
HP outperformed the competition in tough times, but they were very tough times and a lot of great leaders didn’t survive. Fiorina would have been better off with a different approach to colleagues, but I think she was right to lay off employees (I realize this is a major reasons she’s loathed).
She’s a brilliant business woman who actually worked her way up from nothing. She’s cutthroat like many a successful man, but most importantly, she’s willing to make tough and unpopular cuts. She would make an excellent Senator. But does she represent California values as well as Boxer does? We’ll see in a few days.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:39 amSome granchildren of Hewlett and Packard have an op-ed in today’s Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/27/EDFT1G2A5C.DTL&type=politics in which they denounce Fiorina.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:42 amAphrael, one is wise to take 538’s ratings with a grain of salt the size of my head.
And I have a larger than average head.
Rasmussen has often been much closer than others in the contests I’ve paid attention to. It’s just built up a visceral great impression for accuracy. When I see they are standing apart from the crowd, I guess we’re going to see them more right than the rest again.
And I bet 538’s methodology will work around that somehow.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:44 amI don’t put that much stock in Silver, and certainly
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:47 amnot in PPP which has been embarassingly wrong on a number of occasions.
We really won’t know until Nov 3. Until then I hope the Republicans win, but then I’ve hoped that before.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:52 amI’m puzzled by the anti-538 sentiment here. Silver did a great job in 2008, he’s been amazingly transparent with his explanations of his methodology, and he has a long history of statistical experience.
Doesn’t mean he’s always going to be right, but it does seem that he’s being honest and forthright about his analysis – and his conclusions are usually reasonable, and his history (both in baseball stats and in the 2008 election) suggests he should be taken seriously.
Yet here there seems to be a general sentiment among many of the commenters that he can’t be trusted.
I don’t get it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:53 amimho, rasmussen has been the most accurate in my unscientific observations.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/27/2010 @ 11:56 amAphrael, thanks for the link, though it’s a very poor argument. It vaguely talks about employee relationships. We get that she fired a lot of people. HP’s performance was disappointing because it was in the middle of the dot-com bust, but considering how HP emerged a leader, and outperformed the industry, it’s just not a fair argument. An executive of a failing company (HP) was paid well. This is normal, as it’s quite challenging to fix that problem and often damages the leader’s reputation to be associated with the problems.
What does the federal government need to do? What does the California government need to do? Fire a lot of dead weight, cut benefits and pay, reduce its size and spending dramatically, and emerge from a period of hard times as a leader.
If Barbara Boxer’s plan (green jobs, more spending, more taxing, and bigger government) is California’s choice, I guess I’m obliged to respect that. But this vague ‘values’ complaint about Fiorina should have been fleshed out.
The reason it wasn’t is that it would have looked like a campaign ad for Fiorina as it covered a stubborn spending cutter. Fiorina ended her CEO term with some very embarrassing behavior, and it was time for her to go when she did, but that article/op-ed/openforum/whatever is being too clever by half to point to say ‘the stock went up when she left, so she was a bad leader’.
At some point, our elected leaders have to start making these cuts to unionized government bloat. We can’t pay all our pension obligations, and it’s going to be a nightmare to solve that problem. When someone tries, any gaffe they make will be exploded into the definition of their career, too. Fiorina can take it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:02 pmI’m probably being somewhat unfair, Aphrael. I haven’t really looked at its methodology. When I googled it, I noticed most of its backers didn’t cover it at all, either.
Huffpo was vague about it, NYT doesn’t think I can handle details, etc. And its conclusions don’t line up with my preconceptions (however reasonable they are).
So I just say take it with a grain of salt. I suspect that Rasmussen will be proven pretty accurate in a few days, in which case it will call 538’s methodology into question, right?
btw, when I call the anti-Fiorina link you gave us a bad argument, that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the link. That’s how she’s being portrayed and I’m glad to understand it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:06 pmThe choice is between Fiorina and Brown, so they prefer ‘more welfare, less jobs’ that’s his motto
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:15 pmWell, the choice is really between Fiorina and Boxer, or Whitman and Brown.
My gut is that things tend to slide towards challengers at the end of the campaign. But Aphrael’s right that indications show the democrats win both of these contests.
There’s no excuse for losing to Brown, IMO.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:25 pmIan, Fiorina and Brown are running for different offices.
Brown is running for Governor on a platform of fiscal conservatism against Whitman, who seems to be running on the platform that she can do all the things Arnie said he would do but didn’t.
Fiorina is running for Senator against the incumbent, Barbara Boxer; I don’t know what their respective platforms are because my voting decision was sealed the moment the Republican party nominated Fiorina, and so I haven’t been paying attention to their campaigns.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:26 pmYou know what I meant, Boxer has been abyssmally bad for eighteen years
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:28 pm“You know what I meant”
Just giving you a hard time.
Boxer is amazingly bad, but as you note, she’s been amazingly bad for a very long time. People have said ‘more, please’. I honestly don’t understand California as well as Aphrael does.
I think we’re making progress, and over the next few decades, fiscal sanity will become more common on both parties. At least, that’s my hope. If we go down the European path of a freebies vs sanity election, we’re screwed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:35 pmDustin – well, I live here. I know nothing about the politics of most states that aren’t California. 🙂
For some more data, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/early-voting-v-likely-voters/65275/ has the early voting numbers for California at Dem 43 / Rep 39 / other 18.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:40 pmSome granchildren of Hewlett and Packard have an op-ed in today’s Chronicle
After their ridiculous behavior in attempting to scuttle the HP/Compaq merger, I really don’t put much credence into the great thoughts of trust fund brats. They only opposed it after they had previously approved it, so WTF? Inbred elites, that family – Bill Hewlett would puke if he witnessed his offspring today.
As for Rasmussen, if memory serves they were the only polling outfit that gave Scott Brown a shot before the election. Afterward, they received the unyielding scorn of the MFM (right wing shills!) – most of which missed the entire upset in the making.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:11 pmI just want to note, Pelosi ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism, pledging absolutely no more deficit spending. Obama ran on such a platform too.
Brown’s union affiliations are proof positive that his platform is one of fiscal disaster.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:16 pmAnyone who believes that Moonbeam is a fiscal conservative, should not be talking about pollsters selling snake-oil.
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:39 pmIf you don’t like Rasmussens lack of “transparancy”, don’t look at his polls;
or, you can rely on analysis of his polls by his subscribers, who are legion among the punditry, and who do comment on his internals.
As I said:
He’s doing this for a living; plus, he’s not an adjunct of some major corporation who’s paying the freight – but then, the results of the poll would belong to them, and not to Rasmussen.
We need a president who is NOT a senator!
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:40 pmComment by Aaron Worthing — 10/27/2010 @ 11:15 am
As a member of the Firearms Community in relatively good standing, one looks for inconsistencies like that – the failures of “continuity” in film for instance when somebody whips out their semi-auto pistol, fires two rounds and the slide locks back, and then the director cuts to another camera, and our “hero” starts another string of shots without either replacing the mag, or racking the slide.
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:47 pmThough, it must be said, they have gotten away from Westerns where nobody ever reloaded.
But, this was a significant goof if you’re appealing to American Patriotism.
AD – RtR/OS – I don’t think I said that Brown is a fiscal conservative. I said that he’s running on a platform from which he’s claiming to be a fiscal conservative.
These are substantially different statements. 🙂 I find Brown’s platform difficult to believe, but I also find Whitman’s platform difficult to believe; as far as I can tell they’re both full of s**t.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:53 pma…you may have a cookie (H/T- Don Rickels).
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:59 pmWas there ever a wave election like this against the New Deal/FDR regime?
Patricia (9b018a) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:13 pm1938 came close, he lost a lot of seats on the Hill.
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:15 pmBut, the big reaction against the New Deal was 1946!
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:15 pmI don’t think political ramifications come into it when someone has to go to a hospital; I understand it’s an infection. I hope she’ll be okay.
JEA (330886) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:20 pm1946, when they passed the prez term limits?
Patricia (9b018a) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:30 pmAd
regarding reloading…
The explanation for why so many movies skip it, is because editors though it was boring to show it, not realizing that it was part of what kept the story believable.
Of course in videogames, we have magic clips that just fill up on their own. And we can apparently carry 3 metric tons of weapons with us at all times.
Don’t worry about being nitpicky. its useful. mostly.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:45 pmThose early votes would suggest it’s pretty close, almost within the margin of error
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:49 pm“Was there ever a wave election like this against the New Deal/FDR regime?”
Patricia – FDR bought a lot of votes when he needed to.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:51 pmIan – it’s hard to tell. Early voting in California has historically trended more conservative than the state’s votes as a whole (as demonstrated by the election night returns: the first reported returns, which are always just early votes with no precinct reporting, always skew substantially more conservative than the election results as a whole). That was still true in 2008.
It might not be true this year, as more people than ever before are voting early, but if I had to bet one way or the other, I’d bet that it’s still true.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:53 pmWell how did it go with the recall vote, which is really the only comparable example we can use, or the Pete Wilson race in ’94
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 3:01 pmFor early voting, neither of those are reasonable comparisons.
In the 1990s, the early absentee results were substantially more conservative than the state as a whole. Over the intervening years, the effect has waned, so that now they are somewhat more conservative than the state as a whole. Using the 1994 election’s early absentees as a guide to how to interpret this election’s early absentees would mislead you into thinking the eventual outcome will be substantially less conservative than the early absentees are. (To be clear, I’m talking about a difference of 4-5 points in the result in 2008 vs. 10-15 points in the result in 1994 … nobody expects the early absentees to be 10-15 points more conservative than the electorate as a whole, because the use of absentee ballots has become so much more common than in 1994).
The recall election was nothing like this election – or any other election, really; I don’t think it can be used as a basis for generalization.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/27/2010 @ 3:07 pmYou’re probably right, the Party hasn’t really cultivated much in the way of new voters, kind of
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 3:12 pmlike ‘that state that dare not be named’
Patricia…Presidential Term-Limits were just one of the many counter-measures that came out of the 46-48 “Do Nothing Congress”.
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 3:16 pmThey also passed Taft-Hartley to put a check on the virtually unbridled union power that FDR passed out.
And, they ignited an expansion of the economy by getting the govt out of the way to a large degree.
“My sense on Whitman is that she’s spent enough money to have enough ads that she’s become an irritant – that is to say, by blanketing the state’s airwaves with her message, she’s triggered an “enough already, go away” feeling.
Comment by aphrael — 10/27/2010 @ 11:22 am”
Exactly my sentiments about Teh Won.
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 10/27/2010 @ 3:18 pmComment by PatAZ — 10/27/2010 @ 3:18 pm
The exact same point that was made by Charles Krauthammer on Fox News this week.
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 3:34 pmWhat are these California values?
Jerry Brown had said that we need more welfare and fewer jobs. And yet, the Whitman campaign failed to exploit this quote effectively.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 10/27/2010 @ 4:22 pm“AD – RtR/OS – I don’t think I said that Brown is a fiscal conservative. I said that he’s running on a platform from which he’s claiming to be a fiscal conservative.
These are substantially different statements. I find Brown’s platform difficult to believe, but I also find Whitman’s platform difficult to believe; as far as I can tell they’re both full of s**t.
Comment by aphrael — 10/27/2010 @ 1:53 pm”
The question isn’t if both aren’t full of crap but which will do less harm. Given the fact that Brown is directly responsible for implementing the polices that have bankrupted California can any sane person really believe that Whitman will be worse than Brown?
As for Boxer, her record of fiscal irresponsibility is so awful that again could Fiorina be any worse?
cubanbob (409ac2) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:04 pmApparently some really think so, but this is really a personal issue. They are saying they don’t really care that Boxer will obviously be much worse, is much less respectful of the little guy, and is less responsible, because Fiorina laid off people in their community.
And while I’d like to bash that POV, it’s realistic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:09 pmApparently some really think so, but this is really a personal issue. They are saying they don’t really care that Boxer will obviously be much worse, is much less respectful of the little guy, and is less responsible, because Fiorina laid off people in their community.
And while I’d like to bash that POV, it’s realistic.
And how do those people think the State is going to be prevented from insolvency? Do they really think DC is going to bail CA out? Not a chance in hell after this coming election. So in the end its going to be cutting state payrolls, state worker salaries and benefits and the social spending. And if the republicans have even the slightest modicum of cojones that is coming to DC as well. So where does Boxer fit in to this? Nowhere. And with the new crew coming in and with no clout Boxer will get nothing whatsoever for CA. I say judging from your comment, if true, then that is one truly deluded electorate.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 10/27/2010 @ 10:09 pmH L Mencken was right when he said democracy is the process where the people get the government they deserve, good and hard. If Brown and Boxer win CA is going to learn that lesson very well indeed.
And how do those people think the State is going to be prevented from insolvency?
Why would this effect my vote for Senator? Governor, sure. But the Senate doesn’t write California’s budget.
And with the new crew coming in and with no clout Boxer will get nothing whatsoever for CA
The odds are that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate. Unless, of course, Liebermann jumps parties. 🙂
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/27/2010 @ 10:13 pmField Poll out this morning shows Brown up 10%. Whitman’s unfavorables have crossed over 50%, and her support among women and latinos has collapsed.
Which means I have to retract something I said earlier: the silly housekeeper september surprise hurt Whitman much more than I thought it would.
[There’s still an element of weariness with her endless ads, which I think is driving her support down across the board (she doesn’t even have a lead among white men) – but the specific collapse among latinos and women is traceable to the housekeeper story.]
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:24 amaph
grrr, and people who seem to know say field is better than most. yeah, it looks bad.
if whitman loses, she should totally sue allred for defamation.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:28 amLook on the bright side if Brown wins – when the state finally implodes, only the Dems will be left to blame. And for the most part, they own the current financial morass – what could be more perfect shadenfreud than watching the same guy preside over a bankruptcy that played an integral part in it’s inception?
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:45 pmHowever, the Us Taxpayer may be called on to bail California out. Writing’s on the wall. We need as many GOP Senators and House members as we can possibly get, in particular Fiorina, to avoid that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:49 pmH L Mencken was right when he said democracy is the process where the people get the government they deserve, good and hard. If Brown and Boxer win CA is going to learn that lesson very well indeed.Comment by cubanbob
/nods head soberly
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:50 pmI did not intend to strike that out.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:51 pmField poll out today shows Boxer 49 Fiorina 41, with a 48/42 skew among those who have already voted.
[The conservative skew in absentee votes is getting smaller and soon won’t be relevant any more].
Independents are favoring Boxer 49-32.
Fiorina does worst in the Bay Area (27%), which isn’t a surprise. She does best in Southern California outside of LA (53%), but is losing LA by a pretty wide margin (60/30/10).
White Non-Hispanic voters favor Fiorina slightly, but every minority group except for Vietnamese-Americans (who are mostly undecided) line up for Boxer. Boxer leads among all age groups.
Oddly, Boxer still has higher negatives than Fiorina does, except among Independents.
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2363.pdf
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:03 amThe idea that Brown is a fiscal conservative is laughable, apparel, isn’t it?
The volume of ads for those two races is remarkable.
JD (0ea0b7) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:09 amIt breaks my heart for the people of California that the stupid housekeeper story is going to keep us from getting a sensible governor.
MayBee (a3efe7) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:19 amBoxer…Brown….
AD-RtR/OS! (1808fa) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:22 amNevada is looking better and better…
Rasmussen has it within 4, and that’s who I’d rely on,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:23 amLook on the bright side if Brown wins – when the state finally implodes, only the Dems will be left to blame. And for the most part, they own the current financial morass – what could be more perfect shadenfreud than watching the same guy preside over a bankruptcy that played an integral part in it’s inception?
Comment by Dmac
What could be more perfect ? Looking at it from a distance.
Mike K (568408) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:24 amAs long as California does receive any federal aid for unscrewing itself I will be content to watch the state continue imploding. Pain is a great motivator and eventually, who knows when, people will come to their senses.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:38 am