The California primary elections next month will be interesting. The two Republican candidates in the leading statewide races are both wealthy corporate CEOs. Both call for fiscal restraint and reform but are socially liberal. In this they are similar to our present Governor, Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Both of these ladies have male primary challengers who are more socially conservative on the issues that arouse the Wingnut base. In a Republican primary, one or both of these ladies could be defeated by their leading opponents.
The irony is that Whitman will almost certainly win the Governorship in the general election if she makes it that far and while I do not think Carly can beat Barbara Boxer out of her Senate seat, some think that she might. If they are defeated in the primaries, it is all but certain that the Democrats will keep the Senate seat and regain the Governorship.
I'm not sure people unfamiliar with California politics really understand the implications of the way the Republican lurch to the social right is going to affect the makeup of our roster of elected officials.
I wonder in how many states will the rise of the Wingnut and religious right, to control of the Republican Party, as may be happening in California, will increase their representation in government?
4 comments:
An even more interesting (if unanswerable) question: If there really are more kooks than ever, aren't they entitled to representation?
I do not advocate disenfranchising anyone.
The social conservatives are entitled to all the representation they can get.
The Republicans are now a fairly small party. They require large numbers of independent and crossover voters to win elections. That may not be true forever but it's true now.
The question is whether, as the dominant faction of the GOP in some areas and therefore able to choose who goes on the ballot in general elections, will socially conservative candidates have the ability to attract the needed independents to win elections?
I think that they do have that kind of strength in the in some Southern and Southern satellite, mid Western states. I do not think they do in the upper mid West and Western states, where issues such as separation of church and state, Women's reproductive rights, environmental awareness and civil rights for homosexuals have greater support. We're going to get a chance to see if they do next November.
Poizner is social moderate and Campbell is a social liberal. The only social conservative challenger is DeVore.
I don't think Carly is more electable than Campbell. He's smooth and well-liked. She's a King Kamehameha Bitch who is despised by her former employees at HP.
Campbell is a social liberal. He is completely off my radar. I apologize for that. I have always assumed that he doesn't have a chance in the primary. Too liberal, no money. I could be wrong. If he made it to the General and got ahold of some money to campaign, he would be a very hard opponent for Boxer to beat. How likely do you think that is?
Poisner is a social moderate on abortion. He might be characterized as a liberal anywhere else on this issue but California isn't anywhere else. I suppose there is a chance he could beat Jerry Brown in the General. How hard could that be?
Still, he's not going to do well with minorities or people on the low end of the economic spectrum. He's also going to strike out with lefty elites of any kind, except maybe Jews.
I wouldn't vote for DeVore under any circumstances. I probably would vote for Campbell against Boxer. I don't think I'll get that opportunity.
I'm not that crazy about the idea of another Jerry Brown Governorship although I never thought he was the disaster a lot of people did. Kind of like the way I feel about Jimmy Carter. I'll probably vote for him again. Why spoil a perfect voting record?
Jerry should have gone into the priesthood and become Pope. He'd be a great Pope.
Post a Comment