« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

It is Not Chuck DeVore Who Must Drop Out. Carly Fiorina Must Go.

A conservative whose first name starts with a “C” can win the primary and beat Barbra Boxer. But that person is not named Carly. Rather that person is named Chuck.”

The myth in the California Senate race is that Tom Campbell has corralled the moderate/left votes, and Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore are splitting the conservative vote between them. In this myth, DeVore, as the lower-polling candidate, functions as a “spoiler” for Fiorina — who would otherwise win with a united conservative base behind her.

As with all myths, this one is wholly false.

Of the major polls taken on CA-Sen in the past 90 days, only five of them explicitly polled on ideological identification: Rasmussen, two SurveyUSA polls, LAT/USC, and Field. A survey of those five polls reveals the following:

1) The ideological breakdowns among the CA-Sen candidates broadly follow the overall polling breakdowns.

2) Tom Campbell, contrary to myth, has his base in self-identified conservatives, and leads among them — even in categories in which he is antagonistic toward the ideological position, such as pro-lifers and gun owners.

3) There is little evidence of movement from one candidate to another, and hence of any “spoiler” role. The only such evidence is found in the SurveyUSA polls, in which Fiorina losses are almost exactly matched by DeVore gains; if sustained in other data sets, this arguably makes Fiorina a “spoiler” for DeVore, but not vice-versa.

The bottom line is that the DeVore-as-spoiler myth is a falsehood perpetrated by an increasingly worried and anxious Fiorina campaign that is already seeking to cast blame for its failures on third parties. There is no data to support it.

Individual polls, in reverse chronological order, and comments follow.

—————————————————————-

POLL: Rasmussen Reports
DATE: May 12th, 2010

–Conservatives–
DeVore — 70%
Campbell — 69%
Fiorina — 66%

NOTES: In this, a hypothetical matchup against Boxer, we see that the leader in conservative affections is Chuck DeVore, with Campbell second — and Fiorina a decided third.

—————————————————————-

POLL: SurveyUSA
DATE: May 10th, 2010

–Conservatives–
Campbell — 31%
Fiorina — 25%
DeVore — 17%

–Pro-Life–
Campbell — 30%
Fiorina — 23%
DeVore — 19%

–Gun Owner–
Campbell — 34%
Fiorina — 21%
DeVore — 19%

NOTES: Here we see again Campbell leading decisively even among conservatives whom he stands in opposition to — pro-lifers and gun owners. Also note the decline in Fiorina’s standings, and the near-identical rise in DeVore’s, versus the preceding SurveyUSA poll — our only evidence of any “spoiler” role.

—————————————————————-

POLL: SurveyUSA
DATE: April 22nd, 2010

–Conservatives–
Campbell — 31%
Fiorina — 28%
DeVore — 15%

–Pro-Life–
Campbell — 31%
Fiorina — 27%
DeVore — 15%

–Gun Owner–
Campbell — 34%
Fiorina — 28%
DeVore — 15%

NOTES: Here we see Campbell leading decisively even among conservatives whom he stands in opposition to — pro-lifers and gun owners.

—————————————————————-

POLL: LAT/USC
DATE: April 6th, 2010

–Conservatives–
Fiorina — 30%
Campbell — 28%
DeVore — 10%

NOTES: This, nearly 60 days back, is the only poll that ever showed Fiorina leading among conservatives — proof that she is capable of a lead among conservatives, and is not held back from one by any “spoiler.”

—————————————————————

POLL: Field
DATE: March 18th, 2010

–Conservatives–
Campbell — 27%
Fiorina — 25%
DeVore — 13%

NOTES: We see that Campbell has a narrow lead among conservatives here.

—————————————————————-

Now let’s look at the PPIC polling, which is even more damning for Fiorina.

FIorina — 25%
Campbell — 23%
DeVore — 16%

The margin of error is 5% in this poll and it comes after all the big endorsements for Fiorina from pro-lifers to Sarah Palin. How does it compare to the last one? Well, On March 20th, PPIC had this:

Fiorina — 24%
Campbell — 23%
DeVore – 8%

PPIC is the only poll to show Fiorina in the lead and after two months she has gained only one point and Chuck DeVore has gained 8 points.

We know from the real world — Marlin Stutzman — that two weeks out in Indiana he was at 8%, the week before the race he was at 18%, and the day of the election he got 30%.

The trends, polls, and other data are clear: Carly Fiorina has reached the glass ceiling. Chuck DeVore is going up. And it is Carly who is a drain on Chuck, not the other way around.

A conservative whose first name starts with a “C” can win the primary and beat Barbra Boxer. But that person is not named Carly. Rather that person is named Chuck.

Carly Fiorina needs to get out and endorse Chuck DeVore.

COMMENTS

  • rrreaganite

    This is America and if you want to run for office, you should. The job of any candidate is to convince the plurality of voters that he or she would serve them better than their opponents. Whoever does that, did the best and deserves the support of conservatives in the general. I personally am for Devore, but the calls to withdraw for any candidate are audacious.
    Also, although it pains me to say this as a Devore supporter, Chuck is in third place in every poll with over double digits separating him from the top 2. I don’t believe that the person in 2nd place can logically be considered a “spoiler”.

  • http://www.uncoverage.net uncoverage

    Excellent analysis of the numbers!

    Carly,PLEASE ignore your staff and TAKE this advice. There is a future for you in another endeavor. You will cause Barbara Boxer to win if you stay in this race. There is no way you will win in the fall. Chuck can win and what’s more, he can make a difference in the Senate that you are not prepared to make.

    Beyond these primary poll numbers, which are compelling,is the need for Californians ( and I am one) to choose the one who will have the best chance to beat Barbara Boxer this fall. That is only Chuck DeVore.

    Carly Fiorina has abundant “bad baggage” which will haunt her through the general and doom her one month before the fall election should she be the unfortunate choice for nominee. All the denying in the world will not erase her firing from HP, the thousands of workers out here who still despise her for taking a $42 million parachute after unapologetically laying off 20,000 people.
    The troubling sales of HP printers to Iran despite an embargo is still not resolved. Still hanging fire is the civil/criminal investigation allegations that HP bribed Russian gov’t staff during Fiorina’s tenure. The same Obama who flies out twice to campaign for Boxer is the Obama whose appointees are running that investigation. Wanna bet a shoe will drop in that case in October just in time to doom Carly?

    Campbell is already out of money and already pulling up lame (as he always does) in his campaigning. His horrible history of appeasing terrorist groups and taking their money is a fatal flaw which Boxer will attack. Also, we are SO DONE with Tom Campbell. He lost by 20 pts to Feinstein the last time..he is a proven LOSER. A high-taxing, pro-abortion, pro-Islamic but somehow he wants an “R” next to the name?

    There can be noone to beat Boxer but Chuck DeVore. He has the wonderful “story” that California is coming to love, he is running grassroots ops and he will rock any debate with the Babster. I covered Ronald Reagan back in the day…and I have never had this Reagan “feeling” again until hearing Chuck DeVore.

    As you know best of all Erick E., the NRSC boys (Cornyn and Jesmer) cooked up the Fiorina campaign when DeVore was already in and raising money. Let’s see– how are they batting around the country right now on all their lineups? McCain? Crist? Specter? McConnell and Lindsey Graham have flown in to endorse Carly? Please! That kind of “help” we do not want.

    Carly will be greatly admired if she stops now and gets on the right side of history. It can be a great move for her to do this. It will unify us out here and it will be a devastating blow to the Democratic party and Boxer. It will show that we actually want to take this country back.

    Thank y

  • http://www.uncoverage.net uncoverage

    money bomb him!

  • ejfrench

    Please support Lon Hosford in NJ District 7…he’s running to unseat RINO Leonard Lance who voted for Cap and Trade. Lon has been a Tea Party activist since the beginning and has all the right positions on individual liberty and support of the Constitution. I know him personally and he’s a terrific man. Anything you all can do to support him would be most appreciated.

    http://www.lonhosfordforcongress.org/

    Go Lon!!

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Are there any precedents from a 3 way primary race where;
    1- Candidate “A” is leading both “B” and “C” in almost every primary head-to-head poll
    2- Candidate “A” leads both “B” and “C” in match-ups against the general election opposition candidate
    Then:
    1- Candidate “B” or “C” drops out
    2- Candidate “B” or “C” beats “A” in the primary
    3- Candidate “B” or “C” wins the general

    I am not a probability theorist, mathematician or “Jimmy the Greek” for that matter. Nonetheless, I am curious regarding the odds or history on such feats.

  • EagleWatcher

    How can a “true conservative” support Fiorina? Her endorsement has given new life to Fiorina’s campaign. I’m afraid Palin’s more like McCain than Ronald Reagan.

  • phatphan

    . . .to all support of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They have stopped calling to beg for money because I have told them in no uncertain terms that hencefort I will not contribute one red copper to the NRSC. Instead what money I may have available for political support will henceforth go to Conservatives like Jim DeMint.

    It is hard to understand how the good people of South Carolina can elect a solid Conservative like Jim and then turn around and send a political hack like Lindsay Grahamnesty to Washington for a second term.

  • rrreaganite

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/20/fiorina_grabs_lead_in_california_primary.html

  • Locked and Loaded
  • Locked and Loaded
  • RINKER

    Tom Coburn and other conservatives have endorsed her. Fiorina is strongly pro-life and was endorsed by pro-life organizations in California.

  • rsjt

    Wow, a lot of undecideds this far in it appears. And Chuck DeVore is gaining ground and has momentum. This will be interesting.

    Thanks for the great information. Quite encouraging.

  • RINKER

    That kind of deflates the argument that Fiorina’s support is “collapsing”.

  • RINKER

    While I’m glad Rand Paul won, his win actually moves me more towards Carly. I just don’t want two Republican isolationists in the Senate together. (Chuck is against the Afghanistan War.)

  • RINKER

    The last poll had him at 15% and he’s skyrocketed all the way up to 16%? Wow.

  • RINKER

    If you compare PPIC poll to PPIC poll, he HAS gained…. That might be the more fair comparison in which case you would be correct.

  • EagleWatcher

    Just sayin’

  • JamesSmith130

    but that may actually help him in the general election, in dispelling the Boxer attack that he is a “far right extremist”.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • cschande

    …who endorsed DeVore BEFORE Palin endorsed Fiorina. He went up a few notches in my book with that endorsement. Palin, meanwhile, is moving in the wrong direction…

  • Aaron Gardner

    and if you are going to make an assertion like that you should link to some evidence.

    Here is what Chuck DeVore actually wrote

    As a result of culture and geography, Mr. Obama’s Afghan surge will likely fall short of its objectives while spending $40 billion per year. Employing conventional forces in pursuit of terrorists and guerrilla forces is always an expensive proposition. Attempting to build nations on soil not yet fertile to the concepts of democracy and national unity is even more problematic. Neither is needed to produce the result we want: deadly consequences for attacking Americans. This can be done with special forces, drones and better human intelligence.

    This was from an op-ed that DeVore wrote on foreign policy Jan o this year. Make sure to read the rest before parroting another Fiorina talking point please.

  • EagleWatcher

    We won’t beat hard core Marxists with squishy moderates.

  • RINKER

    I hope noone ever forgets his record in Arkansas of RAISING TAXES and SPENDING. He keeps attacking the Club for Growth as the “Club for Greed”. He is NOT one of us.

  • RINKER

    I watched the debate and that is what I came away with, Aaron. He did say he favors drone attacks, but he also said “THE TALIBAN POSES NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES”. That bothers me.

  • smitch61

    But I do not live in CA, so cannot be sure. I can tell you in Michigan, we are a conservative state believe it or not. We have about 5 or 6 counties that are dem strongholds, one of those counties is Wayne County which embodies the city of Detroit. Then of course we have the unions. Michigan is much smaller than CA so hard to tell. The unions here would bury someone like DeVore unfortunately. I do wish him the best of luck though. I would love to see him win.

  • RINKER

    So is Tom Coburn a squish? Gimme a break.

  • RINKER

    Just trying to be fair, Aaron. Not trying to spin for either one….

  • Aaron Gardner

    The Taliban is fairly limited, Al Qaeda on the other hand is an existential threat.

    If it really bothered you, you would have looked up DeVore’s policies and statements which pretty much clears up where Chuck stands.

  • Achance

    Whatever position would get her notice or votes or would allow her to diss someone she opposed was always her style here in Alaska. During her brief and unfortunate time as Governor, she governed largely with the support of the Democrats over the oppostion of most Legislative Republicans. But you didn’t read about any of that on her Facebook page did you? I can assure you that the majority of Alaskans are quite happy to have her now belong to the Nation.

  • RINKER

    I heard it from his own mouth.
    Chuck is more isolationist than me, and Rand Paul is WAY more isolationiist than I am. Rand supporters tried to downplay his stances, but now we are faced with articles like this from Politico: http://www.politico.com/arena/
    That is a debate we don’t need in the party. I am a RONALD REAGAN conservative. I hope they put Rand on the Budget Committee and keep him far away from the Forreign Relations Committee.

    I don’t agree with you at all about the Taliban. You can’t separate the Taliban from Al Qaeda.

  • Aaron Gardner

    And, “isolationist” … You must be joking at this point.

  • RINKER

    okay.

  • havasu

    I personally think Devore is the better candidate from both a principle, and strategic perspective. I do not, however think that we are well served as a conservative movement, or (secondarily) as Republican strategists if we urge one or another candidate with reasonable followings (I’m not talking about 2% fringers) to drop out ahead of the primary. Primaries exist for a reason. I understand the complications that conservative votesplitting can produce; I think we run the risk of becoming an alternative version of the RNC/NRSC if we try to push one or another disfavored candidate under the bus before the primary takes place.
    Let them fight. Let the voters decide. Then, let’s push like crazy (even if, God forbid the execrable Mr Campbell wins) to win Boxer the retirement she so desperately requires.

  • RINKER

    Chuck is more isolationist than Reagan. You don’t think Reagan would have approved of the invasion of Afghanistan? You could argue that Fiorina the more conservative candidate where foreign policy is concerned.

  • Scope

    Palin is an opportunist. I have no problem with someone having an opportunity, and stepping through that door to grasp it. I do have a problem with someone who has such national identity/popularity taking advantage of an open door, which was opened by the conservatives, and then falsely pushing off someone as a conservative, who is really nothing more than another opportunist for the wrong reasons. Palin is trying to make herself into a kingmaker, and those that she is crowning will ultimately be her downfall, when they prove to be anything but conservative. Hopefully the dishonesty will rear it’s ugly head before 2012.

  • RINKER

    In fairness, the thing that bugs me the most about her is that she once supported cap-and-tax. She claims she doesn’t support it now, but that is not very comforting.

  • RINKER

    Please. Fiorina was endorsed by multiple pro-life groups.
    Palin is not the only one making endorsements. She has a PAC and has every right to voice her opinon. That is unfair to say she is trying to be a “kingmaker” when you have Pence, Ryan, Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney, etc. all making endorsements. I TOTALLY reject the narrow opinion that you HAVE to support Chuck DeVore to be a good conservative.

  • jimmyg

    I just saw the post on the Rasmuessen poll of the SC governors race. Rasmuessen interviewed 931 likely voters for a state with a population of 4.5 million. The PPP poll which is the subject of this post interviewed 441 likely voters for a state with a population of 36.9 million. I would like to hear what Neil has to say. I am not a statitician but the sample size seems small for a state the size of California.

  • Achance

    if oil was at $140/bbl., the state had a multi-billion dollar budget surplus after passing a record budget, and you were giving away over $3000 to every man, woman, and child in the State.

    Her largely Democrat-backed ACES taxation scheme somewhat increased State revenue in SFY 08 and 09, but at the expense of further diminishing industry interest in developing new oil provinces in Alaska. There was a strong move to amend it in this Legislative session which would have been successful had it not been a gubernatorial election year; next year it passes. The TransAlaska Pipeling is currently operating at only about one third capacity and throughput is dropping steadily. There still is no gas line, or even a hint of one, and most consider a gas line to the Lower 48 a dead issue. The $1000 “energy rebate” was pure populist pandering, and she had nothing to do with the amount of the Permanent fund dividend that year. She sure didn’t like the buzz saw she ran into with the ’10 Budget and reduced PFD and when she saw her popularity and National recognition falling, she bailed for the book deal and life as a political celebrity.

  • RINKER

    drone attacks was Bill Clinton’s answer to Al Qada. We see how well that worked.

  • psmith

    Chuck DeVore: Senator Jim DeMint, Congressmen McClintock, Flake, Rohrbacher, and Tancredo. ALL TRUE CONSERVATIVES, pro- second amendment, pro-life, anti-earmarks, and a records to prove it. Michelle Malkin- staunch conservative, Mark Levin – Constitutional lawyer and radio host, Andrew Breitbart – jounalist and exposed ACORN, Michelle Bachmanns’ support, and many more TRUE Conservatives.

    NOW let’s look at Fiorina

    Senators Olympia Snowe (yes her vote in committee brought us the HC bill to the floor and made it law), Collins, Graham (who called citizens bigots when we wanted out immigration laws endorsed oh ya documented on video and wants and National ID card, McCain same as Graham, ALL RINOS, and a few conservatives who sold out. Including Palin!

    Campbell:

    Pro-GayMarriage Groups, Pro-Choice Groups, Pro-Gun Control groups. Just the endorsements alone tells us who is the TRUE Conservative.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Please quote in full with link.

  • RINKER

    …was that the Taliban was not an “existential threat” to the U.S. and that he favored drone attacks. Weren’t drone attacks Bill Clinton’s policy?

  • RINKER

    http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/13/devore-the-dove

    The article is entitled “Devore the Dove” from that RINO publication “The American Spectator”.

    Drone attacks = return to Bill Clinton’s foreign policy

  • RINKER

    “Employing conventional forces in pursuit of terrorists and guerrilla forces is always an expensive proposition. Attempting to build nations on soil not yet fertile to the concepts of democracy and national unity is even more problematic. Neither is needed to produce the result we want: deadly consequences for attacking Americans. This can be done with special forces, drones and better human intelligence.”

  • Aaron Gardner

    I have linked to an op-ed he wrote, which you clearly haven’t read.

    DeVore is for unconventional warfare. He supports greater use of Special Forces soldier in conjunction with drones and greater Human Intelligence.

    This is not what Bill Clinton’s policy was, to say so proves you to be ignorant of what you speak.

    The plan doesn’t stop there either. DeVore believes that we much increase support for the Defense budget as he explained here…

    Looking at the percentage of GDP applied to defense is useful, but it is just as important to see how we are spending our money. Reagan-era defense budgets invested 45 percent in modernization while day-to-day operations consumed 50 percent. Today’s wartime budget invests 30 percent in modernization while military operations consume 65 percent. This is the result of the decision to spend $1.08 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while lacking the political will to spend as much on defense as we did 25 years ago.

    I think Chuck DeVore has a much firmer grasp of what Reagan’s FP was considering he worked in Reagan’s administration.

  • Aaron Gardner

    That quote is from the article I linked and you didn’t read.

    Thanks for proving that you are a troll.

  • SIConservative

    Are you really questioning his cred?

  • Aaron Gardner

    I asked you to quote where her said he was against the invasion of Afghanistan or the Afghanistan War.

    You clearly can’t prove your assertion.

    Back off of it now.

  • RINKER

    So who is speaking for Reagan? Richard Perle or Chuck Devore? Frank Gaffney or Chuck Devore?

    Troll? Ignorant? No name calling, Aaron.

    The article (which I read and you must not have) clearly states that Devore is TO THE LEFT of Carly Fiorina on foreign polciy and it is entitled “Devore the Dove”. I don’t recall you quoting either of those. You are not being totally honest in your assesment.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Your article is based on the DeVore op-ed I linked and you clearly still haven’t read.

    Have a good day being ignorant.

  • SIConservative

    And you shouldn’t do everything you want. I find it especially funny that you think those who want to run for office should but those who have an opinion about whether they should be running for office should shut up.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • RINKER

    We can disagree and be respectful to one another.

    The article sums it up to me: Devore is a Dove.

  • RINKER

    Again, we can disagree and be respectful. I respect your opinion and do not think you are ignorant.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Unfortunately you broke the rules of respect when you didn’t read what I quoted and linked.

    If you had read it instead of shifting your goal posts you might have learned a little bit about Chuck’s actual positions instead of what Brian O’Connell thinks he can spin Chuck’s positions to be.

  • RINKER

    I think you do a lot of spinning FOR Devore. His take is closer to what I took from the debate.

    BTW, I didn read what you quoted but did not follow your link.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Have a look at the poll that came out about 12 hours ago — the one Erick references in this very post.

    That’s a single-digit spread from first to third. Ground easily covered by election day.

  • joayn
  • Aaron Gardner

    Seriously, why do you choose to be ignorant* of the facts?

    If you choose to be ignorant** that is fine, I just won’t bother with you anymore.

    * See def 2

    ** See *

  • RINKER

    Devore the Dove.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    …. about Chuck DeVore being an isolationist. I have no idea where you got that idea — or how you developed it from a comment that that the Taliban pose no existential threat to America.

    In his long career, Chuck has done the following:

    – Participated in the conception and honing of the US Navy’s 1988 destruction of the Iranian surface fleet.
    – Played a critical role in securing US funding for Israel’s Arrow ABM.
    – Worked with Charlie Wilson, among others, on the Pakistani frontier in support of the anti-Soviet mujahideen.
    – Advocated for more vigorous American policy on Chinese human rights.
    – Established and run an aerospace-industry operation in Russia’s Far East.

    You tell me if that sounds like an “isolationist” to you. Chuck DeVore believes in American power as a force for good in the world — which is one of several reasons he has served for over two decades as a US Army officer.

    As you didn’t understand it the first time, let me restate and rephrase: Chuck DeVore supports boots on the ground in Afghanistan. What he doesn’t support is the idea that we can “nation build” under the present Afghan model; nor that American global strategy should be oriented to that endeavor.

    But “remorselessly kill” the Taliban and Al Qaeda? That’s Chuck’s phrase, not mine — and he is 100%, enthusiastically for it. He just wants it done right.

    Clear?

    On a personal note: my 9/11 experience in NYC was a whole lot better than that of a lot of other people. But I still waited anxiously for my wife to come home from lower Manhattan. And I still brushed ash out of her hair: ash of burning buildings and burning people. If I thought Chuck DeVore didn’t want to hunt down and kill the savages who did that, I wouldn’t be working for him.

    But he does.

  • RINKER

    Since you said, “I think Chuck DeVore has a much firmer grasp of what Reagan?s FP was considering he worked in Reagan?s administration.”

    what about my question – who is closer to Reagan? Chuck Devore or Richard Perle? Chuck Devore or Frank Gaffney? I agree with them about Afghanistan and not Devore.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • RINKER

    As in an invasion force or as in “special forces” and “human intelligence”?

  • RINKER

    They served Reagan, too, in much higher positions than Devore. You said he worked for Reagan and would have the same foreign policy as Reagan’s foreign policy, but two HIGH RANKING Reagan officials take different positions on Afghanistan than Devore (opposing the surge). How does that make sense?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2010/05/20/elections-show-era-of-reagan-not-over-after-all/

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Aaron Gardner
  • RINKER

    You can’t answer.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    You put the words in quotes as if they mean nothing. That’s nice.

    And then you distinguish them from “invasion force” as if they’re mutually exclusive concepts.

    There’s nothing to answer here.

  • RINKER

    I support the CONSERVATIVE on foreign policy and you support someone who wants to return to Bill Clinton’s drone policy.

  • joayn

    and practice gender politics, their endorsements mean little to me.

    As a previous supporter of the Susan B. Anthony organization, the Fiorina endorsement was my bye-bye moment. When a well-regarded pro-life organization is offered the choice between a proven pro-life candidate to endorse but chooses another simply based on say-so and gender, that alone makes them irrelevant to me. If they were prepared to give Bart Stupak an award for his pro-life efforts, they very well could have supported Chuck DeVore.

    I’ll side with a Jim DeMint endorsement any day of the week before a Susan B. Anthony.

  • RINKER

    He’s for a return to Bill Clinton’s limited approach to terrorism. I agree with the conservatives who believe we cannot take such an approach. We cannot allow the terrorists to have safe havens where their plots against us can be hatched. I support the invasion of Afghanistan and I support the surge.

  • RINKER

    He said he did not support conventional forces in Afganistand but DID support “human intellgence” and “special forces”. He made the distinction to explain his opposition to the surge.

  • boywonder

    RINKER:In fairness, the thing that bugs me the most about her is that she once supported cap-and-tax. She claims she doesn?t support it now, but that is not very comforting.
    —Maybe I should just stay out of this however I would like to point out a few small things about a climate bill.The ICCP scandles & the climategate hacked e mails have both contributed to huge questions about the legitimacy of the climate change positions.A politician who was once very concerned about climate change then,certainly would have reason to be suspect now.Just saying circumstances can cause people (especially politicians) to take a second look and change their opinion.I used to believe the nonsense too.Untill I read that damming e mail saying:How do we hide the global decline in temps?Add in the revelations of cherry picked data,snow on the Texas border.In all fairness to Carly,things like climategate & the ICCP false data scandles changed millions(billions)of peoples opinions, as to how serious these claims of global warmming really are.Before the e mails and ICCP scandles the opposition to a carbon bill was very low.Then after the scandles the opposition became so powerful cap and tax died and is now collecting dust in the senate.All things considering I will give Carly the benifit of my doubt if she was in favour of some kind of climate bill.So was I,(being a victum of the lies & misinfromation))untill the scandles,counter arguements and opposition facts became well known.I like Devore and Carly,may the best candidate win.I think if in one week Devore is still back 8-10 points, he should consider at least dropping out.If he is tied with the others then heck ya go for it.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    And that’s the charitable interpretation.

    A few people now have taken the time to carefully explain to you the facts. If you truly believe Chuck DeVore(!) wants to “return Bill Clinton?s limited approach to terrorism,” the kindest explanation is that you are a shill.

    Easy version, last try, DeVore on terrorists: He. Wants. Them. Exterminated.

    No safe havens for them.
    No respite for them.
    No withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    How difficult can it be to wrap your brain around all that, and realize that none of it necessarily demands the “nation building” project we’ve embarked upon?

    You slander a good man who’s served his country in uniform for decades — and who, unlike you, has worked in the region in question. Frankly, for comparing an upright, patriotic American like Chuck DeVore to Bill Clinton, you owe an apology.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Your distinction was drawn with an “invasion force,” not “conventional forces.” Dance about terms on your own.

  • RINKER

    He opposed the surge. Is American Spectator a shill?

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    You need to acknowledge and deal with this before we engage in faux-Socratic games.

    You’ve been schooled. Come get your diploma.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    his one-vote in the house views on foreign policy, in my opinioon.

  • RINKER

    …and that’s a hard-right publication who named him that.
    Spin, spin, spin.

  • Aaron Gardner

    He has proven himself to be willfully ignorant and incapable of changing that.

    Don’t waste your time.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Where has anyone denied or tendentiously interpreted what Chuck DeVore has said?

    Oh, right: nowhere.

    I get it: you’re intent on smearing a proven patriot who helped destroy Iran’s navy, so you can vote for a woman who circumvented US export law to send prohibited technology to Iran.

    There’s a reason you’re fixated on things Clintonian, I think.

  • conservativeinca

    Great points.

  • Scope

    my comment was to EagleWatcher, not you. My comment had only to do with my opinion of Palin, and her endorsements. I never uttered the name DeVore in my comment. But, since you brought it up, again, and again, and again, I fully support who I believe is the conservative in the race, that would be Chuck DeVore.

    Fiorina getting pro-life endorsements means absolutely nothing, and, certainly doesn’t automatically stamp conservative on her forehead. Bart Stupak had always gotten the endorsement of a pro-life group in Mich., that is until he voted for the O bill that pays for federally funded abortion. He can take the executive order, and put it you know where. Fiorina getting pro-life endorsements is meaningless until one actually casts votes in DC.

    Yup, you are absolutely right that Palin can endorse whoever she wants to. But this endorsement seems to me to be an endorsement of a “momma grizzlie.” She may very well consider both to be conservatives, but with her recent comments about, again, “momma grizzlies” she went with the gender vote. My opinion, that I am entitled to.

    Personally, I really could care less who Gingrich, Huckabee and Romney endorse, I don’t consider them full-time conservatives. They are conservatives when it is convenient to be conservative. Now, if you want to include DeMint in that mix, then you are talking about my definition of a conservative, and, his endorsements are very meaningful for me.

    I guess next you will be saying that now McCain is a conservative, because Palin endorsed him also.

    Again, only my personal opinion, but, you are actually turning me and probably many others off even more so to Fiorina with your insistence that only you know who the real conservative is, and arguing with everyone else that doesn’t agree with you.

    Believe me, I had/have no intention in getting into a pissing match with you, I do have other great diaries and comments to occupy my time. BTW, I also have to weed my garden. I’ll do that after I watch the paint dry on my wall.

  • RINKER

    I fought his nomination hard. What else was Palin to do? If she didn’t endorse the man who put her on the national ticket, she would look like she had zero loyalty.

    But listen – I am not 100% sold on Fiorina. I just think everyone needs to have a sober examination of the candidates without looking at the race and saying “Devore is 100% conservative” and “Fiorina is 100% RINO”. I’ve said I have my reservations about Fiorina due to her past support of Cap-and-Tax. That said, I do think she is more conservative on foreign policy. I’m just trying to defend those conservatives who legitimately think Fiorina is the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning. I don’t think it is fair to crucify Sarah Palin for making such a decision. Erick hasn’t. He has said he disagrees with it, but doens’t say “Sarah is an establishment RINO” or other nonsense like I have read here. My entire point is that this race is not as black-and-white and some conservatives have tried to portray.

  • RINKER

    ..and I’m not “smearing” anyone. I just disagree. Don’t get in to hyperbole.

  • MF

    I question the credentials of anyone who backs Fiorina over DeVore. I’ve been a pretty big supporter of Palin, but her endorsement of Fiorina over DeVore is a HUGE black mark against her.

    It’s simple – DeVore is a true conservative, while Fiorina is merely adequate. We all know the disaster that Campbell is. Frankly, I’m not sure that Campbell is much better than Boxer, and that’s about as bad as possible. The *only* good thing about Campbell is that he has an ‘R’ next to his name, possibly allowing the Rs to take the position of Senate Majority Leader. And it would not surprise me in the least if he did an Arlen if he got elected.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Hyperbole:

    extravagant exaggeration

    This from a guy who falsely claimed that Chuck DeVore was against the Afghanistan invasion and the subsequent war because CeVore disagree’s with Obama’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan.

    I am just gonna say it.

    Heinz rule.

  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    PPIC poll show that Carly is now ahead of Campbell and that DeVore is still mired in the teens. This poll has been one of the most consistently accurate polls in the state. Carly is STILL leading Devore by double digits and is close to double his current polling. The idea that he has the remotest chance of pulling this one out in the two and a half weeks left is just looney. The PPIC poll is also based on data from a couple of weeks ago – BEFORE Carly started her advertising blitz. It is particularly effective and though there are still a lot of undecideds, the trend is in Carly’s favor.

    If you want to hold onto the rails as the Titanic sinks, have at it. But in Carly we at least have the possibility of nominating a conservative. In Chuck, we don’t. Self delusion is a wonderful way to make it through the day without committing suicide, but it just won’t get you there in the end.

    You need to get aboard the lifeboat.

  • conservativecrusade

    we, for years, had little choice and it may be the same problem in a couple of years.

    Graham has voted, for the most part, conservative. I do not know the actual numbers, but I would bet it is about 90%. Problem is, and is why we want him gone, is that the times he acts as if we need to compromise, it is the most vocal of his votes.

    We want a second DeMint, but until one runs against Graham, we will continue to vote him in over the dem.

  • Aaron Gardner

    The PPIC poll, which Erick referenced in his post, shows that Carly picked up 1 point while DeVore picked up 8. That seems to suggest that the late undecideds are breaking towards DeVore rather than Carly.

    Doesn’t this contradict the notion that the trend is in Carly’s favor? Or at least doesn’t the 8 point pick up by DeVore also show a favorable trend for DeVore?

    I do like your analogy of a sinking ship though. California certainly is a sinking ship, specifically the Republican party. Carly is more of the same. A proverbial bucket of water being poured into the ship more so than a lifeboat.

    I do agree that we need a lifeboat. I just think I would like the one that comes with paddles and is stocked with survival gear instead of the one that is still attached to the boat.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • RINKER

    We can disagree civily, Aaron. I have been respectful to you, and I do expect the same in return.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You have not been respectful either, for the record.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Aaron Gardner
  • RINKER

    I have not said you are ignorant. I have said you are not ignorant and that I respect your opinions. Do you respect mine? You have called me ignorant multiple times, a very rude term for someone you disagree with. I doubt you can convince many people with that kind of rhetoric. Calling someone “ignorant” is VERY rude, and you should apologize.

  • RINKER

    Can you answer that simple question?

  • Aaron Gardner

    It’s not rude, just the truth. You admitted to it when you said you didn’t read DeVore’s op-ed.

    Now I know you are willfully ignorant and dishonest. I am not worried about convincing you.

  • Aaron Gardner

    If nothing else, you will understand the meaning of the word ignorant by the time we are through here.

  • tracycolorado

    Chuck devore has my vote , P.S. happy birthday , and many more

  • vinick

    A good rule of thumb for winning races is to nominate candidates who are appropriate for the constituency that they are representing. Chuck DeVore might be an acceptable choice in South Carolina or something but come on, this is modern California. Tom Campbell has a strong record of fiscal conservatism, he is brilliant with a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago, and his moderate stance on social issues make him the only Republican in the race that is electable to the larger voting population.

  • http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com Don’t Tase Me Bro

    DeVore is not electable statewide in California. That’s just the way it is.

  • ronhert

    Its not rocket science-consistency and endorsements from those that are in
    the trenches of public service are usually more sensitive with what is and is not, or has not been consistent. Therefore, the plain and simple-trustworthy-
    idea is to vote for someone who is what he says he is, and better known by those in the know-knowing that he has always been Conservative via votes and supportive of those in the trenches-Chuck Devore. It may take a while, but people are smarter than what the establishment boys and girls think they
    are. The one who has never been fooled by the way a bill is written, or by
    the parties that endorse the bill-is DEVORE.

  • RINKER

    the words “polite” or “civil discourse”.

  • johnm

    Carly has as much of a chance of winning the general election as McCain did in California. Why vote for Progressive Lite when you can get a real Progressive?

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Here. I’ll help.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant

  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    He is to the left of Feinstein on gun control (the very kind the Supreme Court found unconstitutional – some brilliant lawyer!); to the left of Boxer on the environment; in favor of the very part of McCain Feingold the Supreme Court found unconstitutional; a friend of terrorist sympathizers who are doing time for significant support of terrorism… and I could go on and on.

    He lost to Feinstein by 30 points last time.

    His problem won’t be that Democrats won’t vote for him. His is that Republicans will stay home. Can’t win?

    Campbell can’t win.

    Neither can DeVore.

    If you want to get rid of Boxer Fiorina is the only one who can do it.

  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    But wrong on Fiorina. Have you looked at her materials to find out where she stands on the issues? Have you heard her speak? Have you seen or heard any of the debates? She is a solid conservative who has actually created jobs.

    With respect to DeVore’s “surge”, it is easy to double your numbers when you have been in the single digits for the entire campaign. Campaign statistics and probabilities would tell you that the percentage of increase dramatically declines as the one gathers more support. When DeVore had one vote he doubled it when he convinced his best friend to vote for him. He has pretty much all the voters he is ever going to get, at this point and while he could continue to “surge” he is unlikely to double where he is now. Even if he does, though, (a most unlikely event in two and a half weeks) he still loses because that puts him at 30%.

    So you can cling to the hope that lightning will strike if you want to, but it won’t.

    If you think Boxer or Campbell are better than a conservative you think is flawed, continue to support DeVore. THAT, however, is the reason the Republican Party, as you so cogently observed, is in such trouble in this state.

  • JSobieski

    one of the most puzzling questions of the 2010 political season.

    I used to think that South Carolina Republicans were dependable, but then they voted for McCain in 2008.

    Then I thought, well at least the pro-life groups are dependable, and then they go out and endorse Carly? Those endorsements are based on the flimsiest possible “evidence.”

    Pro-life groups should either be willing to endorse non-front runners (DeVore) or withhold their endorsements altogether. This is particularly true in a primary. I understand supporting squishy Republicans in the general election given the magnitude of the pro-abortion California democrats.

    There are aspects of Carly that I can stomach, but this pro-life conservative image of her is such an untruth that I find the spectacle distasteful. Its like, just tell me the truth instead promising me that I can sell my lawnmower because unicorns will eat the grass.

    Of course Campbell is all of that stuff on steriods. Is there a problem with the water in California? What is the Greek word for California?

  • mountainmom

    But I see no reason to not vote my conscience in the primary. Mr. DeVore has my vote….and my prayers….and my money.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    otherwise, you would know that the trouble is not that we have run too many conservatives but that conservatives have repeatedly run candidates who simply cannot win general elections because their appeal extends no further than to the purists. When their candidates have lost in the primaries they have thrown snits and then refused to support those conservatives that are just not pure enough for them.
    It is simple here. DeVore cannot win. His numbers are not high enough and his profile is not one that is attractive enough to a large enough block of Californians to make him viable in the general election. And spending time and energy attacking other conservatives like Carly Fiorina only dilutes to pool.

    I don’t know where you are from, but California is different. Reagan won because he was smart, articulate and a nice, attractive guy.

  • calical

    The only thing he really proved or disproved is that self-reported ideology of those polled, and certain other crosstabs such as abortion and gun ownership, do not seem to explain anything about this race. This is no surprise. Individual issues can be finicky, and most people are not sufficiently knowledgeable about politics to correctly identify their ideology. Social scientists have known for a long time that this is not a very useful question. It does not mean that there are not actual ideological differences between those who support various candidates.

    Certainly, nothing here proves that Carly should drop out. Even if Erick is right that conservatives are not dividing their vote between Carly and Chuck, that would just mean that neither dropping out would be more helpful to conservatives than the other. There is nothing in these numbers that suggests that Carly would be the better one to drop.

    However, Carly is still ahead in first or second, and her numbers are steady to slightly increasing, having previously been in the lowish 20s and now in being in the highish 20s. DeVore is behind, and his numbers are steady to slightly increasing, having jumped up to 14 about a month ago and going as high as 16. The race is relatively stable, except for what looks like a precipitous Campbell drop, suggested by this last poll (though we’ll need another poll to really confirm it)

    Furthermore, if DeVore is behind Carly, which all polls suggest he probably is, and he has taken some votes directly from her, than that suggests that HE, not HER, is the spoiler. That is pretty much the very definition of a spoiler. And there clearly is no numerically obvious wave that creates some kind of momentum exception. Devore has moved up no more than a couple points in the last month.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Rasmussen showed DeVore polling better with moderates than Carly.

    But stick to the narrative, wouldn’t want to do something different and achieve different results or anything like that.

    And my last comment you replied to was obvious sarcasm, I know CA isn’t putting conservatives up for election statewide. I was just pointing out how well that has worked out for you.

  • SteveLA
  • SteveLA

    jwhoward

    I tend to agree with you about Campbell, but I don’t think that Fiorina is going to be all that and a bag of chips.

    Her time at HP was not great, and people in the Tech Industry still remember her dirty deeds done cheap.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    It’s just that I know California politics going back into the ’50′s. Deukmajian was a conservative. Wilson was a moderate/pragmatist. I don’t know what the hell Schwarzenegger is.

    But we ran Bill Jones. A good political conservative who had his head handed to him by Boxer. We ran Bill Simon for governor – VERY conservative on most issues. We ran Bruce Hershonsohn – very conservative statewide against Boxer. Head handed to him. Matt Fong ran as a conservative though he was a moderate. Those are just the people who ran against Boxer

    We had Dan Lundgren – very conservative – run and lose to Gray Davis. Davis also beat Simon – very conservative.

    We ran John Seymour – right/center against Feinstein. She won.

    We ran Mountjoy – very conservative – she beat him almost 2 to 1.

    We run conservatives statewide all the time. The harder right the harder they fall in elections. It is just a fact of life. There are other factors why a conservative like Fiorina would be more successful; not least of which is that she is attractive and female and not hard edged.

    What has not worked out for us is running hard right angry conservatives like DeVore.

    It is just not correct to say we do not put up conservatives statewide. In fact, we do it more often than not. And it hasn’t worked out for us very well not because they are conservative but because they cannot sell it to a broad spectrum of Californians. Whether it is personality (which is mostly what it is) or something else, if you want to get a conservative elected here, nominate someone who does not act like a doberman.

  • RINKER

    Why have a Republican running if the Republican is so liberal you can’t tell the difference between the two????
    I don’t agree that you have to run liberals in states like California. In the polls, all 3 are within a few points of Boxer, and you say the conservatives can’t win?

  • Aaron Gardner
  • SteveLA

    Aaron,

    So spent a lot of your time out here in CA, really understand how things work in CA in terms of electing people to pass legislation? JW Howard pretty well laid it out for you.

    JW Howard laid out how things pretty much work from a political point of view in CA and a pretty historically accurate view for the last 15 years or so here in CA. You don’t want to believe him, that’s fine. Delusional, but fine.

    CA might elect a R one day to statewide office, maybe, but he/she is going to be more in the Scott Brown mold than the Rick Santorum one and that is not going to change anytime soon or ever.

  • SteveLA

    Three ends of the spectrum running.

    Campbell is way left, DeVore is way right, and Fiorina is somewhere in the middle pretending at least in the primary that she’s more like DeVore than Campbell.

    The primary race is now between Campbell and Fiorina with three weeks left. Maybe DeVore will get close and overtake Fiorina, but he’s not going to beat Campbell, so we’ll have the lefty Campbell running against Boxer another lefty. I’ll end up holding my nose and voting for Campbell in the general.

  • SteveLA
  • Aaron Gardner

    In other cycles I would probably relent, I just think we are working in a different environment.

    It’s not about not believing you or JW Howard, it’s about believing that the conventional wisdom is not infallible.

    I believe in the fluidity of the electorate, you believe it is static.

    Maybe we are both delusional.

  • SteveLA

    There is no hew and cry for the sort of swing to DeVore that you seem to be consulting with Ms. Cleo to identify.

    Now if DeVore had gone all Rand Paul and gone full blown Tea Party libertarian rant against the out of control spending, and all the rest, maybe you’d have a point, but he didn’t and he’s not catching fire outside of the R base.

  • Jack_Savage

    If California can export its brand of socialism to the rest of the country via the federal government, and make the rest of the states compete on the same Marxist playing field they are currently constructing, conservatives will never have a chance there. If the path that California is on runs its course, as it was about to in New Jersey (where a conservative can never be elected, by the way) and Waxman et al are unsuccessful in their attempts to ruin the rest of the country, true conservatives can be very successful.

    It is not beyond the realm of possibility that California is lost forever, or at least until the public sector employee riots start. What the GOP should do, win or lose, is continue to make the case based on principle and offer a clear choice to the voters – not Boxer-lite.

    If conservatism is valid as a disposition and a philosophy, it will eventually succeed in California. The issue is when, and my bet is when the federal government no longer looks at it as a client state.

  • SteveLA
  • Aaron Gardner

    In fact the Tea Party Express is one of his endorsements.

    I think the polls are honestly off and it is that way because the sample size is small for how large the state is.

    I think you can only trust the polls in CA for some trending and that’s it.

    But we will see in June.

    I think we can both agree that nobody is pulling out.

    I don’t think Carly or Chuck need to either, Campbell is going to implode very soon.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Though I hope you are wrong on the timing. ;)

  • Jack_Savage

    I honestly thought that NJ was lost, then I honestly thought that Christie would fold, but I was honestly dead wrong. Hopefully CA runs the same course.

    A lot of things that have been brewing are coming to fruition, and we will see which states tolerate the implosion and which do something about it.

  • Cheryl
  • IJB

    In fact, the CA GOP has also run plenty of “moderates” statewide (Bill Fong, and Bill Jones AFAIAC, right off the top of my head) as well, and they got hammered just as bad as the ones you labeled as “conservative”.

    It’s a tiresome meme – that only “moderate Republicans” win statewide (for Senate): the truth is *no* Republicans win statewide (generally) because this is a *Democrat* dominated state!

    It has nothing to do with moderate vs. conservative – it has everything to do with CA being a deep Blue State, in which most of the voters won’t even look at any “evil Republican” who runs. It almost doesn’t matter who we run here in CA – unless it’s a year like 2010, GOP candidates won’t get a second look…

  • SteveLA

    Tom Delay has very little to do with anything anymore.

    Far as I know he’s off selling used cars, aluminum siding, magazines subscriptions or something useful….good for him.

    Are you thinking or mean to say Tom McClintock, he is a big deal in CA base politics. Unelectable to state wide office and all that, not even sure what’s going on with is Congressional seat and if he’s going to be challenged this time around. He won by a landslide of 1800 votes last time, so I do look for the Donks to challenge him again.

  • IJB

    Look, I’m not even a McClintock fan (his endorsing Poizner in an ad *really* hurts his credibility badly with people like me, and I’ve had problems with him for a while because he’s not a “team player”), but it’s ridiculous to claim that his district is competitive this year.

    CA-04 is a R+10, that even in the banner year of 2008, after a fractious GOP primary, the Dems were unable to win, and its a district that *no one* even has listed in the list of “competitive districts” in 2010 (unlike CA-03 which is listed, though I think that’s laughable as well…).

  • calical

    The precision of a poll is based on the sample size only, not the size of the population it is drawn from. 931 will be more precise than 441, but that will be reflected in the MOE.

  • SteveLA

    Charlie Brown was ex AF pilot type that I ether flew with or with people I knew from active duty….bad bias but there you go.

    You are right, the Donk running against him is some no name lawyer that looks like he stands no chance.

    McClintock showed with his endorsement of Poizner what a hack he is. I can’t figure out why he’d back someone who wants to break Prop 13 and bunch of other liberal spending stuff. Never mind the pro-life issue which Poizner is way left on, us RINOS shrug over that. The fiscal stuff from Poizner is bad news. I don’t know if I could vote for him in the general, might have to vote for some third party wack job.

  • Cheryl

    In past posts you’ve mentioned him as someone us Californians would just not ever put in office. I sense he really bothers you.

  • SteveLA

    I’ve looked, but can’t find a quote or a video but Delay was interviewed on the out of control spending by Republicans back when he was in office. I was like 2003 or 04.

    Delay’s response to a question about out of control spending, aka spending like a drunken sailor, was that spending was just about right and no we didn’t need to cut spending. This was before the R’s lost the house thanks to that sort of tone deaf smug attitude of Delay and others that still rankles me.

  • rrreaganite

    I still support Chuck but it is his responsibility to convince the plurality of voters that he is the right choice.

  • SIConservative

    If Sen. Coburn isn’t reliable enough for you, you’re wasting your time. Arguably, yes arguably, barring Jim DeMint, Sen. Coburn is the most dependable ally of those seeking to reduce the size of the federal government in Washington. He’s also a pediatrician who has led countless abortion fights in both houses of Congress. You can’t legitimately call into question his credentials because of a single endorsement.

  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    It is too bad that you have no idea how California works, Aaron. Steve in LA is right on the money. He has obviously taken the time to analyze California and its voting patterns. You haven’t. Perhaps that is why you have been so successful in moving Vermont to the right.

    The fact is that California will elect a conservative if that conservative is attractive and upbeat and optimistic. DeVore isn’t. You can snipe all you want, but there is a ’50′s conservative tradition of “Impeach Earl Warren”, anti-flouridation angry types who will never get elected in this state (or, for that matter, very many others) – people Reagan, Buckley and Goldwater attempted to marginalize – and that is Chuck DeVore. An attractive, optimistic principled conservative like Fiorina can get elected.

    I am amused by the defensiveness of those who resented my reference to “angry conservatives” inasmuch as I have been involved with conservative politics since years before they were born.

    We elected Knowland, and nominated Rafferty, for Pete’s sake. We elected Reagan. We elected Lundgren as AG and Deukmajian as governor. The stars are aligned and we could elect a conservative like Fiorina. Just not one like DeVore.

    But I am satisfied to let people from everyone else continue to be DeVore fans. That is his support base. Fortunately, for all their hyperventilation, their votes don’t count here.

    So wail away, Aaron. When you start voting here, it will matter. In the meantime you might consider listening to those who actually know how things are working here on the ground.

    How about this, though. Will you abandon your quixotic quest if the next poll shows Devore still in the teens? Or will you, as I suggested before, take a firmer grip on the Titanic’s railing as the ship continues to sink?

    Steve in LA clearly knows what he is talking about. If you don’t believe me, you might consider listening to him.

    As I said in my first post, self-delusion is a great way to get throught he day without committing suicide, but it isn’t terribly productive.

  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    It is too bad that you have no idea how California works, Aaron. Steve in LA is right on the money. He has obviously taken the time to analyze California and its voting patterns. You haven’t. Perhaps that is why you have been so successful in moving Vermont to the right.

    The fact is that California will elect a conservative if that conservative is attractive and upbeat and optimistic. DeVore isn’t. You can snipe all you want, but there is a ’50′s conservative tradition of “Impeach Earl Warren”, anti-flouridation angry types who will never get elected in this state (or, for that matter, very many others) – people Reagan, Buckley and Goldwater attempted to marginalize – and that is Chuck DeVore. An attractive, optimistic principled conservative like Fiorina can get elected.

    I am amused by the defensiveness of those who resented my reference to “angry conservatives” inasmuch as I have been involved with conservative politics since years before they were born.

    We elected Knowland, and nominated Rafferty, for Pete’s sake. We elected Reagan. We elected Lundgren as AG and Deukmajian as governor. The stars are aligned and we could elect a conservative like Fiorina. Just not one like DeVore.

    But I am satisfied to let people from everyone else continue to be DeVore fans. That is his support base. Fortunately, for all their hyperventilation, their votes don’t count here.

    So wail away, Aaron. When you start voting here, it will matter. In the meantime you might consider listening to those who actually know how things are working here on the ground.

    How about this, though. Will you abandon your quixotic quest if the next poll shows Devore still in the teens? Or will you, as I suggested before, take a firmer grip on the Titanic’s railing as the ship continues to sink?

    Steve in LA clearly knows what he is talking about. If you don’t believe me, you might consider listening to him.

    As I said in my first post, self-delusion is a great way to get through the day without committing suicide, but it isn’t terribly productive.

  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    that I have seen on this subject. Calical clearly lives here, analyzes here and understands the dynamics of this situation. He or she understands that the numbers are telling a story Erick apparently does not want to believe. Campbell is dropping like a rock as Republicans begin to realize that he is Boxer’s good twin and that DeVore can’t win statewide.

    We want a conservative to win this race and only one – Carly Fiorina – can do it.

    Thanks, Calical, for an insightful, intelligent post.

  • vinick

    I doubt Campbell is dropping like a rock…PPIC’s polls are the only ones which have shown him not leading the race, and his support in their poll is unchanged from March. While it could be that they are accurate and every other polling firm isn’t, I doubt it. That said, with Campbell’s recent decision to cut back his ad buys, Carly has some opportunity to gain ground. I prefer a Campbell win, and not only because I think he has the best chance of winning. All of that aside, I admittedly do not live in California, so you probably have a better feel for this race than I do.

  • Aaron Gardner

    But wail away.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You’ll notice I wasn’t going around calling Carly a RINO.

    I guess you just can’t help to take swipe like that and the VT swipe. Yeah, I am really sorry that I haven’t changed the VT electorate in the two years and 0 elections that have taken place.

    And of course, theres no chance that I have contacts in CA or anythig like that, because I disagree with you and SteveLA so I must be wrong and an ideological purist.

    Seriously.

  • http://www.jwhowardattorneys.com jwhoward

    You would, I assume, concede that Rush is at least among the best, most insightful conservative political observers in the nation, right? (I would consider him the best, but I suppose you might have another candidate you think is better.)
    He has repeatedly made one important point and that is to point out that the left will always tell you who they most fear. They will tell you by who it is they spend their money attacking. Seen any attacks on DeVore coming out of the Boxer group? No. Know why? They do not fear him.

    Their attacks on Campbell have been minimal in comparison to the attacks on Fiorina. They have entire websites set up to attack her. Their union stooges have set up websites to attack her. They are doing everything they can to demonize her as they have so many others.

    Why? Stay with me class. As Prof. Limbaugh has repeatedly taught, she is the one they fear the most. Why? Because they know she can win. And why aren’t they attacking DeVore with anything like the ferocity they have reserved for Fiorina? Because they do not fear him.

    Look, Aaron. I admire your passion and your clear support for conservative principles. I would never support someone simply because I thought he/she could win. Otherwise I would support Whittman for Governor. I would never support someone who was not conservative enough. Otherwise I would be willing to support Campbell if he wins (I’m not.) But once the conservative hurdle is jumped then we have to start being politically realistic.

    DeVore cannot win and Carly can.

  • awunsch

    it makes no sense that “pro-lifers” would vote for a pro-choice person over a pro-life person. Somthing seems wrong with that poll. Maybe they are democrat pro-lifers.

  • awunsch

    it makes no sense that “pro-lifers” would vote for a pro-choice person over a pro-life person. Somthing seems wrong with that poll. Maybe they are democrat pro-lifers.

  • sjmom

    The I-Caucus opposition research team uncovered some interesting things about Carly Fiorina who is running against our endorsed candidate, Chuck DeVore.
    She is a member of the World Economic Forum. Just a small list of some of it’s members include the following, George Soros, Van Jones, Andy Stern, Valerie Jarrett, Al Gore, Maurice Strong. You’ll be hard pressed to find a conservative name among it’s members. In the pages of the research, we provide links to all of these members along with a brief statement about a couple areas that this World Economic Forum wants to achieve. Unless your a Progressive, you won’t get that warm fuzzy feeling for being a Global Citizen after going through that section of the research.
    We also found, she is a Director for Revolution Health Group. Another company filled with conservative minds waiting to unleash their free market ideas and solutions. The vice chairman of the company is Franklin Raines, ex CEO of Fannie Mae, who walked away with $90 million while the company was going down the drain. Among it’s current and former directors are people who have worked on Al Gore’s, John Kerry’s and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, we can’t forget Carly, she worked on McCain’s as well. Outstanding group of conservatives there. None of them won.

    The research we put together is 16 pages.” You can find more info here http://venturacountyteaparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/carly-fiorino-candidate-for

  • nepanyrush

    See the creative ad on who Jack Bauer would vote for, Chuck DeVore or Barbara Boxer:

    http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=4127

  • phatphan

    I have just read your reply to my entry. Thank you so much for replying and for giving me your line of thought on the subject. I agree totally with your analysis of Lindsey. It is the 10% (?) that drives you up a wall. Of course, we have worse in good ole NC (a la the Etheridge fiasco), so I can’t afford to be critical of my friends in SC. I guess it just shows that you have ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence in every state.