|
|
|
Cruz and Arnold are tied in the new Field Poll (yes, Bustamante is ahead 25%-22%, but it's within the 5% margin of error (PDF file)). Turns out that it's pretty much only moderate Republicans so wowed by Arnold they are taking him on faith (or celebrity worship, if one is more cynical). Everybody else seems to require convincing and I'm happy to see that. So it looks like there is a race yet, and what Arnold does now will be telling. Based on these early numbers, if one of the conservative Republicans (say, Simon) drops, and the other (McClintock) gets his votes, he splits the GOP vote evenly with Schwarzenegger. If Karl Rove et al can get both conservatives to drop out, Arnold looks a lot better. But if Arnold keeps surrounding himself with Dems like Buffett and Rob Lowe, and buys into the Prop 13 reforms, he could lose most Republicans. And if he turns hard right to win back the conservatives hammering him, can he win the state? Not without truly impressing or getting some breaks in his favor, I think -- like Cruz performing so poorly in the campaign spotlight that many Democrats just can't vote for him. There's a long way to go, but it's getting more interesting. [And don't forget Ueberroth.]
Are Field Polls somehow biased toward Democrats? Dan Weintraub points out that Field has correctly called every governor election back to 1982, when every poll got snookered by white voters who bailed on Tom Bradley. Can any poll be accurate in this unique race? Let's just say, I'm glad it's not my problem. (Weintraub posted at 12:01 a.m., so I'm guessing he had the Field numbers today -- they usually get out -- and sat on them until the embargo lapsed. But he scooped the morning papers, including his own.)
Rutten on Buffett: "It's hard to know whether to treat this as campaigning or casting." Matt Welch dissents
Friedman to media: No free pass for Arnold
Edited 2:50 p.m.
I am a recently minted American. The 2000 election was my first. Having grown up in a part of the world where recalls of gov'ts are handled a little differently, I am amused and amazed at this process. What has saddened me all along since i have lived in these united states is the low voter turnout at elections, and general apathy. Not that I am voting for Arnold, but the idea that he could energize previously uninolved or non-participants in the democracy I felt was refreshing. Much like the energy around the Howard Dean campaign, but here we are a week into this circus and I haven't heard a single concise vision from him. He has got loads of publicity, money and continues to name famous people to his camp, but franly he seems to be going about this like he's assembling a fundraising committee for one of his charities. Rob Lowe? Buffett?
And on the flip side, if this poll is to be believed, with a fraction of the money, and essentially a late entry into the race, I sense that Californians are saying, "we want substance."
Posted by: Ted H at August 16, 2003 02:10 PMIn the last 'graph, I was referring to how well Bustamante faired, and to a lesser extent, Ueberoth.
Posted by: Ted H at August 16, 2003 04:50 PMI don't mourn low voter turnout, because I realize that people who don't care enough to vote are unlikely to care enough to make a well-informed choice.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 16, 2003 09:45 PMNever mind Arnold, I haven't heard a cogent statement of policy from any of the candidates. Except, that is, from the porn star who wants to install webcams in all of the rooms of the governor's mansion and make people pay to look. I think she's identified a new revenue stream that will dwarf the car tax. Now that's a leader with vision!
Posted by: Laurie K. at August 17, 2003 11:01 PM
of LA Observed
The Field Poll was the lede story on last night's 10 o'clock news here in the Bay Area.
Posted by: no at August 16, 2003 05:21 AM