Brown opens up an 8 point lead over Whitman (buyer, income)

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

That's too funny. I almost think she's trying to help Brown win. No one can possibly be so stupid as to go into the heart of the most liberal areas in our state and think they're going to gain any ground. If she's this out of touch with the state in which she is running, she has no business running, let alone actually winning...ew!

Keep in mind that Whitman is from the most liberal region of California. The fact that all the major newspapers in the Bay Area are endorsing Brown where he leads by over 20 points in polls has to be a huge disappointment for Meg since that is where she lives. I give her credit that she did what other Republicans didn't by courting Latino voters. Whitman's strategy was to woo Californians who normally vote Democratic as a way to peal away voters from Brown. It was a good strategy in my opinion especially since she has all the money in the world to do things Jerry Brown can not afford to do. But this week's USC\ LA Times poll showed Whitman lagging well behind Brown among women, the college educated and Latinos; three groups any candidate must get in order to win.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

California is driving over a cliff, so let's elect Jerry Brown and step on the accelerator. Brilliant.

Whitman is worse. Why didn't the Republican party put up someone better? If the Republican party had done their job, we wouldn't all be voting for Jerry Brown.

Don't blame us. Blame yourself.

[Curmudgeon]

Isn't it sad that voting really has, all too often, come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils? It certainly doesn't speak well of the state or the country.

Generally in such instances I'm inclined to vote for the known evil if they're at all bearable because they're at least predictable and there are rarely any surprises. However, I also firmly believe that a huge problem for California is its penchant for returning failed and career politicians to office regardless of the sorry state of the state, elevating them to higher offices and particpating in the formation of political family dynasties.

As a native Californian professionally involved in CA politics for many years, I watch from afar with great interest and even greater concern for the results of Nov. 2.

[TimC2462]

You guys are vote a candidate based on polls?

No wonder our state is in ruins.

[Surftown831]

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

California is driving over a cliff, so let's elect Jerry Brown and step on the accelerator. Brilliant.

I have a better idea, lets elect someone who wants to buy their way into office and has absolutely no political experience, including just voting! That should turn the state around.

I care too much about my fellow Californians to vote for Meg Whitman. I agree, Brown certainly isn't an ideal candidate, but Whitman doesn't know anything about politics and doesn't even have enough political passion or concern for the state of California to VOTE. For the last 7 years we've seen the results of electing a rich & famous person with no political experience. Don't people realize that didn't work? Almost everyone who is voting for her is doing so simply because she has an (R) in front of her name.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Keep in mind that Whitman is from the most liberal region of California. The fact that all the major newspapers in the Bay Area are endorsing Brown where he leads by over 20 points in polls has to be a huge disappointment for Meg since that is where she lives. I give her credit that she did what other Republicans didn't by courting Latino voters. Whitman's strategy was to woo Californians who normally vote Democratic as a way to peal away voters from Brown. It was a good strategy in my opinion especially since she has all the money in the world to do things Jerry Brown can not afford to do. But this week's USC\ LA Times poll showed Whitman lagging well behind Brown among women, the college educated and Latinos; three groups any candidate must get in order to win.

She's spending a hundred gazillion dollars to capture less than 50% of the vote! That's not a really good strategy -- but maybe she wasn't a really good candidate to begin with!

Someone talked her into running... Who was that person? Someone really led her astray thinking she could win this thing.

And what a huge, huge, HUGE waste of money!! If nothing else, this shows why billionaires should be taxed up the hooozer! They have nothing better to spend the money on! She basically threw millions of dollars in the toilet and flushed it! Creating jobs? Not for Meg! Meg prefers to flush and that's why we should tax!!

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by UB50

She's spending a hundred gazillion dollars to capture less than 50% of the vote! That's not a really good strategy -- but maybe she wasn't a really good candidate to begin with!

Someone talked her into running... Who was that person? Someone really led her astray thinking she could win this thing.

And what a huge, huge, HUGE waste of money!! If nothing else, this shows why billionaires should be taxed up the hooozer! They have nothing better to spend the money on! She basically threw millions of dollars in the toilet and flushed it! Creating jobs? Not for Meg! Meg prefers to flush and that's why we should tax!!

Some of your statement about Meg may be true, but Brown isn't so golden either.

[ZhugeLiang]

The California voter never ceases to amaze me.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by UNLV09

but Whitman doesn't know anything about politics........ Almost everyone who is voting for her is doing so simply because she has an (R) in front of her name.

When did "knowing anything about politics" (whatever that means) become a prerequisite for holding political office? Oh, and perhaps people see that Democrats have controlled this state for decades and want to go another direction, did you think about that?

No, being a one-dimensional partisan tool feels so much cooler doesn't it?

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

When did "knowing anything about politics" (whatever that means) become a prerequisite for holding political office? Oh, and perhaps people see that Democrats have controlled this state for decades and want to go another direction, did you think about that?

No, being a one-dimensional partisan tool feels so much cooler doesn't it?

More than 50 years, "experienced" politicians have held offices in this state and look at the mess we're in now.

Yeah, and we should vote for Brown again.