Surprise in CA: Late entry in GOP Senate primary takes the lead
posted at 11:20 am on January 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Over the last few months, I’ve interviewed the two heretofore leading candidates for the Republican nomination to challenge Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat, Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina. Both candidates have sounded similar themes, both have emphasized their conservative credentials, and both have claimed that they can beat Boxer in November. However, both of them finished behind former Congressman Tom Campbell in the latest Field Poll, not just against each other but also against Boxer:
Former Congressman Tom Campbell, who only last week switched his political sights from the governor’s race to the U.S. Senate, has become the front runner in the California GOP Senate primary.
In a survey completed between January 5 and 17, The Field Poll finds Campbell the choice of 30% of likely GOP primary election voters, businesswoman Carly Fiorina receives 25%, while Assemblyman Chuck DeVore trails at 6%. About four in ten (39%) of GOP primary voters are undecided. …
When paired against each of the GOP candidates in general election match-ups, Boxer leads Campbell by ten points (48% to 38%), Fiorina by fifteen points (50% to 35%) and DeVore by seventeen points (51% to 34%).
Interestingly, Boxer gets less than a majority against Campbell, indicating perhaps more opportunity — at least at this very early stage — than with the other candidates. Campbell only announced for this race on January 14th, at least officially, while the survey was conducted from the 5th to the 17th — all but three days with Campbell not officially declared. That’s an impressive showing, especially since DeVore and Fiorina have been publicly battling for the last few months.
Campbell may have some trouble generating support amongst conservatives, at least outside of California. He was known as a moderate while in the House, a pro-choice and pro-gay rights Republican, which made political sense in his mainly Democratic district. Campbell has more firm ground on fiscal conservatism, which gives him some libertarian support. He lost the 2000 Senate race to Dianne Feinstein (partly due to the Clinton impeachment), which both Fiorina and DeVore can argue shows him to be a weak choice to fight Boxer. DeVore can fight Campbell on social policy, while Fiorina will certainly have access to more campaign cash, mostly her own if she chooses to use it.
In this survey of 958 likely voters by Field, one of the venerable California pollsters, Boxer ends up with a 48%/39% favorable rating, a very low number for an incumbent in any year, and especially in this one. Boxer’s vulnerable, but she’s not dead in the water. The question for Republicans is which of these candidates gives California the best improvement and still can get elected? It’s a tough choice, but it’s better to have a wider selection in the primary, and thus far Republicans appear to like Campbell’s entry into the race.
Update: I received the following statement from the Fiorina campaign:
“We continue to be encouraged by the polling in this race showing that Carly is a strong candidate both in the primary and in the general election and also showing that voters are highly unsatisfied with Barbara Boxer’s continued support for bigger government and higher taxes. Tom Campbell is a career politician who has run for statewide office now three times so you would have expected that his high name ID would have come through more strongly in this poll, and, once voters learn that Tom has spent the last five years supporting increased government spending, higher taxes and now refuses to commit to not voting for more tax increases in the Senate we expect his numbers to fall fast, just like Martha Coakley’s did in Massachusetts.”– Deputy Campaign Manager for Communications Julie Soderlund
I wouldn’t call this poll bad news for Fiorina so much as it isn’t good news. In fact, Campbell’s record could allow Fiorina to position herself as the more consistently conservative candidate, especially if DeVore can’t gain any more traction. We’ll see what the DeVore campaign has to say.
Update: Bruce Kesler is not optimistic about California being another Massachusetts, and points to a much lower percentage of independent voters. I’d call that an artificial condition imposed by a closed-primary system, but Bruce has a point. Be sure to read his entire post.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
If Senator Ma’am Babs goes down, then Pelosi will start pooing her pants.
MeatHeadinCA on January 21, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Mass was a once in a generation election, Ed, don’t try getting my hopes up for CA, my heart can’t take it.
booter on January 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Sure, I’d love to call you former Senator, I think you’ll be earning that….
ted c on January 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Bah, Campbell is gonna get creamed. This race is about money. Fiorina has that by the buckets. She also is a battle-tested broad for what will be the b*tchiest Senate contest ever.
Apologetic California on January 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Hey OmahaConservative!!!
Where is the link?
barnone on January 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM
DeVore is the solid conservative candidate.
Holger on January 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Interesting! This would be AMAZING!!
deidre on January 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM
I am for almost any republican who can beat a democrat. I don’t care about abortion or gay rights. I want fiscal conservatives. As long as the candidate isn’t a cap and trader, I am happy. Too hell with party purity, let’s kick some butt!
bopbottle on January 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM
That’s “Former Congressman AND POTENTIAL US SENATE CANDIDATE Tom Campbell”!
He’s worked hard for that title.
mankai on January 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM
I’m going to go out on a limb and predict (hope for) her loss, as well as Reids.
scalleywag on January 21, 2010 at 11:26 AM
I’m not surprised.
Vashta.Nerada on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
That is what we need.
rbj on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
A blistering defeat could not happen to a sweeter person.
kingsjester on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I agree 200%. No more arrogant elitists either!
scalleywag on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I think any of the 3 can beat Boxer in this environment. I really wanted Campbell to stay in the Governor’s race, because now that leaves us stuck with Whitman.
yogi41 on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I am not a Californian (thank G_d) but I really hope to watch a primary full of ideas and policy plans with the winner going on to the general election without serious injury.
myrenovations on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
OT Pelosi just announced she does not have the votes to pass the senate healthcare bill
iceman1960 on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Oh man o man o man please let Babs go down!
Now THAT would be cause for another humpbot!
BlueStateBilly on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Let the anti-Boxer rebellion begin!
Mulligan on January 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM
More choice for the June primary is a good thing. Whoever wins the primary will be the best candidate to take down Ma’am.
The GOP really needs to find a consisten message to fend of the where do you stand on gay rights, abortion, and other social issues stuff. A GOP candidate should have a consistent message that they will not impose any law one way or the other on all states if they hold a federal office. They will, though, work to ensuring that states have the freedom to make laws on these issues as the state representatives deem fit.
WashJeff on January 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Listening to Dennis Miller yesterday I head him say he would donate money and time to Devore. Anything to oust the half-wit Boxer.
daesleeper on January 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Does Campbell drive a truck? :)
scalleywag on January 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM
OT Pelosi just announced she does not have the votes to pass the senate healthcare bill
iceman1960 on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
If this is true…WATERLOO!
kingsjester on January 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Oh what a sweet thing to wake up to.
And Fox just announced that Nancy Botox doesn’t have the votes in the House to pass HealthCare.
Knucklehead on January 21, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Maybe the economy, healthcare and terrorism will calm the far right down.
Nobody needs to be concentrating on social issues like gay rights and abortion.
bridgetown on January 21, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Don’t be surprised if SF Mayor Gavin any twosome Newsome makes a run at Pelosi’s seat.
He’s not much better but at least she is removed from sight.
FireBlogger on January 21, 2010 at 11:29 AM
I don’t really see the point of backing someone who has already lost a run at the same seat.
Rocks on January 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Ironically, I opened this and there was a Carly ad below.
schmitty on January 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Alert on Fox News:
It’s Twooo! It’s Twooo!
YeeeeHaaaw!
kingsjester on January 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM
She admitted it and they’re going to try and pass the Senate bill thru reconciliation.
Breaking news………..she actually admits to failure.
Knucklehead on January 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Field may be “one of the venerable California pollsters” but they are pretty Zogby-ish, consistently 3-8 points more Democrat than the actual votes turn out. Quick example, Prop 8. Last Field poll had it failing 44% to 49%, actually passed 52 – 48. According to Field’s director, the discrepancy is because
Sounds fair and balanced to me :-|
motionview on January 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Life is good! Brown didn’t even have to cast a vote!
iceman1960 on January 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Awhile back someone wanted to know –where are the Patriots and Statesmen — I think we will see more and more coming forward —- more Scott Browns on the Horizon ??
wheels on January 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM
All we need is for the one to go and “help” out boxer, and give her the kiss of death, maybe make it on the same trip next week when he visits harry reid.
Make it a TWO-FER.
RealMc on January 21, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Break out the Swedes.
Vashta.Nerada on January 21, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Don’t be to sure . . . Mass was the result of a sociological and political dynamic that has swept the nation and the resulting impact has just begun.
rplat on January 21, 2010 at 11:33 AM
I said last year after going around the country that we could see the Dems loose the senate and 80 plus seats in the house because the anger was like i have never seen .Much greater than 93/94 people laughed and mad fun of me.I still stand by my prediction.Just came back from another trip and if anything the anger has got much worse.
thmcbb on January 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Ummm, he’s a Stanford man. Maybe he can borrow his gardener’s truck.
FireBlogger on January 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM
If he’s a good candidate, and conservatives across the country unite behind him with donations, word of mouth, phone bank support, etc., as we did with Scott Brown, he has a real chance. We need strong candidates who will fight hard to protect our liberty, national security, and private property. I see a socially moderate or socially liberal candidate as a plus.
Cara C on January 21, 2010 at 11:36 AM
I’d love to see DeVore win, but I’ll take Fiorina. Heck, I’ll even take Campbell, whom I know nothing about, over Boxer.
SouthernGent on January 21, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Carly has my vote in spirit.
Narutoboy on January 21, 2010 at 11:37 AM
The Field Poll is typically skewed left. In fact, the only polls that are less accurate in California are Susan Pinkus’ little propaganda efforts at the Los Angeles Times.
Campbell might have a shot at this, especially with the Brown effect.
CrazyGene on January 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM
If Campbell is the candidate, I won’t vote.
He’s diametrically opposed to me on the social issues.
unclesmrgol on January 21, 2010 at 11:39 AM
That’s what she said!
LASue on January 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Come on Chuck,if we see you are working hard for it,the donations will come in.Campaign on your principles unapologeticly and you can defeat boxer and campbell and carly whatever.
ohiobabe on January 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Obama NEEDS to campaign harder for Boxer! It’s what he does BEST!
Remember it’s all about “Anger and Frustration at BOOOOOSH!”
Roy Rogers on January 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM
oh man, perhaps there’s hope for the state where I grew up. And apologies to my friend Robert from college, but I DESPISE Barbara B. Arrogant piece of work.
Annietxgrl on January 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM
We CA folks want the same thing the MA folks want: fiscal conservatism and strong national defense.
I want to hear all 3 and then I will work my heart out for him or her. I hope the CA GOP lets them all debate and plays it smart like they did with Brown.
PattyJ on January 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM
We need fiscal conservatives who can win in November. Years ago, around 1968, California Republicans nominated a far right on social issues candidate, which led to California, and the country, having the flaming liberal Alan Cranston as senator, for decades.
GaltBlvnAtty on January 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Primaries…
Then we go after Senator Ma’am.
Seven Percent Solution on January 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Nancy definitely has to go as Speaker. The woman is just not right and getting rid of nutty Boxer would be sweet also. Obama’s on FOX News now running on at the mouth (yet again) about growing the economy, etc. He’s starting to sound like a broken record. Can’t wait until 2012 to see him go!
mozalf on January 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM
National security, crime and punishment and fiscal conservatism are the main things I care about. If Tom Campbell (remember it’s California) is the best shot to beat this moron I am fully on board.
Howcome on January 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Campbell is a strong fiscal conservative, with the best resume in the business:
Harvard law degree
University of Chicago PhD in economics (under Milton Friedman)
U.S. Supreme Court law clerk
Stanford law professor
State senator
U.S. Congressman
State director of finance
He would have made a great governor, but dropped out of that race due to a lack of money to run against two Silicon Valley oligarchs in the primary.
Sowell Disciple on January 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Boxer is going nowhere.
JeffinOrlando on January 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Tom Campbell’s fiscal conservationism appears to be solid. In the year 1994 he voted for the least amount of net spending where as Babs Boxer was the 2nd most spending politician.
He is an Economist and Business guy, he knows the danger of Keynesian economics.
He also wanted to station California National Guard on the California-Mexico border to assist in Border Patrol.
Holger on January 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM
When is the primary in California?
If it’s late (such as August or September), there might not be enough time for Republicans to coalesce around the primary winner for the general election, and run lots of ads in expensive places to win over Independent voters, without which Republicans can’t win in CA (although Scott Brown got about 3/4 of them in MA).
If the primary is early, GOP voters might nominate a candidate with some hidden baggage which Boxer could bring out later. Although, if Campbell is nominated, and he already ran statewide in 2000, any baggage is probably already public knowledge.
Which candidate does the Governator endorse?
Collie-fornia is a tough place for any Republican to win these days. Could Ronald Reagan be elected Governor in today’s Left Coast, or are there too many Pelosicrats and too few conservatives left?
Steve Z on January 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM
I’d prefer Devore, but if we get Fiorna, I’ll still be grateful.
Bob's Kid on January 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM
He studied under Friedman? Under Friedman? Friedman is a God. Watch on youtube how Friedman lays the beatdown on Phil Donahue.
Holger on January 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Ed,
You’ve been out of California too long. Campbell backed Propositions 1A-1F in the election last year, which would have raised a raft of taxes on Californians while doing nothing to control spending. He’s a fiscal moderate only if that means “willing to go along with the Left-leaning legislature.”
Tom had been running for governor, but switched races when it became apparent he was gaining no traction versus Whitman or Poizner. He’s not as much interested in serving the people as he is in getting an office, any office, for its perks. I’m not impressed.
irishspy on January 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Errrr…Fiorina. Ahem.
(shall I blame my spelling or my typing?)
Bob's Kid on January 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Same here. This is another blue state so I will support whomever has the best chance to beat Boxer, regardless of where they fall on the RINO meter.
And, for her to be ahead of the top two Rs by only 10 to 15 points at this juncture, says it’s more than possible to unseat her. Indeed, the CA economy will certainly be worse come November, which bodes ill for all incumbents there.
TXUS on January 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Tom Campbell ontheissues.com:
Abortion:
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) A disgusting position if you ask me. I believe there should be a FOCUS on fiscal conservatism but that does not mean many conservatives will sacrifice deepy held beliefs on certain issues. This isn’t single issue voting, but a vote like this shows him to be either a radical or an opportunist with no real core beliefs.
Civil Rights:
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Ok I am against the gay adoptions vote but support the vote against racial preferences.
Crime
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Seems a little wishy washy on crime if you ask me. What are the chances of him “reaching across the aisle” when it comes to trying terrorists in civilian courts?
Drugs
Voted NO on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
meh, I don’t really care, but the needle exchange was a failure and medical marijuana is a joke.
Foreign Policy
Voted YES on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
Seems a little week here, and no record for post-9/11. Normal Trade relations with China?
Trade:
Voted YES on ‘Fast Track’ authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
ok this is good
Government Reform:
Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Hello McCain Feingold!
Second Amendment:
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
not to much to be read into here, but a slight tick towards the gun control lobby.
Health Care:
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Expand medical savings accounts for employers & individuals. (Feb 1999)
assisted suicide? No on medical savings accounts? Obama will most certainly reach across the aisle to this guy
He’s pretty good on social security reform as well otherwise his record seems to be pretty thin and his fiscal record seems to be more moderate than conservative. He is a social liberal and stinks like a RINO just by scanning through his voting record here. I’ll take a pass thank you very much.
Daemonocracy on January 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Those first two qualifications, plus state senator, sound like Barack Hussein Obama!
Steve Z on January 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM
I haven’t been to California in years, but I remember the last time I was there I happened to walk past a dirty, smelly, needle-marked and obviously inebriated lowest order of human existence lying among dirty rags and newspapers in a pool of his own filth. I was thoroughly disgusted and saddened by the sight of him.
I would vote for him over Boxer.
SKYFOX on January 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM
And Babs isn’t?
Don’t tell me, let me guess.
You stayed home in 2006, too.
That’s worked out real nicely, hasn’t it?
VelvetElvis on January 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Now thats CHANGE we can believe in! Where do we donate??
justonevictory on January 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM
+1,000!
Excellent campaign slogan.
VoyskaPVO on January 21, 2010 at 11:51 AM
err, week = weak in my previous post.
Ofcourse I would take Campbell over Boxer but this is the primary we are talking about. Devore is only 17 down and its early, I’ll go with him.
Daemonocracy on January 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Campbell is a fiscal liberal, ala Arrrnold, and a loser in the CA governors race. Fiorina is the most electable conservative; here’s hoping she’ll pull it off.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on January 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM
..except for the weather (which is currently rainy), you haven’t missed a hell of a lot.
VoyskaPVO on January 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I want Harry Alford to run against her. Not just because of that confrontation – he is awesome in his interviews, he would make a great representative for California. A self-made businessman, excellent sensible leadership. But he lives in Maryland now, poo. I hope he runs for something.
batterup on January 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Tom Campbell was my congresscritter for four years. What I remember is a smarmy, elitist, gun-grabbing, statist, RINO who could count.
Kalapana on January 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM
bopbottle on January 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM
scalleywag on January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I’m with you guys.
txag92 on January 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM
I wish Ducnan Hunter would run for Senate in California. He was my #1 in the Presidential Race but alas he didn’t get any attention.
Daemonocracy on January 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Party purity, like “teabagger” is one of those terms used by people whose motives are suspect. There is no way a social conservative can win in California. You’ve got to be pro-amnesty, pro-sodomy, pro-welfare state to even hope to make a dent in the electorate. The state is really that crappy and why nobody in their right mind would willingly live there. Too many people who think just like AnninCA.
That being said, let’s talk about this party purity thing. I can accept moderate Republicans like Scott Brown within the party so long as they RESPECT those of us who are social conservatives. McCain and those of his ilk are openly hostile to social and Christian conservatives. If there is any litmus test for purity, it is to drive the intolerant among the “moderates” out since they refuse to work with the rest of the party- preferring to work with Democrats like Boxer.
highhopes on January 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM
I gotta go with Carly Fiorina or DeVore.
Holger on January 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM
I really want Boxer to lose.
CP on January 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Boxer is busy counting her campaign funds. She’s got millions, and she’ll need them. If you thought Coakley was an elitist, she’s trailer trash compared to Babs.
GarandFan on January 21, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Hope.
…and change.
:D
rollthedice on January 21, 2010 at 12:06 PM
ANYBODY but Boxer. The woman is the battiest of moonbats.
I think what this points out is the donks are going to have to spend alot of money where they never have had to before. That leaves many, many other close races that will not get all the money they need.
I’m upping my prediction to the house turn to republican by +8.
jukin on January 21, 2010 at 12:07 PM
I just can’t trust Carly… she’s from them Graham/McCain wing… she’ll will be too willing to cave on issues to ‘show bipartisanship’
If Campbell can win, he’s an extremely strong fiscal conservative, then he’s good enough for California seat… not good enough for 40 other states, but good enough for Cali
phreshone on January 21, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Campbell is a New Deal Democrat. Since American politics have become so skewed to the left, even a Campbell can appear as a friend of the Constitution.
Kalapana on January 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM
First the Kennedy seat and now the Boxer seat?
Will I ever grow tired of the Abba Waterloo video? Nevah!!
Hening on January 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Once the term “former” applies, I don’t see a need to call her at all……..
BobMbx on January 21, 2010 at 12:12 PM
If we got rid of gerrymandering, we would see most of these leftists disappear and our country might return to its roots. I mean, who are these dipsh*its polling for Boxer? o, that’s right, the 50% of the population living off the rest of us slaves.
hogfat on January 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Mass was a once in a generation election, Ed, don’t try getting my hopes up for CA, my heart can’t take it.
booter on January 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM
—–
Why is that so?
Americans have decided, once again, that we want politicians who stand for smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, more personal opportunity, and so on.
In my lifetime, I’ve seen the Reagan election, the 1994 Contract With America election, and now the Browning of Massachusetts. All long-shots, all conservative-rooted, all successful.
Mew
acat on January 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM
As much as I detest everything Boxer stands for, Fiorina isn’t a lot better to me. She “earned” gobs of money by running her former company (Hewlett Packard) into the toilet before leaving with an enormous golden parachute. I used to own HP stock and watched it drop (under her stewardship) from a little over $80 a share to a little over $40. The only impressive thing she did was get her golden parachute to open when the HP board voted her OUT. Another “know-it-all” incompetent neither California NOR the U.S. Senate needs.
bradley11 on January 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM
I lived in NorCal for 30 years and feel I know a lot about both Campbell and Fiorina. As a libertarian, I admire Campbell. His politics remind me of Instapundit Glenn Reynolds. Fiorina is more country club Republican.
If you are looking for Scott Brown-like connection to Middle America, you won’t find it from either of them. I don’t know DeVore, but he’d have to be the one to supply it (or keep on looking).
Chaz on January 21, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Blanket the state with the smackdown she got from the head of the black chamber of commerce. Watching a black businessman, who’s a veteran, say that he takes offense at her accusations has got to be worth some votes.
BuckeyeSam on January 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Haven’t done all my homework on Campbell, but if he backed props 1A-1F, he’ll be toast in my book. Fiscal Californians finally stepped up and slammed the Gubinator and the liberals on these props OVERWHELMINLY, and told the legislature to go back to work on reducing state government programs and spending.
Rovin on January 21, 2010 at 12:22 PM
I don’t care if gays get married and nothing will happen on the abortion front until conservative Supreme Court nominees are appointed.
Get rid of the bitch Boxer.
rickyricardo on January 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Getting rid of ALL incumbents everywhere is sounding like a better idea.
Starting with a clean slate all across the board.
I’m tired of more of the same.
I care about social issues, but the Federal govt is not the place for that stuff.
Let’s leave it up to the states.
They are the avenues for all this social experimenting-not the Fed.
Badger40 on January 21, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Cranston was the first politician that intruded upon my fledgling political awareness as a kid “I do not like this guy!”
Bob's Kid on January 21, 2010 at 12:28 PM
But Michelle was calling her a RHINO.
RobCon on January 21, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Does anyone know anything about DeVore? I keep getting emails from him for support. But, not from CA, don’t know anything about him.
Mirimichi on January 21, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Boxhead won and serves at the pleasure of Feinswine. Drive any kind of wedge in and there is a serious chance for the GOP.
Fighton03 on January 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM
So, you’d support, a mayor who performed ILLEGAL marriages, with full knowledge that he was doing so, because he FELT, the law was too mean to his constituents?
Gavin makes Bwanneee Fwank look straight.
Blacksmith8 on January 21, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Barbara Boxer???
NO Ma’am!!!!
seven on January 21, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Fiorina, easily.
rrpjr on January 21, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »