The poll breakdown in USA Today shows that Arnold and Tom are equivilent candidates in a two-man race, with McClintock having much lower negatives that Schwartzenegger. It also shows that nearly half of viewers though McClintock won the debate last week.
I wonder just how many Republicans actually prefer Arnold. Seems like there's a lot of self-fulfilling prophesy going on here. I've seen numerous "my heart is with Tom, but I'm voting for Arnold, because he can win" comments the last few weeks. According to USA Today, though, it doesn't matter much poll-wise. Either will win if the other drops out.
I guess this is another case of perception beating reality. Sigh. I'm back to not knowing whom I'll vote for when I punch the card.
UPDATE: More here and here
Glad to see someone else talking about this. I know you and I both wanted to see what would happen in a Cruz-Tom two-way race. Now we know.
Keep in mind that the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. When I discussed the Cruz-Tom two-way race poll numbers in this post, I noted that these numbers might be different if McClintock were the front-runner. McClintock has been getting a pass from Democrats, and a boost from the Indians, precisely because they want him to do well, which they believe will hurt Arnold. Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante has even been actively talking up Tom's candidacy. Moreover, the poll's "likely voter" calculation in this poll assumes an unusually high Republican turnout.
On the other side, maybe McClintock would be doing even better than this if he had the endorsements Arnold has been getting.
It's tough to know for sure what to make of these numbers. The one thing I know is that you and I are the *only* people I have seen discussing this interesting aspect of the poll.
Posted by: Patterico at September 30, 2003 01:37 PMI'm closer to McClintock than to Schwarzenegger on every issue except abortion, which plays no role in my vote one way or the other. Nevertheless, I am convinced that right now, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a more effective, and more objectively conservative governor than Tom McClintock would. Sure, his views are a bit to the left of McClintock's, but they are well to the right of anything a Gov. McClintock could realistically hope to push through the hostile Legislature that exists now or is likely to exist after the 2004 election. So worrying about which candidate is the "better" conservative is an exercise in futility. We simply don't have the luxury of caring about that right now.
As to overall competence: I think that what Schwarzenegger lacks in direct political experience, he makes up in business acumen, people skills, and a larger-than-life persona that will make it much easier to "take it to the people" when a hostile Legislature won't cooperate. McClintock doesn't have a very good record of working well with members of his own party, let alone the enemy. That's why I think he'd make a mediocre governor, at best, at least in California. He'd probably make an excellent U.S. Senator, though.
Posted by: Xrlq at October 1, 2003 10:08 AM