Zogby--Feinstein has fragile lead over Campbell in California ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

BAB

New member
I don't think this has been posted yet...I looked around and didn't see it.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=245

Released: July 31, 2000

Feinstein has fragile lead over Campbell in California Senate race Slips to under 50% in Horse Race;

Zogby Poll indicates weakness in Feinstein support

Democrat Dianne Feinstein holds an 11-point lead over Republican Tom Campbell in the California Senate race according to a new Zogby International survey. But the survey also showed Feinstein’s lead is under 50%.


Pollster John Zogby: "This could be a close race. Feinstein’s support is soft and she is not reaching 50% among likely voters. It appears that Campbell has room to grow."


In the survey of 601 likely voters in California conducted between July 24-26, Feinstein led Campbell overall 48.0% - 37.3%. In close analysis Feinstein led Campbell among Bay area voters 61.1%-29.7%, and among Los Angeles and San Diego area voters 45.9% - 35%. The two were virtually tied throughout the rest of the state (Feinstein 44.3% - Campbell 42.3%).


The survey has a margin of sampling error was +/- 4%.


However, when respondents were informed of both candidate positions on specific issues such as drugs, education and health care, subsequent support for Campbell increased dramatically.


In the survey, a majority of respondents support Campbell’s positions over Feinstein’s on several key issues including combating illegal drugs (Campbell 57.5% - Feinstein 32%), addressing health care and HMO’s (Campbell 54.2%- Feinstein 32.2%) and uses for the federal surplus (Campbell 55.7% - Feinstein 34.9%).


Campbell receives strong support from voters for being known as a maverick Republican who votes his conscience instead of the straight party line. More than half (55.6%) said that image made it more likely they would support Campbell.


Zogby International, an independent polling firm in Upstate New York has distinguished itself for accuracy in the past decade. It called the 1996 presidential race with pinpoint accuracy and has come closer that any other polling outfit in the U.S. in several national, state and international races. The polling firm also came closer than any other polling outfit in pinpointing the landslide victories by Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore in the March 7, 2000 California presidential primaries.
 
Campbell's campaign address is: http://www.campbell.org/

If any pol deserves our support, it is Campbell, if for no other reason than to get Diane Feinstein out.

let's all chip in for this worthy cause - money and/or time, better if it's both. Here's our chance folks. The hopeful Bush landslide will carry this guy in on the coattails.
 
What is his view re RKBA?

Will it be like New York where one gets to choose between the Demo-socialist Hillary or the Repub-o-socialist Izod-Boy?
 
He's not strong RKBA; however, I doubt he would be introducing leg or trying to amend anit-RKBA to ever Bill like the D. Frankenstien. In that respect he is better. Ringing Endorsement ?? Probably not, but 150% than current situation.

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hube1236:
What is his view re RKBA?

Will it be like New York where one gets to choose between the Demo-socialist Hillary or the Repub-o-socialist Izod-Boy?
[/quote]
 
That he is not strong RKBA is an extreme understatement. HCI named him Legislator of the Year in 95.

He is not much better than DiFi. Lesser of two evils, yes. But still not worth this weight in spit.
 
Jim,

I think your right. I'm torn: Since neither is any good, I'd soon not give him my support. At least the next GOP'er will think to court our concerns a little more.

Most races I'm GOP, but in this one, I could be Libertarian.

If he isn't attacking RKBA, I could live with him. DiFi is ALWAYS attacking RKBA, so a breather would be nice.

Just more to think about.

madison46
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JimDiver:
That he is not strong RKBA is an extreme understatement. HCI named him Legislator of the Year in 95.

He is not much better than DiFi. Lesser of two evils, yes. But still not worth this weight in spit.
[/quote]
 
There is no reason to be torn whatsoever.

There is no reason to think that an anti-gun Rebublicrat is any better than an anti-gun Democrat. I would not be surprised to see NRA endorse him, however.

Rick
 
Yeah, this appears to be Hobson's Choice. However, Feinstein has the name recognition and seniority in the Senate, which translates into the ability to better push her legislation, or at least get a hearing.

So, the somewhat lesser evil is voted in, and perhaps spends more of his time trying to build a power base to perpetuate himself (the First Law of Politics) instead of proposing new anti-gun legislation.

Perhaps, even, he will be chastised by Feinstein's defeat to realize that for now, he'd better lay low "until next time".

Who do you think would be the lesser evil, a newbie anti-gunner that has to spend time building contacts or a seasoned old-pro who survived the Bush (hopeful) landslide and has another six years to ram through her proposals because of her "mandate"?

Despite HCI's endorsement of Campbell, if they had to choose between the two, guess who would win?

We've got to keep shaving away the more powerful antis or we will be stuck with them until they die in office like the late, unlamented Chaffee of Rhode Island.

In today's Michiavellian atmosphere, nothing is absolutely black or white any more, and since there's no chance of a third-party victory, let's at least attempt to defeat a major anti. Truly, the lesser of evils.




[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited August 01, 2000).]
 
Doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. Campbell hates the Constitution just as much as Diane Frankenstein. He's voted for every gun confiscation bill that's come down the pike... uh, I mean, aisle.

And let's not forget, it was the Campbells that told the MacDonalds to leave their weapons at home when they invited them to dinner... then the Campbells murdered all the MacDonalds, who were unarmed. To me Campbell is no different from his ancestors, when it comes to betrayal.

FWIW. J.B.
 
This is one place where the marginal differences between R and D may not justify voting for a non-Libertarian.

However, I despise DiFi so much ... and Campbell *is* better on financial issues...

I'll flip a coin if I haven't decided by Nov.
 
I may prefer to see him beat Feinstein, but this fellow is no walk in the park. Take a look at his web site (as noted above);

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Handgun Control legislator of the year, 1995

Supported the 'Brady Bill' and the assault weapons ban.

Proposed legislation to close the gun show loophole.[/quote]

and, note some of these bogus statements on his site:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Over the past year or so, as a nation, we have been traumatized by gun violence as never before.[/quote]I gather he knows something the FBI doesn't? Violent crime has been going down, bozo.

and,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I introduced legislation to close the "gun-show loophole" in the bill--if a background check makes sense at a gun shop, it makes sense at a gun show. I think any new gun should be sold with a trigger lock; we have consumer-product safety laws for many less dangerous items. I support a ban on the large capacity ammunition clips designed for military use. These measures would do much to protect us all, yet they do not interfere with the fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment that a law-abiding individual has the right to keep and carry a weapon.[/quote]

and, regarding the Second Amendment:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Clearly, total confiscation of firearms, and other unreasonable forms of gun control, would violate the Second Amendment. But there are sensible gun control measures that are both consistent with the fundamental right to bear arms and very effective in curbing gun violence.[/quote] So glad to hear he is against total confiscation ...

and,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, some ignore the injunction that the militia be "well regulated," asserting that there can be no governmental restrictions on private gun ownership because one of the likeliest purposes of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to overthrow tyrannical federal government. But that stance ignores the clear reference that someone (and if not the government, then who?) was to have the authority to regulate the people's (i.e. the "militia's") use of firearms. So along with the broad reading of "militia" to include all able-bodied citizens is a coextensive right of the government to well-regulate.[/quote] His use of the 20th century definition of 'regulate' is disappointing, at best.


I may be pulling for this fellow November 7, but I'll invest my money elsewhere.

Regards from AZ
 
If you go to his web site and look under town hall meeting under constitutional law you will find a long debate on the 2nd that I've had with him. He is better than the fendstein, but not by much. However, I have to admit with his town hall meeting on the internet, he is a whole lot more accessable than any other gov official I've ever seen. Also I think that if the SC should rule in Emerson, he may change his mind.

I will vote for Campbell this time around... but not the next. Just to get rid of public ennamia #1, the fendstein. I will now however contribute to his effort or donate my time... I'm to busy in a local race.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
I will vote Campbell just because I despise Feinstien. I view as the lesser of two evils. I just wish the republican party put a canidate up that was a solid supporter of RKBA.
 
As long as pro-gun supports anti-gun, that's what you will get. It sounds good to say "at least he's not Feinstein" but by voting for him you are sending a message that you support gun laws. For crying out loud if there are other options, like liberatarian, then VOTE FOR THEM!!!! They support the 2nd ammend. Jeeese are you people brain dead!!! You blindly vote Republicant even when they do not support gun owners, even when there are other choices that do, then you piss and moan because you have gun laws!!!! That's the problem I have with NRA, they blindly support Republicants, regardless or their stance on firearms, then wonder why our vote doesn't count!
 
I agree with gitarmac. This is a situation where it sounds like you guys are screwed if you do and screwed if you don't. If the choices for Rep. and Dem. are this horrifying then you have nothing to loose. You must vote for a liberatarian. Even though he/she won't win it will be yet another vote that will send yet another message.

When it comes to president I will vote Dubya because to vote Browne would be a waste IMHO. For pres., we gunnies actually have a chance to possibly roll back some of these draconian measures (like the federal AW ban that expires in two years!).

Don't give those f*ckin' totalitarianists a chance in Commiefornia!

Joel
 
While Campbell might just as onerous as Feinstein (hard tho' that is for me to believe), keep this in mind. If Dems outnumber Reps in the Senate, then we get Tom Daschle as Majority Leader, Kennedy or Biden as chairman of the Judiciary committee, yadda yadda. It's worth something to hold the majority, even if some of the majority suck.
 
Jeff Thomas,

Based on what you just posted, I will vote Libertarian in this race.

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Thomas:
I may prefer to see him beat Feinstein, but this fellow is no walk in the park. Take a look at his web site (as noted above);

and, regarding the Second Amendment:

Clearly, total confiscation of firearms, and other unreasonable forms of gun control, would violate the Second Amendment. But there are sensible gun control measures that are both consistent with the fundamental right to bear arms and very effective in curbing gun violence.
So glad to hear he is against total confiscation ...

and,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, some ignore the injunction that the militia be "well regulated," asserting that there can be no governmental restrictions on private gun ownership because one of the likeliest purposes of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to overthrow tyrannical federal government. But that stance ignores the clear reference that someone (and if not the government, then who?) was to have the authority to regulate the people's (i.e. the "militia's") use of firearms. So along with the broad reading of "militia" to include all able-bodied citizens is a coextensive right of the government to well-regulate.[/quote] His use of the 20th century definition of 'regulate' is disappointing, at best.


I may be pulling for this fellow November 7, but I'll invest my money elsewhere.

Regards from AZ

[/QUOTE]
 
I say again, Tommi Campbell is a lowdown, backstabbing traitorous communistnazi who calls himself "Republican." (Certainly not the only one, either!)

Ask that power mad monster just how many millions of us "vermin" he intends to exterminate in order to "control" our guns, the way he and his comrades intend???

The only real difference between Tommi and Diane Frankenstein is that she stands up to pee.

J.B.
 
I think that those of us who actually live and vote in California can make up our own minds on this one, Jay.

I saw Campbell on local TV here. He seemed to go out of his way to say that he believes in the 2nd Admendment. Does he? Who knows. Probably not. However, If he can get rid of Feinstein, then a vote for him will be well worth it.

It will add cushion to the Republican margin in the Senate which will allow pro-second amendment committee chairmen to bottle up anti-selfdefense bills.

For this reason alone, its worth voting for Campbell this time around and then voting him down in the next Republican primary.

If Feinstein gets shot down in this election (I don't mean that literally, Canivore), it will send a big chill to all other anti-selfdefense wanabees politicians.
 
BAB
You got to understand that California media is just about 100% LIBERAL. That media will distort any views differing from their own and that will destroy the candidacy of any politicial here that don't tow the liberal line. finesquat is guaranteed office until lawfull limitations on her term come into play or a candidate more favorable to a liberal vision come along (somehow I just don't see that happening). Hail to the power of the liberal media! Kneel and show submission to its power!!! Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated TO THE LIBERAL VISION!!!

GOD HELP US!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top