California Primaries

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seven months off and I'm already interested.   Thus far Steve Westly and Phil Angeledies are considered the top contenders.  Do any of you think one or another have an advantage this early in the race?  Anyone want to speculate as to how the Dem primaries will run between them, or will another major player enter the pack, and if so how will they do?

Things aren't nessisarilly a Hobsons choice on the GOP side either.  Given Schwartzeneggers lukewarm appeal to mainstream conservatives, and his rather lukewarm popularity, it is possible he might get a primary chalenger - but if so, who?

Westly and Angelides are both strong candidates. Angelides looks a bit stronger. He went against Arnold back when Arnold was popular. That should help him now that Arnold is unpopular.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You can get more information here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election%2C_2006

Edie Bukewihge is a no name candidate.

Here are how Angelides and Westly have done in past races.

Angelides had solid wins in 1998 and 2002 against strong Green candidates.



Westly also had strong Green opposition, but barely won in 2002.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Angelides has the edge, because he can self finance.  CA is so huge that money often proves the decisive factor.

What? He's poorer than both his primary opposition of Westly and Arnold, who are both worth around $100 million. Typical Republican strategy - attack the poorest of the 3 guys for being rich.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Angelides has the edge, because he can self finance.  CA is so huge that money often proves the decisive factor.

What? He's poorer than both his primary opposition of Westly and Arnold, who are both worth around $100 million. Typical Republican strategy - attack the poorest of the 3 guys for being rich.

WTF?

I see only analysis, not attacks here.

Though FWIW, there have been more than a few occations where the less financed candidate/proposition wins.

Such brilliant analysis. Someone worth $10 million running in the primary against someone worth $100 million, and then would have the general election against someone worth $100 million clearly has the advantage due to self-financing? That's not analysis. Either it was an attack, or John Ford can't make a reasonable argument.