On May 29, the Los Angeles Times released this California public opinion poll. Click on the Survey Results button. The poll shows that most Californians are not pleased with incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. It also shows that among Republicans and independents who plan to vote in the Republican primary, the vote for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate is: Carly Fiorina 38%; Tom Campbell 23%; Chuck DeVore 15%; undecided, other, or won’t vote, 24%.
Campbell, a professor, a former state legislator, a former member of the U.S. House, and a former budget director for Governor Schwarzenegger, is very highly regarded by California moderates. Assuming the poll results are accurate, he will probably lose the Republican primary on June 8. Yet, chances are, if he were running as an independent candidate in November against Senator Boxer and likely Republican nominee Carly Fiorina, he could win. Another moderate Republican who is running independently this year, Charlie Crist in Florida, is leading in polls. Some commentators have said that Arlen Specter and Robert Bennett, two incumbent U.S. Senators who were defeated for nomination this month by their own party, could also potentially have won in November if they had run as independents.
The Los Angeles Times poll has other interesting results, including a poll of registered independents on why they are registered that way. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
I don’t know if California has a “sore loser” law, but if Tom Campbell loses the GOP primary, why couldn’t the AIP in California start negotiations with him – assuming whomever wins the AIP nomination is willing to withdraw – so Campbell could accept the AIP nomination for U.S. Senate as a replacement?
Are there laws there in California that prevent such from happening, or is Campbell “too moderate” for the AIP?
One would think that AIP leaders would be politically savy enough to consider all options and possibilities which continues to help build that party into the state’s largest 3rd party. Sometimes you have to use a candidate who might not cross his/her “t’s” or dot his/her “i’s” on every issue the way you prefer, but if he/she is in agreement with MORE of your philosophy than LESS of it, what is wrong with such?
But, as usual with most 3rd parties like the AIP, Campbell is “too moderate” so we can’t have that. So sad.
California requires all qualified parties to nominate by primary.
Understood, Richard.
But what happens if after a candidate is nominated by primary, the nominee withdraws (or dies) or for whatever reason there no longer happens to be a nominee for that party?
Surely such has happened in California in the past.
So are you saying, that if the AIP nominee withdrew, the AIP would have to hold a special primary election in which Tom Campbell (and ohers) could participate if he/they wanted to?
In Alabama (and many other states) if such a vacancy occurs, the state executive committee (or county executive committee) of the party with the vacancy makes a replacement.
#3 California also has a sore winner law. A candidate may not withdraw after winning the primary.
Richard: Is Jim Riley correct here? What happens if a nominee dies before the General Election? This is hard to believe, as candidates do die before the General Election and occassionally they withdraw for whatever reason. It is hard to believe that the party is then left without a choice for a replacement.
California is one of the few states that does not permit candidates to withdraw. All a candidate can do to get off a ballot is die. If a party nominee dies, the party can replace him or her if it isn’t too close in time to the general election.
Thanks, Richard, for enlightening me. Did not know this. Would make little difference as far as the AIP is concerned, as they would never “nominate” someone like Tom Campbell. You know, “doctrinal purity” must be kept intact regardless of the consequences.
Oh well, just thought the AIP might have a situation there where they could take advantage of it to build a long-range plan for growth and influence for the party. Maybe a future generation of AIPers will not be as narrow-minded.
#7 Texas has a somewhat similar law. A political party may make a replacement in case the nominee dies, or is declared ineligible, but not merely due to withdrawal of the candidate.
If a candidate withdraws, replacement may only be made if (a) the candidate withdrew due to catastrophic illness; (b) there are no candidates nominated at a primary remaining; or (c) the candidate has been elected or appointed to another elective office, or has been nominated to another elective office.
In case (b) each qualified party may then make a nomination. There is a State Senate seat in Texas where this occurred this year. The nominee of the Republican party has withdrawn, and there was no Democratic primary. So all parties will be able to make a new nomination.
In 2006, Tom DeLay resigned after being (re)nominated. He moved to Virginia, so that the Republican party could declare him ineligible, and replace him. The court ruled that it could not be determined whether he was ineligible, since the Constitution only requires that a Representative live in the State on election day. It could not be determined that DeLay would not be living in Texas on election day, even if it was his intent to not be living in Texas then. So the Republican’s ended up without a candidate on the ballot in a very Republican seat.
In the case of legislative seats, the tactic of moving from the district does work, because Texas requires that legislators live in their district for a year before their election.
The Texas and California laws are intended to prevent cases like in New Jersey where candidates have been replaced after they polled poorly, or like in Illinois where the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor withdrew (though in Chicago, catastrophic illnesses can probably be arranged).
Jim Riley: While I recognize state election laws should protect the interest of the voters over the interest of the party, there are times when a party should have some latitude as long as it does not negatively affect the voter. I still hold a “voter first” and “party second” position. I think “sore loser” laws are wrong especially when the primary is “closed” or even “quasi-closed” such as we have in Alabama. There are times in a primary when, for example, a Democrat for Governor is my favorite and a Republican for U.S. Senate is my favorite. Yet, in Alabama I am forced to choose between one of them in that primary. This is wrong.
But again, the biggest point I was making, is that the AIP in California is too “doctrinally pure” to use such options if they did exist. The same can be said for other 3rd parties in other states.
3rd partisans are their own worst enemies!
Again, the rights and preferences of the voters should outweigh the rights of the party.
#9: “There are times in a [party] primary when, for example, a Democrat for Governor is my favorite and a Republican for U.S. Senate is my favorite. Yet, in Alabama I am forced to choose between one of them in that primary. This is wrong.”
The blanket primary enables a voter to cross party lines from office to office. In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary (California Democratic Party v. Jones).
The “top two open primary,” which Prop. 14 would impose in California, would let the voter cross party lines from office to office. But the “top two” is not a party nominating system.
Perhaps we should get the word out the we ‘decline to state’ voters can help Tom Campbell get elected by requesting a Republican ballot and voting for him in the primary. He most definitely appeals to many of us no matter who is running. And, his past suggests he is not a Republican party puppet–that is why he is disdained by the staunch conservatives. Perhaps AIP should contact Tom and ask if AIP assists him now would he consider independent runs in the future. Most of his backers are like Tom;
abandoned RINOS and are ready to bolt the party.