Although many articles about the California gubernatorial race recycle the same old information, this article in The Hill has original thoughts.
Although many articles about the California gubernatorial race recycle the same old information, this article in The Hill has original thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFD2M5qLyd0
nothing new re olde Persia / now Iran ???
Battle of Plataea
note $$$ corruption of Sparta commander after winning battle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea
wiki
William Liang, the author of this article, appears to believe that the two Republicans could advance to the November election and then, somehow — he doesn’t explain how — they could both lose in November. Or am completely misunderstanding the article?
The nAZi spambot quoting wacky woke Pedo Wikipedia as usual, and Liang at fake news outlet The Hill has no clue how top two works. Despite all the persistent speculation, however, the two Republicans for Governor in November scenario is not going to materialize.
@Bob Richard,
I think you are misunderstanding the article, though partly because it is confusingly written. I think that what the author is saying is that it is unlikely that both Republicans will advance to November (though he doesn’t really explain why), and that what both may do to try to be the one to advance to November (by dominating the Republican-leaning vote in June) will make it impossible for them to beat a Democrat in November. The sort of Republican who might be able to win against a Democrat in November has little chance of making the top two in June; this is reminiscent of one of the arguments “top two” proponents made against closed primaries (or even semi-open primaries, like California had before “top two” where “decline to state” voters could choose to vote in the primaries of those parties that agreed to allow it), that they tend to produce candidates too extreme to win in a competitive general election.
No kind of Republican can win against a Demon Rat in the current Kalipornia political climate.
@Dave Kadlecek, thanks for the explanation, which does make (more) sense of the article than the way I read it. If you’re right about his argument, then the argument itself is still weak because it presumes that there’s some (presumably moderate) Republican who would have a chance in November.
No way to tell from the word salad, but either way we are talking about something that won’t happen.