At WaPo , ” Whitman, Fiorina and McMahon: Spending Big, Failing Bigger “: LOS ANGELES – Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon had a lot in common. All sharp, successful businesswomen who made millions as executives in the private sector, they identified 2010 as an apt historical moment for a Republican candidate with no political experience to break into politics. In pursuit of higher office, each committed considerable resources – more than $200 million combined – to challenge seemingly vulnerable Democrats. Each risk taker came up far short of her goal. Whitman, the 54-year-old former chief executive of eBay, burned through more than $140 million of her own money in a colossal loss in the California governor’s race to a former governor, Attorney General Jerry Brown. Also in California, Fiorina, 56, the former Hewlett-Packard leader, spent about $7 million of her own funds in a bitter Senate loss to the incumbent, Barbara Boxer. And McMahon, 62, who with her husband built the smackdown empire called World Wrestling Entertainment in Connecticut, spent $50 million in seeking an open Senate seat, losing to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The question isn’t so much why three savvy businesswomen threw so much good money after bad in losing ventures to win political office. In a year when voters overwhelmingly registered their dissatisfaction with Democrats and the unemployment-riddled economy, the candidates had every reason to consider the millions a sound investment. Instead, the question is how they failed so resoundingly. “It’s in some ways like a highly underdeveloped country that suddenly strikes oil and they don’t know what to do with the money and start spending it unwisely,” said Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. Baker said that money is a threshold requirement in politics, “but above a certain amount you don’t get a dividend for every extra dollar.” “And when it’s your own money, you cast aside some of the restraints and keep spending, to the point where you cast aside certain other aspects of the campaign that might be deficient,” he said. More at the link . I’ve already examined Whitman’s liablities, and being a shitty candidate is probably just the best way to sum up her debacle. I’ve said less about Fiorina, although she was bit subdued for me, and I know nothing about McMahon.
Continue reading here:
Money Was No Guarantee of Victory
The full results at the link . The Field Poll is pretty respectable. I’m not gonna quibble much with the sample. Yet, FWIW, a poll from Opinion Research Corporation has the race at 50-45, with a 5-point margin of error. Either way, the numbers don’t seem to falling in line for Fiorina, and that’s despite Boxer’s completely lame advertising strategy, made clear at the clip below. California’s totally FUBAR , as I’ve said pretty much all along. RELATED : At Politico , ” Fiorina Fades, Boxer Rises .”
Go here to read the rest:
Boxer Leads Fiorina 49-41 in New Field Poll
Carly Fiorina was hospitalized Tuesday to treat an infection related to a post-cancer surgery, adding an element of uncertainty to the California Republican’s campaign to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
Continued here:
Fiorina Admitted to Hospital
See, ” Fiorina Presents a Sharp Contrast in Images “: The Senate bid is Fiorina’s first run for office, but she has a voting record that is spotty at best and, by all accounts, she had little interest in politics well into adulthood. “She had,” her first husband, Todd Bartlem, said in a recent interview, “no opinions.” She set sail against Boxer with the ideological winds of the moment, tapping into the anti-incumbent anger that has swept some portions of the nation. While decrying the partisan divide in Washington, Fiorina has derided Boxer as “an embarrassment” and has claimed that Boxer is backed by environmental “extremists,” although she seemed flummoxed recently when asked to name them. In a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans, Fiorina has surprised the political establishment by declining to make many nods toward the center. She has remained a steadfast defender of Arizona’s controversial immigration law and has not wavered in support of Proposition 23, the November ballot measure that would suspend efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Fiorina has called Proposition 23 a job-saver and was recently feted at a fundraiser hosted in part by the billionaire Koch brothers, who control oil pipelines and have pumped money into the fight. Fiorina has said she would support overturning Roe vs. Wade, saying her views on abortion were formed largely because Frank Fiorina’s mother was told to abort him due to health risks. She is something of a sensation among hard-line conservatives, particularly tea party organizations. “She takes on impossible things, and she accomplishes them,” said Glenda Gilliland, a Fresno Tea Party activist who retired from HP in 2005 and attended a recent Fiorina speech. “I think she will fight — I know she will — for the people of California.” But Fiorina’s support from hard-line conservatives can make for an awkward dynamic; she appears to be more measured and moderate than they think she is. At recent campaign appearances, for example, several of her supporters volunteered to a reporter — as fact — that President Obama is an African-born Muslim. Asked whether she’s comfortable with support from that arm of the political spectrum, Fiorina said: “I certainly don’t agree with it. I don’t think the president is a Muslim. He clearly is a Christian. He clearly was born in America.” Meanwhile, two organizations that have said the Obama administration promotes the “homosexual infiltration of schools” have spent $60,000 on advertising for Fiorina and pledged more. Fiorina’s aides made clear that she does not agree with the groups’ position — and contended that she has no control over who promotes her candidacy. “One of the things that has happened in politics that doesn’t happen in the rest of life is that people say: ‘Well, if I don’t agree with someone 100% of the time, I can’t work with them,’” Fiorina said in an interview. “And I think it’s why there is so much partisan bickering on both sides of the aisle.” “In the rest of life … you rarely agree with someone like that.… But if you can find enough common ground, you can get something done,” she said. “You can solve a problem. You can accomplish a goal.”
Read the original post:
Carly Fiorina Profiled at Los Angeles Times
It’s 46 to 45 percent , so Fiorina’s within the margin of error — and we’ve still got a couple of weeks or so before the election. Man, good thing Boxer hasn’t agreed to debates. She’s worse than Harry “Low Blow” Reid! Carly’s got this smooth ad campaign going (boosted by a big $4.8 million from the NRSC), and I like this one where she pledges to “oppose my party when it’s wrong.” There’s some appeal to the tea parties in there, in addition to independents: And hopefully Fiorina’s campaign will put together a mash-up of Boxer’s recent meltdown on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. This woman is a bumbling liar, and definitely not good for California:
View original post here:
Carly Fiorina Within One Point of Barbara Boxer in New Reuters/Ipsos Poll
This poll from the Public Policy Institute of California offers some strikingly high “undecided” numbers: Likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37%) and Republican Meg Whitman (34%), with 23 percent undecided. Of those saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman. Among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored (42% to 33%). Preferences follow party lines, with independents split (30% Brown, 28% Whitman, 30% undecided). (The survey questionnaire lists results for all six candidates listed on the November ballot.) Most likely voters (79%) also view the U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on the environment as at least somewhat important. Thirty-nine percent of likely voters support Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, 34 percent support Republican Carly Fiorina, and 22 percent are undecided. Those who view candidates’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) as Fiorina (18%). Among those who say candidates’ views on the environment are somewhat important, support is evenly divided (37% to 37%). Each candidate has the support of her party’s likely voters. Among independents, 35 percent support Boxer, 29 percent support Fiorina, and 25 percent are undecided. Both of these races are winnable for the GOP, and I'm trying to think of the last time I saw a three-term Senate incumbent getting 39 percent. (Perhaps Harry Reid on one of his bad days.) But clearly, both Whitman and Fiorina have a lot of work ahead. Jim Geraghty
See the original post:
Indecisive Californians
