Okay, so who won the CA debate?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I watched the debate this evening along with, so they say, a record number of others, A fair number of theose were probably Dopers.

So, what’s your opinion of the debate and the candidates? This isn’t a debate, just a poll of opinions. If you’re not a Californian, but saw the debate on TV (Oregon, Nevada, Arizona probably) I’d like to hear your opinions too, especially since some of the candidates compared California’s workman’s comp law with some of yours.

Here’s my own view of how the candidates did (but this is just my opinion, not a statement of anything, and certainly not an argument).

Here’s how I saw them in order:

#1: Bustamonte

#2: Camejo

#3: McClintok

#4: Huffington

#5: Shwartzenegger

First off, I’m voting NO on the recall. That’s arguable, of course, but I’m not looking for a debate here. Your opinion on the question is welcome if you can do it briefly.

Bustamonte is much more impressive than I thought. He’s less bombastic than the others, but I like him. I disagree with him on a couple of issues, but I’m satisfied that if the recall passes, as Lieutenant Governor he should have the office (you know, serve in the absence of the Governor).

I was impressed by Peter Camejo. I had never seen him before, and assumed (obviously incorrectly) that the Green Party was just a lunatic fringe group. I mean, Ralph Nader is one of them, no?

McClintok would have had my vote if the Republicans had put him up against Davis in the “real” election. So would Riordon. But the Pubbies insisted on Simon. Too bad.

I’d vote for Huffington to replace my ex-wife, but I’d probably need an interpreter–and a stepladder–I’m a short guy.

Shwartzenegger is just great as a movie star. He should keep doing that.

So how would you rate the candidates?

2

I think McClintock came off as being most forthcoming. Sure, he’s obviously the conservative in the race and probably dones’t have much of a chance, but he came across as being the best prepared and the least petty.

Arnold and Ariana come in last, because they were too busy taking pot-shots at each other. Bustamonte came out pretty well, and I found myself liking him a lot more than I did before the debates. Camejo was fine, but a little too crackpot for me.

So, I guess it would be:

  1. McClintock
  2. Bustamonte
  3. Camejo
  4. Arnold
  5. Arriana
3

Oh, and DesertGeezer—I saw the debate on L.A.'s KNBC (I live out-of-state but have a satellite dish) but the debate was broadcast nationally on FOX-NEWS, and probably other cable news stations as well.

4

I saw the debates on C-SPAN, and I am quite conflicted about the candidates. In terms of who I would vote for, if I were in California, it might have something to do with policy.

Off-policy, who did the best in the debates was McClintock or Camejo. They both seemed the most prepared, the least petty, and generally “people that I wouldn’t mind having over for dinner.” I’ll put McClintock a tad ahead of Camejo in terms of how well the debate went because Camejo, near the end of the debate, made potshots at non-Californian issues, such as Kyoto, the “illegal” war in Iraq, and “standing up to the administration.”

Third was Bustamante. He couldn’t resist taking one or two shots at the other candidates, but in general, he kept on-topic and articulated policy. He did get a tad nasty at times.

Ahnold and Arianna come in last, with Ahnold barely edging it out. They were quite nasty towards each other, but Arianna was nastier. The moderator actually stopped the format for a time being to give Arnold a “right of respose,” so to speak, against a particularly vicious personal attack that was wildly uncalled for. They interrupted and were viscious.

The debators, ranked in terms of performance:

  1. McClintock
  2. Camejo
  3. Bustamante
  4. Schwarzzaneggar
  5. Huffington

Though, if I were in Cali, I would vote “no” on the recall and “yes” on Bustamante, because of policy issues mostly.

Oh, I absolutely loved the moderator.

5

I liked the moderator, too, although at times he could have used a whip and a chair. The format didn’t seem too different from other debates, but at times the candidates seemed to think they were on the McLaghlan Group, or ::gasp!:: Jerry Springer, all talking at once.

Not enough responses yet to get a feel for how the election might go, but it’s interesting that nobody so far has put Arnold anywhere near the top. I wonder if that will continue.

6

imho, by performance:

1 and 2) Tie between McClintock and Camejo, who both came off as professional gentlemen and stayed on point. Camejo did get into some more general policy rants which, as soup_du_jour said, were somewhat orthogonal to the running of the state, but then again, as California is, what, the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, I do think he was correct saying that we should have a stance on things like Kyoto and the Patriot Act. I think he was right on about a number of points which might swoosh over Joe Public’s head, which probably won’t work to his benefit, but at least he was on point. McClintock was very forthright, but I don’t agree with his politics, and I especially started protesting at the TV when he went off on illegal immigration, as if he didnt realize that the state’s agricultural economy is downright dependent on that labor source. His one-two punch with mentioning pro-life and the defense of the 2nd amendment in the same sentence seemed to leave the liberals in the room reeling, but it probably clinched him getting the conservatives who find Arnold too Hollywood.

  1. Bustamante-- I personally didn’t like his style, and was especially annoyed when he set in with the eye-rolling 'what-EVER" reaction to Schwarzenegger-- he didn’t seem particularly strong, and his languor was hardly inspiring, but at least he rose above the brawl at times. Which bring us to the childish daytime TV antics of:

4 and 5) Huffington and Schwarzenegger-- seemed like Arianna knew she doesn’t have a chance in hell, so she’d take advantage of her chops on the talk show circuit and lay into Arnold for the most part rather than really revealing much of her own platform, which as far as I could tell was the same typical safe set of platitudes that Bustamante was advancing-- “save the children! schools are good! workers and mothers and cute puppies are good! Food costs money, and stuff!” Schwarzenegger struck me mostly as an abandoned puppy, looked as if he was just shocked that anyone could want to be so mean to him, and definitely seemd to handle prepared statements much better than the more extemporaneous defenses.

All in all, I’d say the debate was much more useful for assessing the candidates styles and temperaments than it was an opportunity to determine if they actually had, like, platforms. It did help me make up my mind though, so must have been good for something. Just to throw my cards on the table, I’ll be voting No on the recall, with my sloppy seconds vote going to Camejo.

7

Funny, I thought Schwarzenegger did very well, in fact the best amongst the circus members. His biggest obstacle walking in was being a credible candidate with a handle on issues and an ability to discuss them, and he did very well there. Yes, he did sling a lot of mud, but a lot of that was in defense from Huffington who has given up hope of actually winning and instead seems to want to be a big wrench in the gears, possibly to further her real career as a commentator.

Also, frankly mud-slinging is pretty much required when the biggest question is whether the establishment should be overturned. And since the reality is that there were only two participants at the debate (Cruz and Arnold; the others were decoration at best), and since Cruz is the establishment, all of a sudden, righteous indignation with how things are currently being handled makes a lot of sense.

Also, I was impressed with Bustamente, who came across as very calm and polished.

I could comment on the others (Camejo, McClintock reasonably polished, but too extreme left and right to be electable, Huffington bad and equally unelectable), but as I say I really don’t care as they were just minor distractions.

Worst participant in the whole thing: that horrible moderator. A tape recorder would’ve done better. No, a cardboard poster propped on his chair with the questions printed on it would’ve been better. Absolutely no control at any point. It’s his job to say “you shut up and let the other guy finish”. I pin 90% of the whole circus feel of that mess on him.

Anyway, I’m getting excited! The winds of change are blowing, and we’ll soon have an R in charge. Now if we can just dump that Boxer embarassment. Well, one L at a time.

8

At the paper I work at, the Examiner, about 95% of the letters that have come in are pro-McClintock.