• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Schwartzennegar knock out Boxer in 2010

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
2010 looks like another dismal year for the GOP in the Senate, having many more seats to defend than the Democrats. In fact, Democrats will absolutely have their filibuster-proof supermajority - Or will they?

Although Arnold has not yet declared his candidacy, his numbers don't look bad at all - he is only behind 49-40, according to the latest R2000 poll. Note that Boxer is below 50%, which is not a good sign for her.

If Republicans can hold their losses to 2 Senate seats, then a Republican win in Hawaii, which is almost a certainty if Inouye retires (and also owing to an extremely popular GOP governor there who is term limited), and a victory by Arnold over Boxer, should keep the Democrats stuck on 59. The keys here are:

1) Will Arnold run, and can he win?

2) Will Inouye retire? My bet is he will.

3) Can the GOP hold its own losses to only 2 seats?

In 2012, things look much better for the Republicans, as it will be the Democrats who will have many more seats to defend.
 
Last edited:
Could Schwartzennegar knock out Boxer in 2010?

Sure!

Will he?

One can only hope.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
I rather have a moderate Republican than a Liberal Democrat so I say go Arnold.
Click to expand...

more like a liberal republican married to a kennedy versus a liberal democrat.
 
I thought this thread would be about sports, from the title.
 
emdash said:
more like a liberal republican married to a kennedy versus a liberal democrat.
Click to expand...

True, Arnold sucks, but would be more likely than Boxer to keep a filibuster going.
 
He's not considered very favorably here in CA so I doubt it.
 
MC.no.spin said:
He's not considered very favorably here in CA so I doubt it.
Click to expand...

same here. however part of me wonders how many people will vote for him because he is arnold schwarzenegger. I am hesitant to underestimate the stupidity of the average voter again.
 
Boxer wouldn't even make it past the first round. Arnold isn't as young as he used to be, but the only thing Boxer has going for her is her name. Now if you had Arnold vs Thatcher in an MMA match, that would be a fight worth watching.
 
rathi said:
Boxer wouldn't even make it past the first round. Arnold isn't as young as he used to be, but the only thing Boxer has going for her is her name. Now if you had Arnold vs Thatcher in an MMA match, that would be a fight worth watching.
Click to expand...

The Iron Lady would win with a single kick to the balls. No man, no matter how big and strong, can withstand a kick there. I would pay to see that too. Go Margaret!! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Unlikely. Boxer is very popular here in California. Arnold, while not disliked, is only moderately popular. His support has dropped substantially from when he took office when people were very upset about the "Republican in Democrat Clothes" Gray Davis was Governor.
Arnold would certainly make Boxer sweat....it would be the first real contest for her, however, I believe that ultimately Boxer would win by a near double digit margin.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Really? I was under the impression that Californians really liked him as Governor.
Click to expand...

No we are WAY over budget and the problem is it isn't Arnie's fault but he gets a ton of heat over it. Most of our state's budget is swallowed up by initiatives that voters voted in, with huge spending costs tied to it. These are huge expenditures that add up to about 70 percent of the revenues. Governor Schwarzzenhager tried to cut some expenses in order to balance the budget, and could not full support. He actually quit paying the state employees for a while to try to get a budget passed. This did not go over well and resulted in public protests. He was also criticized for wanting to cut education spending and some liberal oriented programs. Then the G.O.P. heavily ripped him for wanting to raise the sales tax a slight amount. He gets criticized by the liberals in the media all the time, and the conservatives don't like him either.

I actually think he's done a decent job, and say what you want about him, he is definitely a LEADER. He speaks his mind and gets in people's faces. He wears his emotions on his sleeve and I think he truly cares.
 
MC.no.spin said:
No we are WAY over budget and the problem is it isn't Arnie's fault but he gets a ton of heat over it. Most of our state's budget is swallowed up by initiatives that voters voted in, with huge spending costs tied to it.
Click to expand...

Sort of. California has been rolling on capital gains tax. Effectively your state has been living off of sale of stock from a relative few companies. Now that capital gains tax is gone, California is in a hole. What amazes is me is how a state where Silicon Valley lies couldn't see this coming. Living off of CGT from Silicon Valley companies yet unable to see how future changes to the economy would hurt that revenue...well that's just shameful.
 
emdash said:
not so much, no. at least, not in my neck of the woods.
Click to expand...

The thing about this eleciton (possible election) is that Arnold may be unfavorable now, but Steve Schmidt will sweep in and make his approval ratings go through the roof, just like 2005.

I would handicap this race for Arnold against Grandma Boxer.
 
danarhea said:
2010 looks like another dismal year for the GOP in the Senate, having many more seats to defend than the Democrats. In fact, Democrats will absolutely have their filibuster-proof supermajority - Or will they?

Although Arnold has not yet declared his candidacy, his numbers don't look bad at all - he is only behind 49-40, according to the latest R2000 poll. Note that Boxer is below 50%, which is not a good sign for her.

If Republicans can hold their losses to 2 Senate seats, then a Republican win in Hawaii, which is almost a certainty if Inouye retires (and also owing to an extremely popular GOP governor there who is term limited), and a victory by Arnold over Boxer, should keep the Democrats stuck on 59. The keys here are:

1) Will Arnold run, and can he win?

2) Will Inouye retire? My bet is he will.

3) Can the GOP hold its own losses to only 2 seats?

In 2012, things look much better for the Republicans, as it will be the Democrats who will have many more seats to defend.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Lingle winning in Hawaii. The Republicans are almost certainly going to in essense run against Obama, like the Dems ran against Bush in 2006. This may work in some places, but do you want to run against Obama in Hawaii? He's ridiculously popular there.

And Arnold isn't all that popular here. He has the misfortune to be holding the sack when all hell burst loose, budget-wise. Voters are going to hold that against him, regardless of blame. (Our entire state apparatus is broken, if you ask me. We need a constitutional convention, but that's another rant.) Boxer has had the relative good luck to be in Washington the entire time. I'd give her very good odds. Besides, I don't think Arnold is as big of an unstoppable juggernaught as people think. One of the big reasons he won his last two races were weak opponents. Cruz Bustamante and Phil Angelides were both jokes. Boxer will put up a much bigger fight.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I don't know about Lingle winning in Hawaii. The Republicans are almost certainly going to in essense run against Obama, like the Dems ran against Bush in 2006. This may work in some places, but do you want to run against Obama in Hawaii? He's ridiculously popular there.

And Arnold isn't all that popular here. He has the misfortune to be holding the sack when all hell burst loose, budget-wise. Voters are going to hold that against him, regardless of blame. (Our entire state apparatus is broken, if you ask me. We need a constitutional convention, but that's another rant.) Boxer has had the relative good luck to be in Washington the entire time. I'd give her very good odds. Besides, I don't think Arnold is as big of an unstoppable juggernaught as people think. One of the big reasons he won his last two races were weak opponents. Cruz Bustamante and Phil Angelides were both jokes. Boxer will put up a much bigger fight.
Click to expand...

If Inouye retires, Lingle WILL be the next Senator from Hawaii.
 
I don't know, but I'm sure he can't knock out an MMA fighter. :mrgreen:
 
MC.no.spin said:
He's not considered very favorably here in CA so I doubt it.
Click to expand...

As I'm on the other side of the country, I don't think my opinion A) matters and B) is needed. I hope y'all make the best choice for California. :2wave:
 
danarhea said:
If Inouye retires, Lingle WILL be the next Senator from Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Yes, she's possible, but Hawaii isn't exactly a swing state, and there's at a fairly deep bench for the dems in the state. And like I said, it's probably the most Obama-loving state in the union. What makes you so certain Lingle will win?
 
I would enjoy the removal of Boxer in 2010 but, I’d rather have a different flavor, may be libertarian, green, or independent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom