Hacker News Reader

Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

I think Whitman might've done better in the Bay Area if she hadn't tacked as much to the social-conservative right in the Republican primary (or had successfully backed away from that in the general election). Supporting Proposition 8 probably cost her a few points in the region just by itself. On the other hand, not supporting it probably would've sunk her in the primary.

View on HN

I wonder why she ran with the Republicans at all. She could have run as an independent; plenty of California voters are equally annoyed with both parties' poor legislative and administrative record.

I agree; an independent would probably do well here. It's hard for someone to get through the Republican primary without destroying their chances in the general election.

California likes pro-environment, socially moderate to liberal candidates. Conservative economic and fiscal positions wouldn't be a handicap if you could avoid pandering to oil companies and anti-immigrant and religious zealots.

Good point. She was one of the rare candidates who can actually afford to take on the two parties as an independent.

Third-party candidates can't have Presidential ambitions. Not being a major-party candidate would hamstring her credibility in a national campaign.

Ross Perot made a reasonable fist of it; the only major obstacle is money. Of course, an independent candidate won't have the political network necessary for effective governance, but even that could be spun into an asset; if she had won the governor's spot and performed with reasonable competence that would have sold better than any partisan merit badge.

I don't think that getting heavily defeated at the polls outspending your opponent ~5:1 and changing positions repeatedly is much good for her national credibility either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com