An FYI regarding Mimi Walters

[IGOTDIRT4U]

She endorsed (heavily) appointed Orange County Sheriff Hutchens in Hutchens election bid last election go around.

Now Mimi wants the rest of California to vote for her for State Treasurer. Not worthy my vote. Researching the alternatives right now.

http://www.sheriffhutchens.com/endorsements/

[uyoga]

Beware of Unintended Consequences

IMO, unfortunately, a vote for anyone other than Mimi Walters (NRA Rated "A"), is a vote for Bill Lockyer (Past CA totally anti 2 A Attorney General and NRA Rated "F")

[berto]

Letting Lockyer continue to camp out as Treasurer allows him to continue to raise money for future campaigns (like gov or senate) and funnel money to the campaigns of his wife and others of his ilk. If the dem nomination for gov is open in four years we're virtually guaranteed to see Lockyer run and tout his experience as AG and Treasurer. Time to cut him off the public teat and end his career.

[bubbapug1]

They are all scum, corrupt, and out only for personal gain....vote for yourself and arm up.

[NightOwl]

Again, there are more than two parties with a horse in this race. Six candidates for State Treasurer, why the heck would you vote for EITHER of the parties who spent this state (and country) into the poorhouse?

[uyoga]

Again, there are more than two parties with a horse in this race. Six candidates for State Treasurer, why the heck would you vote for EITHER of the parties who spent this state (and country) into the poorhouse?

See reasoning in post # 2. IMO, the vast majority of anti-Second Amendment voters (liberals, anti-gun democrats) will vote for Lockyer, who is electable because of the high number of voters who will vote for him. He has been a tried and true enemy of the Second Amendment (check his record).

Like her or not, Mimi Walters is, indeed, a friend of the Second Amendment (check her record), and is electable also because of the high number of Republican and otherwise pro gun votes she will get.

Voting for any of the other (non-electable) candidates, although, arguably a "better" candidate than either of the "big party" candidates, will diminish the vote that would/could give the pro Second Amendment candidate a victory.

I agree that "the system" does not necessarily provide the voters with a chance to choose "the best of the best", but it is the system we have.

The race here is between Walters and Lockyer, and the Second Amendment candidate is abundantly obvious. The others, although arguably worthier, will only gather a miniscule amount of votes.

[1JimMarch]

Mimi has problems but Lockyer is absolute scum.

He's not just "anti second amendment". He was a leader in the movement to illegally harass and abuse Chief Gene Byrd of Isleton, one of our all-time heros.

[loather]

Voting for any of the other (non-electable) candidates, although, arguably a "better" candidate than either of the "big party" candidates, will diminish the vote that would/could give the pro Second Amendment candidate a victory.

I agree that "the system" does not necessarily provide the voters with a chance to choose "the best of the best", but it is the system we have.

The race here is between Walters and Lockyer, and the Second Amendment candidate is abundantly obvious. The others, although arguably worthier, will only gather a miniscule amount of votes.

This is wrong. Those candidates are only "non-electable" because we allow them to be. It's this mentality that furthers the big two parties and disallows the smaller parties to gain ground.

Yes, this is the system we have now, but it's something completely and wholly changeable. You want it to change? Start voting for the better candidates, and urge everyone you know to do the same as well. It won't happen overnight, but it certainly *can* happen.