The conventional wisdom about Arnold Schwarzenegger is rarely correct, the inevitable result of using the words “conventional” and “Schwarzenegger” in the same sentence. But the Field Poll this morning shows him running slightly ahead of Barbara Boxer in a hypothetical campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2010. And the conventional wisdom that Arnold is not likely to be particularly interested in flying 3000 miles each week in order to be one of 100 Senators listening to Robert Byrd talk about Cicero is about to take a beating. As unlikely as a matchup against Boxer may be, there’s a gossip mill to be fed…
More interesting, though, than a hypothetical campaign for than three years away, is how California Republicans would react if this political improbability did become a reality. Since Pete Wilson was re-elected to the Senate nineteen short years ago, the GOP has run conservatives (Haynes, Mountjoy), moderates (Seymour, Campbell), establishment candidates (Jones, Fong) and outsiders (Herschenson, Huffington). The defenses and explanations from each of these candidates’ supporters for their defeats could fill the Internet, but the fact is that Republican candidates have all faced an uphill fight in terms of financial support and name recognition that grows steeper as Boxer and Feinstein continue to serve.
Public opinion polls show that Schwarzenegger still enjoys very strong support among Republican voters. Party leaders, legislators, and activists are less enthused. So the question for the governor’s GOP critics is this: would you support Arnold for Senate if it meant a better chance to get rid of Boxer, or is the party better off with an underfunded and less known alternative with a more reliably conservative record?
(And complaining about why donors don’t give money to Republican Senate candidates is an automatic disqualifier. Regardless of whether the complaint is valid, it’s avoiding the principle underneath the question. So buck it up and make a choice.)
As I said earlier, the Arnold-Boxer campaign probably never happens. But even in the realm of the hypothetical, litmus tests are instructive.