As a liberal Dem, I agree this is a good commentary. However, don't you think the central argument can be said about the Republican Party sometimes? (Maybe any large ideological group?) "Most of those party activists the candidates are trying so hard to please are wildly out of touch not only with middle America but with the Democratic rank and file." Substitute "Republican" for "Democratic" for just a moment here. For whatever reason, the hard-core voting Republicans in the last California election pushed extremist (relatively) Bill Simon as their candidate. Lemmings over the cliff. If the Republican "rank and file" had voted in great enough numbers in the Republican primary, a "Bush Republican"---Richard Riordan---would be governor right now. Davis wouldn't have stood a chance against Riordan in the general election.

Bill Simon is much closer to Bush than Riordan is but Bush supported him because he could win. I understand that but don't agree with it. Simon went months without answering Davis's charges on TV because Davis had the cash and Simon didn't after the primary. Once Simon answered, the damage was done. BTW, the Republican rank and file in more in agreement with Simon than Riordan on most issues.

Ooops. I'll hang my head in embarrassment for trying to tell a Republican what Republicans think. You'd know better, and I'll retreat back to my corner.

When I labeled Riordan as a Bush Republican (say, versus a DeLay Republican), I meant to me he's a Republican who many Democrats might feel is a moderate and centrist and palatable to vote for. To win the Los Angeles mayoral election I assume that Riordan scooped up probably close to 100% of the Republican voters, then a large (or at least significant) percentage of the Democratic voters. I would have assumed that percentage breakdown would have reoccured in a Davis-Riordan matchup.

I think only five or six percentage points split Davis and Simon in the last election. I'm confident Riordan could have beaten that pointspread.