Can a Republican ever win California again?

[NHI]

Thoughts?

[sg0508]

In a presidential campaign, it will be tough unless the platform of the party serious changes.  Governor? Sure.  Senate? Tougher.

The illegal population though and the growing number of minoriites isn't doing the GOP any favors.

The conservative platform doesn't work in CA on a state level, even if the incumbent liberal/moderate democrat is unpopular.

[All Along The Watchtower]

California politics is dominated by a diverse, largely urban electorate. The California GOP, however, has boxed itself in to the rural parts of the state and the exurbs of places like the Inland Empire, east San Diego County, the Central Valley, etc.

There are a lot of people in my area (Silicon Valley) who would be willing to vote for someone like Tom Campbell again. But the CA GOP is just too far right for most of us.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Ever?  Of course, we have no idea where the country will be in 50 years much less the ideologies of the political parties

In the near future?  I don't think so.  California is very bad for the GOP demographically speaking, it has white liberals, a decent percentage of minorities, big cities, all of those go against the GOP.

[5280]

Yes, depends on the climate and the person running for president.

It wouldn't matter cause California will be an island in the future and drift away to Alaska.

[Nichlemn]

Of course. My guess is that every single state will vote for both parties (assuming they still exist) in the next century (DC, I could see Republicans never winning). I mean, it happened in the last hundred years, even with states that seemed far too partisan to ever do so at the start (see the Deep South, Vermont). There is a temptation to believe that we've reached a long period of political stability, but I see no reason why we should believe this.

[lowtech redneck]

California politics is dominated by a diverse, largely urban electorate. The California GOP, however, has boxed itself in to the rural parts of the state and the exurbs of places like the Inland Empire, east San Diego County, the Central Valley, etc.

There are a lot of people in my area (Silicon Valley) who would be willing to vote for someone like Tom Campbell again. But the CA GOP is just too far right for most of us.

I've heard that Campbell is a social liberal and fiscal conservative; is that true, or is it an over-simplification?  For instance, is he opposed to the Californian regulatory regime (environmental or labor) or is he really a fiscal moderate who tries not to step on the toes of entrenched Californian interests groups? 

[All Along The Watchtower]

California politics is dominated by a diverse, largely urban electorate. The California GOP, however, has boxed itself in to the rural parts of the state and the exurbs of places like the Inland Empire, east San Diego County, the Central Valley, etc.

There are a lot of people in my area (Silicon Valley) who would be willing to vote for someone like Tom Campbell again. But the CA GOP is just too far right for most of us.

I've heard that Campbell is a social liberal and fiscal conservative; is that true, or is it an over-simplification?  For instance, is he opposed to the Californian regulatory regime (environmental or labor) or is he really a fiscal moderate who tries not to step on the toes of entrenched Californian interests groups? 

 No, that's a fair statement to make. He's very conservative on fiscal issues and is actually rather libertarian overall. This puts him in line with many of Silicon Valley's voters.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I think so, but it would take a 1972/1984 year. A popular incumbent dealing with a good situation for the country and facing a far-left opponent. Then you get a situation where virtually all the centrist independents are voting for the incumbent, and turnout among the left may be a bit depressed due to the fact that the election is pretty much a formality.

California is likely state #45 or so to fall in the case of a Republican wave.

[FloridaRepublican]

Maybe when pigs fly.

[freepcrusher]

one thing i've wondered is if the whole "people are voting their pocketbooks" theory is overblown. California was one of the state's hardest hit by the recession. Yet we elected Harris, Lockyer, Brown, Boxer, Newsom to the statewide offices.

[Joe Republic]

one thing i've wondered is if the whole "people are voting their pocketbooks" theory is overblown. California was one of the state's hardest hit by the recession. Yet we elected Harris, Lockyer, Brown, Boxer, Newsom to the statewide offices.

Perhaps because those Californians understood that at that time it was still Bush & Schwarzenegger's mess.

[redcommander]

Yes, but Californians tend to be very picky with voting for Republicans. Candidates on the statewide level basically have to run near flawless campaigns to win nowadays with the Democrats' strength in the state. How soon it will go for a Republican in a presidential election is pretty much up in the air at this point. There are some parallels to the Republicans situation in the state, and the Democrats of 1991. The Dems had just come off a disappointing loss to Pete Wilson in the midterms, and lost ground in the state legislature. It seemed like yet again Bush would carry the state, and that two Republican senators would be elected in 92. Yet in a year the political climate flipped, gave the state to Clinton, and elected Feinstein and Boxer. I'm not saying someone like Romney would have much of a shot winning the state next year, but there is a remote possibility of a swing like that if you look at historical comparisons. Most likely, the state will start to become more favorable to Republicans again in the mid 2020's.

[Sbane]

California politics is dominated by a diverse, largely urban electorate. The California GOP, however, has boxed itself in to the rural parts of the state and the exurbs of places like the Inland Empire, east San Diego County, the Central Valley, etc.

There are a lot of people in my area (Silicon Valley) who would be willing to vote for someone like Tom Campbell again. But the CA GOP is just too far right for most of us.

I've heard that Campbell is a social liberal and fiscal conservative; is that true, or is it an over-simplification?  For instance, is he opposed to the Californian regulatory regime (environmental or labor) or is he really a fiscal moderate who tries not to step on the toes of entrenched Californian interests groups? 

He is certainly against labor interests, especially the public unions, but I am not sure about the environment. My guess would be that he is against over regulation while still protecting public lands (though maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part). He really is fiscally conservative though, but pretty socially liberal. And that doesn't sit well with the Republican base here. There aren't a lot of moderate Republicans here like you might see back east or even in parts of the midwest. They are just completely out of touch with the rest of the state. And the Republican party could be headed towards that in the country at large.....we shall see.

[neun99]

Cain can

[Kevin]

No, because the Cali of 2011 is radically different from that of the 70's-80's. From what I see and understand CA has experienced a huge infusion of "robot" Democratic voters since them i.e. those would overwhelmingly vote Dem under all  circumstances like Blacks/Hispanics, left-wing whites, gay's, etc.

Additionally, as a symptom of this state political influence  it can be seen seems to have shifted away from Republican leaning or moderate conservative parts of SoCal like Orange county to more left of center parts of the state like outlying areas of SF. Furthermore, traditionally heavily Republican areas of CA like San Diego and the more inland areas have seen their voting power and influence diluted in recent years by demographic changes.

California was probably going to lurch hard left in the 1990's regardless if the Pubbies moved Right or not based on what I've seen and read.

Expect CA to become as Democratic on all level's of government as say Maryland in the coming years.

Republicans would be be better of spending their time and money in states like Nevada, Oregon, or Washington if they want to make inroads out West.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, because the Cali of 2011 is radically different from that of the 70's-80's. From what I see and understand CA has experienced a huge infusion of "robot" Democratic voters since them i.e. those would overwhelmingly vote Dem under all  circumstances like Blacks/Hispanics, left-wing whites, gay's, etc.

Additionally, as a symptom of this state political influence  it can be seen seems to have shifted away from Republican leaning or moderate conservative parts of SoCal like Orange county to more left of center parts of the state like outlying areas of SF. Furthermore, traditionally heavily Republican areas of CA like San Diego and the more inland areas have seen their voting power and influence diluted in recent years by demographic changes.

California was probably going to lurch hard left in the 1990's regardless if the Pubbies moved Right or not based on what I've seen and read.

Expect CA to become as Democratic on all level's of government as say Maryland in the coming years.

Republicans would be be better of spending their time and money in states like Nevada, Oregon, or Washington if they want to make inroads out West.

LOL, 2006 was a banner Democratic year and Schwarzenegger won by 17 points and Poizner won by 12 points. Poizner even won Marin county. You may stop posting now.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

In the general? Tough luck. Republicans would need to nominate a candidate that is at least socially liberal to compete. The only reason Cali took so long to swap to the Democrats is because it had two native sons (Nixon and Reagan) that held it in the GOP column for a long time. A moderate Republican running for reelection would probably carry Cali in a blowout. Hard to see it swap otherwise.

Statewide Republicans could compete, but their bench is thin and the Cali GOP futilely hugs the far right. I think Whitman actually had a credible shot at the governorship, but the maid scandal and her refusal to stop running negative ads sunk her. It's funny, rejecting the moratorium on negative ads hit her two fold: Brown's were a LOT better than hers, and that act of rejection just didn't sit well with the voters. If the state GOP moves to the left on some social issues and took a more pragmatic economic approach, they'd be a lot more competitive.

It is an uphill fight though. Davis prevailed by 5% in 2002 despite the Green Party taking in 5% of the vote and abysmal approvals. The Democratic tilt is deep.

[memphis]

Ever is such a strong word. With no end in sight for the US, California, and the GOP, it's pretty much guaranteed that it will happen again at some point. 40+ state landsides happen every few cycles.

[Sbane]

No, because the Cali of 2011 is radically different from that of the 70's-80's. From what I see and understand CA has experienced a huge infusion of "robot" Democratic voters since them i.e. those would overwhelmingly vote Dem under all  circumstances like Blacks/Hispanics, left-wing whites, gay's, etc.

Additionally, as a symptom of this state political influence  it can be seen seems to have shifted away from Republican leaning or moderate conservative parts of SoCal like Orange county to more left of center parts of the state like outlying areas of SF. Furthermore, traditionally heavily Republican areas of CA like San Diego and the more inland areas have seen their voting power and influence diluted in recent years by demographic changes.

California was probably going to lurch hard left in the 1990's regardless if the Pubbies moved Right or not based on what I've seen and read.

Expect CA to become as Democratic on all level's of government as say Maryland in the coming years.

Republicans would be be better of spending their time and money in states like Nevada, Oregon, or Washington if they want to make inroads out West.

No, the people who are the median voters in California are not "robot" voters. Texas and a lot of the south are full of these types of "robot" republican voters who will vote against their self interest. The median voters  in California reside in areas like the silicon valley and the west side of la and the beach cities. They can be persuaded to vote republican but can't as long as the republican party keeps pandering to the "robots" in the south.

[Torie]

When the GOP swings my way in CA, it will be substantially more competitive. Who knew?  

There is an opening, given the state's sad fiscal condition, which isn't going to get any better soon.

[freepcrusher]

its pretty simple actually why its hard for Rs to win CA. It's because they're not getting the percentages they used to get in places like Orange, San Diego, Ventura and parts of LA County (Palos Verdes, and parts of the SG and SF Valley). If the suburbs in CA started voting like the suburbs of Houston, Atlanta, Dallas etc; then the Rs would have a lot less trouble winning the state.

[Hanzo]

No, because the Cali of 2011 is radically different from that of the 70's-80's. From what I see and understand CA has experienced a huge infusion of "robot" Democratic voters since them i.e. those would overwhelmingly vote Dem under all  circumstances like Blacks/Hispanics, left-wing whites, gay's, etc.

Additionally, as a symptom of this state political influence  it can be seen seems to have shifted away from Republican leaning or moderate conservative parts of SoCal like Orange county to more left of center parts of the state like outlying areas of SF. Furthermore, traditionally heavily Republican areas of CA like San Diego and the more inland areas have seen their voting power and influence diluted in recent years by demographic changes.

California was probably going to lurch hard left in the 1990's regardless if the Pubbies moved Right or not based on what I've seen and read.

Expect CA to become as Democratic on all level's of government as say Maryland in the coming years.

Republicans would be be better of spending their time and money in states like Nevada, Oregon, or Washington if they want to make inroads out West.

The first paragraph pretty much shows what you really think of all those groups and that's why they don't vote for you because you think they're too stupid to think for themselves.

I don't see how Republicans can even win a national election if you keep writing off people and states that don't agree with you 100%

I guess you're still stuck in litmus test mode or on the RINO watch?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, if the GOP educates the public about what we really believe.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, because the Cali of 2011 is radically different from that of the 70's-80's. From what I see and understand CA has experienced a huge infusion of "robot" Democratic voters since them i.e. those would overwhelmingly vote Dem under all  circumstances like Blacks/Hispanics, left-wing whites, gay's, etc.

Additionally, as a symptom of this state political influence  it can be seen seems to have shifted away from Republican leaning or moderate conservative parts of SoCal like Orange county to more left of center parts of the state like outlying areas of SF. Furthermore, traditionally heavily Republican areas of CA like San Diego and the more inland areas have seen their voting power and influence diluted in recent years by demographic changes.

California was probably going to lurch hard left in the 1990's regardless if the Pubbies moved Right or not based on what I've seen and read.

Expect CA to become as Democratic on all level's of government as say Maryland in the coming years.

Republicans would be be better of spending their time and money in states like Nevada, Oregon, or Washington if they want to make inroads out West.

The first paragraph pretty much shows what you really think of all those groups and that's why they don't vote for you because you think they're too stupid to think for themselves.

I don't see how Republicans can even win a national election if you keep writing off people and states that don't agree with you 100%

I guess you're still stuck in litmus test mode or on the RINO watch?

I couldn't agree more!