Why did California go GOP in 76 and 88?

[Galactic Overlord]

1988 is probably is a bit more understandable, coming off the Reagan years, even though Bush 41 wasn't as popular there as Reagan was, but I don't know why Ford kept California in 1976.

[Virginian87]

It was different back then.  I believe San Francisco was still very liberal (it had been a hotbed of counterculture activity in the late '60s, but Los Angeles was much more conservative.  There was a strong defense industry presence in LA at the time (Hughes Aircraft in Burbank, Lockheed and Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach) that has since decreased strongly since then.  San Diego has, and continues to have a very strong military presence there (the Navy pretty much owns San Diego harbor).  Given Reagan and Bush's gung-ho stance on military defense initiatives, it is no surprise that the Golden State went for these Republican candidates.

[phk]

1988 is probably is a bit more understandable, coming off the Reagan years, even though Bush 41 wasn't as popular there as Reagan was, but I don't know why Ford kept California in 1976.

California wasn't necessarilly a Democratic state till 1992.

Compare the county maps in 1992 to 1976.

Carter performed miserably in the Bay Area suburbs and San Francisco (by today's standard as a Democrat) and barely carried Los Angeles County.  While he did very well in the Central Valley and many sparsely populated Northern California counties, which have since then trended considerably Republican.

The Republicans at that time depended upon the counties on the Western fringe, Orange, San Diego and coming close in Los Angeles. While winning a decent amount of the Bay Area.

Democrats surprisingly relied and drew thier strength from Los Angeles, the Central Valley and many small Northern California counties.

Examples

1) Alameda County - 1976
Carter   57.9%   
Ford   38.1%   

Alameda County - 2004
Kerry   75.2%   
Bush   23.3%

Huge shift to the Democrats
 
2) Los Angeles County - 1976
Carter   49.7%   
Ford   47.8%   

Los Angeles County - 2004
Kerry   63.1%   
Bush   35.6%

Huge shift for the Democrats again..   

3) Marin County - 1976
Carter   42.9%      
Ford   52.5%   

Marin County - 2004
Kerry   73.2%   
Bush   25.4%   

Surprised this even went Republican in the first place...

4) Orange County - 1976
Carter   35.3%   
Ford   62.2%   

Orange County - 2004
Kerry   39.0%   
Bush   59.7%      

Democrats are almost able to crack 40% here now.
 
5) San Diego County - 1976
Carter   41.6%      
Ford   55.7%   

San Diego County - 2004
Kerry   46.4%   
Bush   52.5%   

Is somewhat like San Francisco and Los Angeles, just slower.

6) San Francisco County - 1976
Carter   52.1%   
Ford   40.3%      

San Francisco County - 2004
Kerry   83.0%   
Bush   15.2%      

Republicans were able to get *40%* in San Francisco believe it or not.
 
7) Santa Clara - 1976
Carter   46.9%      
Ford   49.5%      

Santa Clara  - 2004
Kerry   63.9%   
Bush   34.6%   

As I said earlier, I believe one of the principle reasons for California's Democratic trend is the strong movement in the Bay Area suburbs since 1976.

We've sort of always have been a Rockefeller Republican/Clinton Democrat type state.

[WalterMitty]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

[Alcon]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

[True Democrat]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

Yes, only ten points, but in California, that's over a million votes, which is a hard number to change.  McCain vs. Hillary, I'd say toss-up or slight lean Democrat, but certainly not out of the  question for the Republican to win.

[Republican Michigander]

Today's California is much more minority based. A lot of the old Orange County crowd has moved out as well to the Mtn West during the 90's.

I don't see it going GOP again anytime soon barring disasters like Gray Davis.
 

[Bugs]

In 1976 Californians were mad that Carter beat Jerry Brown.  In 1988 Dukakis was an idiot, or at least he came across that way.

[memphis]

Also, Jimmy Carter started the "I'm the moral Christian" bs that the Republicans have since adopted. This works great in the Bible Belt, but is not going to win you a lot of voteson the West Coast.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was different back then.  I believe San Francisco was still very liberal (it had been a hotbed of counterculture activity in the late '60s, but Los Angeles was much more conservative.  There was a strong defense industry presence in LA at the time (Hughes Aircraft in Burbank, Lockheed and Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach) that has since decreased strongly since then.  San Diego has, and continues to have a very strong military presence there (the Navy pretty much owns San Diego harbor).  Given Reagan and Bush's gung-ho stance on military defense initiatives, it is no surprise that the Golden State went for these Republican candidates.

The bay area was far more Republican in 1976 than it is now.

In 1976 Californians were mad that Carter beat Jerry Brown.  In 1988 Dukakis was an idiot, or at least he came across that way.

Funny, Kerry beating Dean didn't seem to hurt him in VT.

[tinman64]

I lived in the Bay Area for over thirty years, so I can shed some additional light on 1976, at least.

It's true that in 1976, the Bay Area was not the liberal bastion that it is today.  In San Francisco, there were still plenty of Republican enclaves (Pacific Heights, etc).  In addition, I think there was somewhat of a Ford sympathy vote here, seeing that there was an attempt on his life in SF a year earlier.  To show how SF was not a liberal town yet, witness that the city didn't elect its first true liberal mayor until 1975 (George Moscone) and he beat a conservative supervisor in that election by only 4,000 votes.

In the SF suburbs, plenty of areas were Republican and still are today. The 680 corridor (Walnut Creek, Danville, San Ramon, Pleasanton) have GOP registered majorities.  These communities, though,  were not that big in 1976.  Much of Ford's strength came from communities that trended GOP then but go Democratic now (San Jose, San Mateo, Redwood City). 

[The Duke]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

California is not overwhlemingly Democrat, but its unlikely a Republican not from here would win the state.  Its too expensive to run ads here, so no one does it.  For the cost of an ad buy in Califonria, you could probably get an ad buy in NV, CO, AZ, an NM for that same price (Actually, I'm probably underestimating how many states you could run serious ads in for the price of running ads in CA).

But let's say my compariosn is accurate, wouldn't you, if presentend with the choice, contest the whole southwest sans California instead of just contesting California?

[memphis]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

California is not overwhlemingly Democrat, but its unlikely a Republican not from here would win the state.  Its too expensive to run ads here, so no one does it. 

I really don't think money is the reason. California has 55 Electoral Votes. If either party saw the state as competitive, you'd better believe they'd sink their money there. However, like New York and Texas, California is a large state that gets ignored in presidential races because the winner is never in question.

[dazzleman]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

California is not overwhlemingly Democrat, but its unlikely a Republican not from here would win the state.  Its too expensive to run ads here, so no one does it. 

I really don't think money is the reason. California has 55 Electoral Votes. If either party saw the state as competitive, you'd better believe they'd sink their money there. However, like New York and Texas, California is a large state that gets ignored in presidential races because the winner is never in question.

True now, but California has been very close in some past elections, like 1948, 1960, 1976 and 1988.

[phk]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

California is not overwhlemingly Democrat, but its unlikely a Republican not from here would win the state.  Its too expensive to run ads here, so no one does it. 

I really don't think money is the reason. California has 55 Electoral Votes. If either party saw the state as competitive, you'd better believe they'd sink their money there. However, like New York and Texas, California is a large state that gets ignored in presidential races because the winner is never in question.

True now, but California has been very close in some past elections, like 1948, 1960, 1976 and 1988.

If California is ever close in the past, it will be because the Republican has already landslided everywhere else.

[minionofmidas]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

California is not overwhlemingly Democrat, but its unlikely a Republican not from here would win the state.  Its too expensive to run ads here, so no one does it.  For the cost of an ad buy in Califonria, you could probably get an ad buy in NV, CO, AZ, an NM for that same price (Actually, I'm probably underestimating how many states you could run serious ads in for the price of running ads in CA).

But let's say my compariosn is accurate, wouldn't you, if presentend with the choice, contest the whole southwest sans California instead of just contesting California?

55 EVs vs 29 EVs that might also get split? No contest.

[Gustaf]

California was a swing state, with something of a GOP lean for a long time. It's closeness in 1976 is probably over-stated, because of Reagan supporters staying home.

And to Jfern, there is an obvious such effect. Look at Masssachusetts in 1980 and Arizona in 2000. It didn't happen with Vermont, because a) Dean didn't have that kind of support there I think, b) Kerry didn't "beat" Dean, the man knocked himself out of the race and c) Deaniacs were too concerned about Bush, by and large.

[minionofmidas]

Just reread an abridged version I own of that analysis/pep talk bastard "The emerging Republican majority" from 1969. It treats California as a Rep-leaning swing state and certain to remain so throughout the next 36 year cycle.

[jocallag]

California went for Ford primarily because it is a secular state (or non-religious state) compared to the national average. Ford ran ahead of even Nixon in 1972 in counties like wealthy San Francisco suburban Marin County.
Carter gained primarily in places like the South and Border states as well as the Midwest (Ohio) due to his religious appeal to Born Again Christians.
Of course the San Francisco area is much more liberal now but Ford even ran better than Nixon in a number of areas in 1976 in California.

As for 1988 it was the last hurrah of the Reagan coalition which was split apart by Ross Perot in 1992. Again, this was a secular but anti-big government vote which Perot took away from the GOP and which since has split apart. Generally, in most states, if you add Perot 92 and Bush 92 you get the percentage which Bush received in 1988. And generally if you add Perot 96 and Dole 96, you get the percentage which Bush received in 2000. Perot's endorsement of Bush in 2000 helped him here but also the 1996 Perot vote was mainly a conservative populist vote which went for Bush in 2000. But in 1992 Perot's vote was much larger and more secular and a true swing vote. Much of that vote did not turnout again in 1996 or voted for Clinton and Dole.

Jay O'Callaghan
Electionwatch2006

jocall7868@aol.com

[The Duke]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

California only went Kerry by 10 points.  That's not all that strong, especially relative to Bush states.  Its solidness is overplayed.

California is not overwhlemingly Democrat, but its unlikely a Republican not from here would win the state.  Its too expensive to run ads here, so no one does it. 

I really don't think money is the reason. California has 55 Electoral Votes. If either party saw the state as competitive, you'd better believe they'd sink their money there. However, like New York and Texas, California is a large state that gets ignored in presidential races because the winner is never in question.

Money is a big reason.  Again, think about it.  Why go all or nothing in California when you can contest Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for pretty much the same money?

[George W. Hobbes]

Social values, essentially.  If you remove abortion and gay marriage from the debate, California will vote Republican solely on economics.

[True Democrat]

Social values, essentially.  If you remove abortion and gay marriage from the debate, California will vote Republican solely on economics.

Twenty years ago maybe, but today I think the Democrats would have a slight advantage.  The Democrats have moved significantly to the right on economics, and Hispanic voters tend to be left on economics (of course they don't show up anyway).

[adam]

I agree with the overall consensus that California is not nessecarily safe. A strong Republican (especially a socially liberal one) could beat a weak wishy-washy moderate democrat. (Clinton and Warner come to mind). Anyways,

1988: Weak democrat with little personality in Michael Dukakis. Many liberal voters stay home, Bush grabs California.

1976: During the time, Carter was seen as a dixiecrat which didn't really appeal to California.

[12th Doctor]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

And I know just the guy to do it with...

[bullmoose88]

the right republican can win in california....even now

imagine a mccain v. hillary matchup for 08.  california would have to be in the lean republican category.

And I know just the guy to do it with...

The fact he lost South Carolina...really makes that whole election result unbelievable.

Granted he was a moderate, but SC voting for Smits over him? please.