Posted on 04/01/2006 1:08:34 AM PST by FairOpinion
Every decade or so, California experiences a watershed election year which realigns the state's cast of politicians - bringing some careers to an end and jump-starting others - and 2006 could be one of those events.
Whether Arnold Schwarzenegger continues his governorship or becomes an idiosyncratic footnote to history is, of course, the biggest political question hanging over the state. But polls indicate that Schwarzenegger's political position is improving - in part because voters are giving him credit for trying to fix infrastructure - and his two would-be challengers, Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly, have their own problems.
Republicans, by design or happenstance, have only one serious primary battle looming, pitting state Sen. Abel Maldonado against former Assemblyman Tony Strickland for the controller's office that Westly is giving up. That leaves the GOP's major candidates for other offices - state Sen. Tom McClintock for lieutenant governor, state Sen. Chuck Poochigian for attorney general, Silicon Valley executive Steve Poizner for insurance commissioner, and Assemblyman Keith Richman for treasurer - free to raise money and seek favorable publicity.
Jerry Brown, one of the state's best known (and most controversial) political figures, who served two terms as governor and two as mayor of Oakland with other political sojourns in between, is the early favorite for the Democratic nomination for attorney general. But Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo is ramping up a campaign that focuses on Oakland's violent crime and exploits, he hopes, Brown's negative image among voters.
The financial shoe's on the other foot for Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who wants to continue his political career as insurance commissioner. Never known as a strong fundraiser, Bustamante doesn't have to worry about a primary race but faces a Republican rival with an unlimited budget from his own bank account in Poizner.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxstudio.com ...
That's all we need.
Republicans and conservatives better turn out and vote in this election!
"McClintock mention" PING
This state was 70% Republican in 1960 or 1970
there must be some lessons to be learned here.
2006 is shaping up as a watershed of GOP implosion and disaster...and with it...the dream of a true conservative union...
We are witnessing the self destruction of the GOP and 'our' dreams of conservatist driven agenda...
Say bye bye...[say Jorge]...say welcome to globalist North American union...resplendent with Tijuana's open sewers and state controlled petro industry...
Enjoy...
"This state was 70% Republican in 1960 or 1970 "
====
Calcowgirl posted the historical demographics of CA for every year. I meant to save it, and I forgot.
Calcowgirl, you always have everything at your fingertips, would you mind posting it again, please? I think it's was quite interesting the way it changed, to what it is now, the reverse.
CALIFORNIA VOTER AND PARTY PROFILES
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/JTF_VoterProfilesJTF.pdf
"The Democratic Party currently has an advantage of 1.4 million voters over the Republican Party (7.1 million to 5.7 million) or 9 percentage points (43% to 34%), according to the Secretary of State.
Among those most likely to vote in this year’s elections, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 7-point margin (44% to 37%), while 15 percent of likely voters are registered as independents.
... the fact that independents are more likely to lean toward Democrats than Republicans (42% to 28%) tends to work to the disadvantage of the GOP in statewide elections."
I'm going to try from memory,
69% Republican in 1960
90% white in in 1970
"Sen. Tom McClintock for lieutenant governor" is encouraging.
BTTT
Calcowgirl posted the historical demographics of CA for every year. I meant to save it, and I forgot.
Calcowgirl, you always have everything at your fingertips, would you mind posting it again, please? I think it's was quite interesting the way it changed, to what it is now, the reverse.
---
Typical of a moderate, calling on a conservative to bail your butt out. lol
You should run for office, are you in CA?
Very astute observation, antaresequity. And not the least bit fuzzy, cryptic, or oblique, or even manipulative like some of the others...
Dan, like many liberals, peruses FreeRepublic from time to time. He is well aware of the design.
But, as a Democrat, Dan can't bring himself to inform his audience that there is a clash of values and ideology within the CPR because Schwarzenegger is a liberal.
Similar myopia exists on our side of the fence. FO/DL couldn't bring themselves to support a Democrat, no matter how conservative.
Calcowgirl posted the historical demographics of CA for every year. I meant to save it, and I forgot.
Calcowgirl, you always have everything at your fingertips, would you mind posting it again, please? I think it's was quite interesting the way it changed, to what it is now, the reverse.
Here's some links to what I posted before.
The information from 1922 to 2004 shows that Republicans have not been greater than Democrats since 1934 when they led registration by 49.5% to 45.5%. In 1930, the percentages were 73.0% (R) to 2.3% (D). See details Here.
More detail on registration numbers showing when the crossover occurred (1926 to 1932) was posted Here
That's all we need.
Jerry Brown doesn't have the nomination yet. Those great moderate (cough) Republicans like Richard Riordan are lining up behind Rocky Delgadillo.
CORRECTION: In 1930, the percentages were 73.0% (R) to 20.3% (D).
1930 is depression era.. amazing. WW2 drew a lot of that crowd here, I suspect.
look at what the infestation of folks from northeastern states* mostly has done to California since then. boxer, pelosi, gray davis, kenndedys , difi is a local gal I think.. but the general trend was West Ho! for a lot of NE 'Rats.. the ocean stops here so this is where they setup shop.
*apologies to any current or lifelong FReepers from NE states :-)
You forgot a few... Riordan, Sundheim.... ;-)
The GOP has not held a plurality of registrants in California since before the Depression.
When I was a younger chap, there were a fair number of Tory Dems in California, and the GOP did better than its registration numbers. The relatively small numbers of declined to states also leaned GOP. Now there are no Tory Dems, and a large number of independents, and the independents lean Dem. The Dems have a natural 105-15% advantage in California, all things being equal.
One of these days, maybe you'll actually post about issues and tell me what you disagree with. I've been asking for a couple of years now.
I'm against big spending and for limited government. I'm against irresponsible borrowing and bonds for operating expenses, as proposed by Gray Davis and then mimicked by Schwarzenegger. I oppose land grabs and conservancies run by quasi-governmental bureaucracies (with taxpayer funds). I'm against subsidizing businesses or launching non-viable technology (e.g. solar roofs or stem-cell research) with taxpayer funds. I'm against special rights for the GLBTers. I'm for enforcement of laws, including immigration laws. I'm for the right to bear arms and no more gun bans.
It kind of reads like the Republican platform -- the one that seems to be completely abandoned in favor of "winning" at all costs and "just a little bit" of socialism.
Duff?
NOOOooo..
he's from Illinois, I think
Wow! What a powerful set of comments!! They just make all the other tired tirades kind of melt away into utter nothingness!!!
Don't forget one of the biggest carpetbaggers of all time... Vic Fazio!!! (ugh!!!)
Aw... She's just butterin you up so's she can tear ya a new one at the next opportunity as she sees it. Beware! Don't be fooled!! She would NEVER come to your defense should you be unfairly ganged up on. Of course you knew that already, right? (grin)
Besides, as everyone knows... likely voters rarely, if ever, tell pollsters what's really in their hearts. Even to the lame telephone poller, they lie their differentials completely off!!!
I think Dan Walters is finally starting to hedge where Snortzenegger is concerned and for good reason. Arnold's gonna bail on everybody all of a sudden... Walters is beginning to believe it (just like Jesse Ventura did) and has a huge reputation for being politically astute that he doesn't want tarnished by a fickled Snortzenegger fathead fool!!!
I've been predicting this for almost 2 years now and I simply don't believe a word of this poll!!!
What changed the political geography in California in the later half of the 1930s was a natural agent: The Dust Bowl.
Things started getting really bad in the drought belt by 1935 and didn't let up until 1939. As the Oakies migrated to California they brought their Democrat heritage with them. The shift in political registration was dramatic but not the type of drama we see today. They were not socialists. They were Democrats. They were hard working, poor folks who saw an emerging hero in a New England rich kid, FDR.
The rampant socialism that characterizes California today, which makes a liberal seem a moderate by traditional standards, did not occur until after the 1960s. San Francisco, the drug culture and hippies brought a sea change in political attitudes to the state. What the flower children started, public unions and the complications created by increasing, unregulated immigration accelerated.
WWII brought one change to California. Blacks. Prior to WWII blacks had been isolated in the south with enclaves along the eastern seaboard. As these southern blacks entered military service they traveled and were exposed to new, domestic cultures. Many found the colorblind hospitality in California a refreshing break from the racial oppression of the pre WWII south and northeast. They came in uniform. The saw it. They liked it. After WWII was over, they left the segregated south and came west. They were Democrats but their political impact was not significant since they didn't traditionally participate in politics. Public unions and the activities of MLK changed that attitude.
Thanks, I knew that someone would bring that fact forward as well.
Thanks for the warning! I'll be watchful! :-)
I think you're right. but, Chicago is east... compared to California, anyway. lol.
For future reference, while California was described as 90% white in 1970, it was only about 78% non-Hispanic white. North Dakota it wasn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.