What will it take for the GOP to carry CA, WA or OR again?

[sg0508]

I know the party is too far to the right now and immigration has not helped matters in CA (it destroyed former Senator/Gov Pete Wilson), but will we ever see OR/WA or CA go red again in a Senatorial or Presidential race?

The Gov. races are more bipartisan, but still, we really haven't been competitive there either (and Arnold will be replaced by a democrat next year most likely). 

I know it will probably take a more moderate republican to do it, but it seems as time goes on, the margin just keeps getting tougher and tougher to overcome.  We just cannot win anything in WA state anymore, we're not really successful in OR, although we had Gordon Smith and some tight presidential races and CA has been a joke since the mid 90s outside our RINO/Arnold.

What will it take or is all hope lost? 

[War on Want]

They probably won't unless there is a landslide.

[sg0508]

Even in Reagan's 49 state landslide, the west coast was still very weak.  He even carried his own CA by <  his nat. average of 59-40%. 

4 years later, Dukakis turned a 12 pt win in 84 to a 5 pt loss in 88 (OR), won a tight race in WA, and had it not have been "The last gift of Reagan", he would have gotten CA too (51-48%).

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

They probably won't unless there is a landslide.

True, true.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I agree, I think it does have to be a landslide for the GOP to carry the Left/West Coast. But if you look to 2004, George W. Bush performed extremely well in these states.

California - D + 9.95
Kerry 54.31
Bush 44.36

Oregon - D + 4.16
Kerry 51.35
Bush 47.19

Washington D + 7.18
Kerry 52.82
Bush 45.64

This was a big year for Republicans and yet you had a conservative Republican presidential candidate who performed exceedingly well in these blue states. I think Oregon will go red before the other two, but Oregon is similar to Washington in that the Cascade Mountains divide the state politically: western Oregon and western Washington are where the cities are and are therefore the blue parts of the state whereas eastern Oregon and eastern Washington are more rural and therefore the red parts of the state.

I think for a Republican to win any one of these states, probably Oregon first, they just simply need to perform better in the cities. Rack up the numbers in the rural parts of the state like Republicans always do but cut the margins in the cities like Portland and Eugene and you could see Oregon going narrowly red. Washington would be more difficult because there are more cities and less rural areas, and California is pretty much just a long shot for any Republican presidential candidate because of liberal bastions like the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles that pretty much controls the state's vote.

But I'll admit, to see George W. Bush making California really close in 2004 (less than 10 points) was really astonishing. I didn't expect there to be that many evangelicals in California who were propelled to vote because their marriages were threatened or they felt as though they had to stop the killing of babies. Wasn't this the Karl Rove strategy of 2004: the fear card? I guess it works.

[tonyreyes89]

Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Only in Bizarro World

[RI]

A Republican could probably win if he/she was a popular moderate governor/senator from one of those states. One from Washington could probably take Oregon as well and vice versa. California is another story. The only way that I could see a Republican, besides a popular moderate home stater, winning would be if there was a 'populist' Republican running who could win the Hispanic vote, or a 'libertarian' Republican running who could eat into the white liberal vote around San Francisco and Los Angeles. Neither of which, I believe, are very likely to happen.

[Ebowed]

to see George W. Bush making California really close in 2004 (less than 10 points) was really astonishing.

That's a huge exaggeration.  Yes, Kerry's margin of victory was just barely under 10 points:

Kerry - 54.31%
Bush - 44.36%

Kerry won by 9.95%.  Which is better than the margin that McCain won Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, and South Carolina by...

[Alcon]

Wilsonian anti-immigration stuff had a great toll in California, but not so much in Oregon and Washington.  We have relatively few Hispanics, and they do not really play in state politics.

In Oregon and Washington, the answer is pretty simple -- stop pissing off "secular," middle-class suburbanites.  There's no specific elixir; it's a condition that affects the GOP nationwide.

[pbrower2a]

Lie low and wait for the contempt for the GOP to end -- probably around 2020 at the earliest.

[Reaganfan]

Cheney/Sanford 2012

[Franzl]

Cheney/Sanford 2012

is that supposed to be funny?

[CJK]

I frankly can imagine no scenario whatsoever that will bring California back to the Republican fold, including a landslide. The state's demographics are extremely unfavorable and will probably remain so. Case in point: back in 1992 Clinton won the non-hispanic white vote similar to Obama. But Obama's margin was 10 points larger due the hispanic influx. Meanwhile, native GOP-leaning Californians are abandoning the state.

However, there is definitely room for improvement in Washington and Oregon if the GOP can get a coherent economic plan together.

[Vepres]

The key is being able to appeal to secular, yet still fiscally conservative, suburban voters. Lets not forget that President Bush, who was very socially conservative, only lost Oregon by 4.16 percentage points. His performance in Washington was worse, but was still came within 7 points of Senator Kerry. Now I've never personally been to either state, but my impression is that they're both very secular and non-religious relative to the rest of the country. So if a moderate or libertarian Republican somehow received his/her parties nomination, I would imagine both states turning into toss-ups (though Oregon would be more competitive).

As for California, I don't see a Republican winning there unless they are a current/former governor or senator. A libertarian or moderate Republican could make inroads in the white suburbs and, if they became more immigrant friendly like Senator McCain (not candidate McCain who pandered to the base), then they could potentially carry more hispanic regions (as hispanics seem to be fairly self-reliant, entrepreneurial attitude towards things). However, even if a Republican candidate  like this was nominated, he/she would be hard pressed to win the state because of the extremely liberal San Francisco and Las Angeles voters.

So I would say that Oregon and Washington are maybes, depending on the candidate, and California would be highly unlikely given the liberal cities and the large first/second generation hispanic demographics.

[Rob]

So if a moderate or libertarian Republican somehow received his/her parties nomination, I would imagine both states turning into toss-ups (though Oregon would be more competitive).

Maybe, but it's not quite that simple. The cities and the college towns will vote overwhelmingly Democratic regardless. There may be slightly depressed turnout (and lower GOP percentages) in the logging country and the eastern desert, too... but those counties are small and declining and don't matter either way. The key of the course, in the suburbs and they increasingly favor liberal Democrats at all levels. See Oregon's 2006 gubernatorial race (Kulongoski vs. Saxton) for a good example of what I mean.

[Vepres]

So if a moderate or libertarian Republican somehow received his/her parties nomination, I would imagine both states turning into toss-ups (though Oregon would be more competitive).

Maybe, but it's not quite that simple. The cities and the college towns will vote overwhelmingly Democratic regardless. There may be slightly depressed turnout (and lower GOP percentages) in the logging country and the eastern desert, too... but those counties are small and declining and don't matter either way. The key of the course, in the suburbs and they increasingly favor liberal Democrats at all levels. See Oregon's 2006 gubernatorial race (Kulongoski vs. Saxton) for a good example of what I mean.

Yes, I probably was oversimplifying it. However, in August and early September of 2008, McCain was polling about 5-7 points below Obama in both states. This was in an overwhelmingly democratic year in Democrat leaning states. McCain was running a base campaign, and had not visited either state, and still was only 5-7 points behind Obama. Of course this all changed when the financial crisis occured, when Obama started polling 10-15 points ahead. But the fact remains that had McCain ran as more of the maverick he was in the senate, these states would probably have been far closer. I'm not saying either will be a toss-up in '12, but given the right Republican and an ok to below average term, they could be competitive.

[The Duke]

We may find out pretty soon.

Buy gold.  Sell dollars.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cheney/Sanford 2012

I don't think that the question was what would it take for a Democrat to win Mississippi.

[pbrower2a]

What will it take for the GOP to carry CA, WA or OR again?

About twenty years.

[Mint]

We may find out pretty soon.

Buy gold.  Sell dollars.

This.

[RI]

Cheney/Sanford 2012

I don't think that the question was what would it take for a Democrat to win Mississippi.

lol

[Padfoot]

If the Republicans nominated a secular pro-environment candidate I think they'd have a decent shot at Oregon and Washington.  If that candidate also happened to be Hispanic they might be able to swing California as well.  The problem is that such a candidate would never make it through a GOP primary given the party's recent lurch even farther to the right.