Why is the West Coast so left wing?

[Mechaman]

Because in 1988 Bush Sr. took the votes of the West Coast for granted (as did arguably every GOP candidate after him), assuming that they would automatically vote GOP. If the GOP had put just a little bit of attention to the West Coast in every election since 1988 I bet they would be singing a different tune.

[Mechaman]

I know why it's so far left. A bunch of potheads that's why.

I smoke lots of pot and I am not a far leftist, in fact I'm probably more fiscally conservative and pro free market than you are.
I bet I could say that for quite a few other pot smokers I know.

[Mechaman]

Because in 1988 Bush Sr. took the votes of the West Coast for granted (as did arguably every GOP candidate after him), assuming that they would automatically vote GOP. If the GOP had put just a little bit of attention to the West Coast in every election since 1988 I bet they would be singing a different tune.

Um, Bush Sr. won California in 1988, and I don't think any GOP candidate after him took the West Coast for granted or even expected to have a real chance there.

Just because he won it doesn't mean he took it seriously. Plus Reagan campaigned for him.
You want Youtube proof?

Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-52n_qaL6BE&feature=PlayList&p=9C7D46601A52EE2A&index=5

[Mechaman]

Because in 1988 Bush Sr. took the votes of the West Coast for granted (as did arguably every GOP candidate after him), assuming that they would automatically vote GOP. If the GOP had put just a little bit of attention to the West Coast in every election since 1988 I bet they would be singing a different tune.

Bush did not take the west coast for granted. He campaigned for himself and also for senate candidates (Pete Wilson in California) in 1988. Both he and Ronald Reagan appeared on the west coast campaigning for the Bush/Quayle ticket. What specific source source do you have that says that Bush took the west for granted in 1988?

Also, the republicans have put attention to the west coast. Dole campaigned hard in California in 1996. And Bush made stops on the west coast in both 2000 and 2004. I think that if it had been Clinton vs McCain in 2008, then McCain would have worked more on the west coast because he would have had a better chance there against Clinton.

But, it is just not true to say that the republicans did not campaign on the west coast since 1988.

Where the hell did I say they did not campaign on the west coast? I simply said they didn't pay enough attention to it, that they decided to focus more on the South and Midwest.
Lack of communication fail

[Mechaman]

Because in 1988 Bush Sr. took the votes of the West Coast for granted (as did arguably every GOP candidate after him), assuming that they would automatically vote GOP. If the GOP had put just a little bit of attention to the West Coast in every election since 1988 I bet they would be singing a different tune.

Bush did not take the west coast for granted. He campaigned for himself and also for senate candidates (Pete Wilson in California) in 1988. Both he and Ronald Reagan appeared on the west coast campaigning for the Bush/Quayle ticket. What specific source source do you have that says that Bush took the west for granted in 1988?

Also, the republicans have put attention to the west coast. Dole campaigned hard in California in 1996. And Bush made stops on the west coast in both 2000 and 2004. I think that if it had been Clinton vs McCain in 2008, then McCain would have worked more on the west coast because he would have had a better chance there against Clinton.

But, it is just not true to say that the republicans did not campaign on the west coast since 1988.

Where the hell did I say they did not campaign on the west coast? I simply said they didn't pay enough attention to it, that they decided to focus more on the South and Midwest.
Lack of communication fail

You said every Republican took the West Coast for granted since 1988.

There is a difference between "taking it for granted" and not campaigning at all. Making a few token stops to give the appearance they're trying isn't the same as actively campaigning there. In 1988, HW Bush took it for granted that the West Coast was Republican, 1992 onwards the Republicans started giving up on California and Washington (Oregon is debatable).

[Mechaman]

Why is the West Coast … Democratic in presidential elections?


The Republican Party fell out of touch with this area of the country. The party got too right-wing, disconnected, and it not only lost them Oregon and Washington (in 1988) but California (in which 1988 Bush underperfomed his national average by, roughly, 50 percent) flipped in 1992 along with a stream of populous states outside this area that haven't carried for a GOP presidential candidate since.

Some folks, though, have no problem with the fact that George W. Bush is the only two-term Republican president never to have carried Calif., Ore., Wash., New York (despite 9/11), Maine, Vermont (GOP from the party's election, in 1856, to 1988 - except for LBJ in 1964!), Connecticut, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. (Not certain if I'm missing any more.)

There was a thread created about Democrats not being able to afford losing Dixie … but the GOP has lost the northeast, the upper midwest, and the pacific rim. Bush barely won his two elections (his combined electoral vote in 2000 and 2004 was less than his father's winning election, in 1988, and his losing one, in 1992). Not very good. And it's hilarious the Republican Party fails to see this as a problem for them.

^^^^^^
This is what I was saying, just worded it wrongly.