Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 06:08:29 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  The Changing California Electorate (2009 vs. 1978)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Changing California Electorate (2009 vs. 1978)  (Read 4344 times)
Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« on: August 05, 2009, 08:42:20 am »
Ignore

THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA ELECTORATE (PART 1):
LARGE-SCALE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA’S ELECTORATE FROM WHAT IT WAS THIRTY YEARS AGO.


Here are some things I found interesting:

- As the percentage of white non-Hispanics in the overall population has dropped 26 points from 68.9% to 42.8% over the past three decades, white non-Hispanics’ share of the state’s registered voter population has decreased 18 points from 83.0% to 65.0%.

- These declines are offset by large increases in the proportion of Latinos and Asians. Latinos now comprise 37.0% of the state’s total population (up 18.9% since 1978) and 21% of the state’s registered voters (up 13 points). The percentages of blacks in both the overall population and among registered voters have declined only marginally, but there has been a big increase in the proportions of Asians/others.

- Currently 55% of registered Democrats and 59% of non-partisans are white non-Hispanic, while greater than four in ten are voters of color. By contrast, among Republicans about eight in ten (79%) are white non-Hispanic and 21% include ethnic voters.




Well, there are other things, like age groups, religions, and all that, but I won't paste the whole report... it's a cool read. Smiley
Logged

Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2009, 08:53:20 am »
Ignore

THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA ELECTORATE (PART 2):
VOTERS, ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATS, HAVE BECOME MORE SOCIALLY TOLERANT ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES OVER THE PAST THREE DECADES.




The state is going one way, the Republicans are going the other way... if they weren't, California would probably be as liberal as everyone claims it to be.
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2009, 10:25:30 am »
Ignore

It's pretty shocking that California Republicans were more likely to support same-sex marriage in 1977 than now.  Basically shows the extreme decline of the liberal Republican tradition in the interim (the last vestiges of the actual "Party of Lincoln").

Also, stupid Californians. Don't you know Prop 13 is what causes all of your budget messes?
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7688
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2009, 04:07:18 pm »
Ignore

I am really surprised by the results of the Republicans.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8467


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2009, 04:35:21 pm »

The poll results suggest that the GOP should go to a message focused on taxes and crime, and downplay social issues.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
The Ex-Factor
xfactor99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 883
Viet Nam


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -6.10

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2009, 08:20:58 am »
Ignore

- Why are Asians and Others grouped together? How am I supposed to know what % of the populace is Asian, Native American, or whatever other groups there are...

- Wow, Republicans were more likely to support same-sex marriage than Democrats in 1977.

- Prop 13 fffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2009, 09:26:01 am »
Ignore

- Why are Asians and Others grouped together? How am I supposed to know what % of the populace is Asian, Native American, or whatever other groups there are...

Subtract 0.5% from the %Asian/other, and you have %Asian...
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2009, 12:01:42 pm »
Ignore

The poll results suggest that the GOP should go to a message focused on taxes and crime, and downplay social issues.
"Crime" is a "social issue". But yeah, basically what you're saying is "the Republican Party should go back to the message it won its last convincing victories with" (1980-88), so it may well be true.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
rebeltarian
rebel_libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 288


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2009, 12:46:49 pm »
Ignore

Crime, Taxes, Energy and Balanced Budgets are what California Republicans need to start emphasizing.  Being anti-war and pro-marijuana would also help.  The right Republican candidate can sweep the rural valleys and carry Los Angeles.  Does anyone know if Larry Elder is seriously considering a run for governor in '10?  He's pro-war and pro-amnesty, but otherwise he fits my description above pretty well.
Logged

"Under the rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it, not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well.  By the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing."  -- Congressman Ron Paul

Economic Score: +5.68
Personal Score: -3.83
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2009, 01:02:52 am »
Ignore

Carry Los Angeles? Maybe you meant "Keep LA County within ten points" or something.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14169


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2009, 01:15:39 am »
Ignore

How anyone could still support Prop 13 is beyond me.

Also, I had no idea gay marriage was even discussed as an issue in the 70's. When was it first even considered as a policy issue? Early 70's? Late 60's?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8467


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2009, 08:20:49 am »

How anyone could still support Prop 13 is beyond me.

Also, I had no idea gay marriage was even discussed as an issue in the 70's. When was it first even considered as a policy issue? Early 70's? Late 60's?

As an old, my sense is that gay marriage came about after the gay rights movement. That didn't really begin until after the AIDS epidemic in the 80's. In the 60's it was about Black civil rights, and in the 70's it was the feminist movement and the ERA.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12723


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2009, 04:12:40 pm »
Ignore

I don't recall gay marriage being considered seriously until the Hawaii cases in the mid 1990s,  but there were always examples of civil disobedience and applying for marriage licenses. Someone tried in Boulder, Colorado in the late 1970s and that may have made the news.

I don't think it was taken seriously as a policy objective until Andrew Sullivan presented an argument in its behalf approximately 20 years ago and the judiciary in Hawaii appeared open to ruling on it when a case was filed, as I said, in the mid 1990s. AIDS, and particularly funding for treatment and research, was an overwhelming concern from the early 80s through the mid 90s that would have rendered marriage an unfavorable target for activism, especially because it was so unlikely. Other competing issues were raising the ban on gays in the military, the ongoing fight against sodomy laws leading up to Bowers in 1986 and in the states in its aftermath, and non-discrimination laws, again in the states.

A caveat: I only came out in 1994, so I wouldn't have been fully aware of previous history.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8467


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2009, 06:55:16 pm »

I don't recall gay marriage being considered seriously until the Hawaii cases in the mid 1990s,  but there were always examples of civil disobedience and applying for marriage licenses. Someone tried in Boulder, Colorado in the late 1970s and that may have made the news.

I don't think it was taken seriously as a policy objective until Andrew Sullivan presented an argument in its behalf approximately 20 years ago and the judiciary in Hawaii appeared open to ruling on it when a case was filed, as I said, in the mid 1990s. AIDS, and particularly funding for treatment and research, was an overwhelming concern from the early 80s through the mid 90s that would have rendered marriage an unfavorable target for activism, especially because it was so unlikely. Other competing issues were raising the ban on gays in the military, the ongoing fight against sodomy laws leading up to Bowers in 1986 and in the states in its aftermath, and non-discrimination laws, again in the states.

A caveat: I only came out in 1994, so I wouldn't have been fully aware of previous history.

I probably wasn't as clear in my post as I should have been, and I don't think we disagree much on the timeline. I meant that in the '80s was the beginning of the gay rights movement on the heels of the AIDS epidemic. Gay marriage came up as an issue after the gay rights movement was established. A starting point in the '90s is consistent with that.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Citizen James
James42
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2554


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2009, 05:54:57 pm »
Ignore

It's pretty shocking that California Republicans were more likely to support same-sex marriage in 1977 than now.  Basically shows the extreme decline of the liberal Republican tradition in the interim (the last vestiges of the actual "Party of Lincoln").

Also, stupid Californians. Don't you know Prop 13 is what causes all of your budget messes?

1.  The change wasn't that extreme.  It's practically churn (from 65% against to 68% against) and I don't think that it was a major political issue in most parts back then, so the rabid partisans didn't have anyone telling them how to answer that question.

2.  I do know that, but I'm probably a bit better informed than most (as is probably true with most people on this board)  For most people Prop 13 was the big taxpayer's revolt - making sure Grandma didn't get drowned in property taxes just because the house they bought for 10K decades ago had increased in value by an order of magnitude or so.  Not many people recognize it as a way big companies avoid taxes (since they are, in effect, immortal) or recognize the insane 2/3rds requirement (and how certain extremists can abuse it ad infinitum  for their own pork; or even just ideological purity.  The really dark side of gerrymandering is that it makes the loonies ultra-safe; and a sizable minority of them can block anything) even exists - much less causes a problem.
Logged

We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines