When will California become a swing state again?

[redcommander]

I'm not going to turn this into a gay marriage discussion, but remember that most Americans approved of segregation and were opposed to interracial marriages as well. Marriage is a right, not a privilege for heterosexuals.

Please, don't insult our intelligence by comparing gay marriage to race equality.  They are simply not related. 

Both are civil rights issues.

No they are not.

[Mechaman]

When Wyoming and Vermont become swing states. In other words, never.

How many more times do I have to remind everybody that the word "never" is a very f***ing stupid word to use when predicting the future?

That would be like someone after the 1936 election declaring "THE DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER EVER WIN VERMONT!" or someone after the 1960 election declaring "THE REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER EVER WIN THE CATHOLIC VOTE!"

Point is, don't think that just because this is the modern day that such predictions evoking the "n" word are suddenly exempt from being proven very wrong.

[Liberalrocks]

What else would one expect from this left coast, pot smoking, marine office banning, collection of pinko loonies?

We expect to be adding gay marriage loving   to this collection of labels when the 9th circuit upholds Judge Walkers decision! LOL love the labels I think Ill go light up another !

Of that I have no doubt.  Then it can truly be said

California, the state where votes don't count.

You can add that to your labels as well.

Can I vote on your rights?

Can I take it upon myself to decide the people are wrong?

Hard righters never can seem to answer that rights question without directly deflecting it into another question. Notice the non-answer to your question by posing another question.

[Penelope]

Within the next, say, 40 years. Once the Millennial Generation has had around 3 Presidents.

[Yelnoc]

If the Republican leadership were to grow some brains and try and court the hispanic vote like their predecessors, it could already be a swing state.

[ajc0918]

If the Republican leadership were to grow some brains and try and court the hispanic vote like their predecessors, it could already be a swing state.

Agree, they just need to ease, in general, on social issues.

[Nichlemn]

When Wyoming and Vermont become swing states. In other words, never.

How many more times do I have to remind everybody that the word "never" is a very f***ing stupid word to use when predicting the future?

That would be like someone after the 1936 election declaring "THE DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER EVER WIN VERMONT!" or someone after the 1960 election declaring "THE REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER EVER WIN THE CATHOLIC VOTE!"

Point is, don't think that just because this is the modern day that such predictions evoking the "n" word are suddenly exempt from being proven very wrong.

This. Although some states (like Kansas) have leaned Republican relative to the national margin for a very long time, ever since the 1916 election I believe, I don't California is at that point. I think the chances are good that California will have an R+CPVI sometime in the next 100 years.

[DS0816]

It can't remain in the Democratic column forever.

In 2000, George W. Bush become the second Republican to win election without California. Before him, it was 1880 James Garfield.

In 2008, Barack Obama became the second Democrat to win election without Texas. Before him, it was 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton.

The two states don't have much in common political ideology, and they are more than 20 points spread apart. Basically, you'd have to have an epic landslide (say, around a minimum of 15%) of a candidate from either party in order to win on the other party's turf.

[Lincoln Republican]

What else would one expect from this left coast, pot smoking, marine office banning, collection of pinko loonies?

We expect to be adding gay marriage loving   to this collection of labels when the 9th circuit upholds Judge Walkers decision! LOL love the labels I think Ill go light up another !

Of that I have no doubt.  Then it can truly be said

California, the state where votes don't count.

You can add that to your labels as well.

Can I vote on your rights?

Can I take it upon myself to decide the people are wrong?

Hard righters never can seem to answer that rights question without directly deflecting it into another question. Notice the non-answer to your question by posing another question.

First of all, I am hardly a hard righter.  Just because I do not support gay marriage does not make a hard righter.  If that is the case, then you may as well throw the President of the United States, Barack Obama, into your catch all definition.

I have much the same stance as Obama on gay rights.  We both support non discrimination on gay rights, and we both oppose same sex marriage.

So a question such as can I vote on your rights? is not appropriate or applicable in this context, since marriage is not a right.  Obama believes this as well as I do. 

So if you are seeking an answer to the question without asking another question, refer to the above. 

[Liberalrocks]

What else would one expect from this left coast, pot smoking, marine office banning, collection of pinko loonies?

We expect to be adding gay marriage loving   to this collection of labels when the 9Th circuit upholds Judge Walkers decision! LOL love the labels I think Ill go light up another !

Of that I have no doubt. Then it can truly be said

California, the state where votes don't count.

You can add that to your labels as well.

Can I vote on your rights?

Can I take it upon myself to decide the people are wrong?

Hard righters never can seem to answer that rights question without directly deflecting it into another question. Notice the non-answer to your question by posing another question.

First of all, I am hardly a hard righter.  Just because I do not support gay marriage does not make a hard righter.  If that is the case, then you may as well throw the President of the United States, Barack Obama, into your catch all definition.

I have much the same stance as Obama on gay rights.  We both support non discrimination on gay rights, and we both oppose same sex marriage.

So a question such as can I vote on your rights? is not appropriate or applicable in this context, since marriage is not a right.  Obama believes this as well as I do. 

So if you are seeking an answer to the question without asking another question, refer to the above. 

IF you carry the same belief on the issue as the President does then could one assume your belief is "evolving" as the President stated his position had and was. While not yet in full support he indicated that overtime his position had and was again quoting his term "evolving" meaning he is open to consideration at a future time. Given your gross characterization and labeling of my home state I would find it hard to believe you carry the presidents complete view on this issue  or rights for any gays in general.

[Lincoln Republican]

Following is the view I share with Barack Obama on the issue of gay marriage.  No more, no less.

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

[Napoleon]

We don't know but it's clear that for the near future California will remain solidly and probably increasingly Democratic. The question is whether or not Republicans cold stop this if they tried.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's pretty obvious that Republicans would rather just hope that California fails. They seem to be attacking Jerry Brown quite a bit, implying that he will cause the state to collapse, despite the fact that he's more fiscally conservative than them (note that fiscally conservative is a much misused term).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But oh noes, Jerry Brown is an evil tax and spender.

[redcommander]

It's pretty obvious that Republicans would rather just hope that California fails. They seem to be attacking Jerry Brown quite a bit, implying that he will cause the state to collapse, despite the fact that he's more fiscally conservative than them (note that fiscally conservative is a much misused term).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But oh noes, Jerry Brown is an evil tax and spender.

Um no. Jerry Brown is another tax and spend progressive who even worse than Davis is basically owned by the various unions in the state. Plus the man is almost on the same level of Sharron Angle in craziness, he just doesn't make as many idiotic statements. The Democrats will fail like they did last time they held the governor's mansion, and be thrown out in 2014 or before then like they have in the past.

[Napoleon]

California's governor will fail no matter what party. But at least California Democrats are more eager to go along with a Jerry Brown plan to fix the state than a Meg Whitman one solely due to partisanship.

[tpfkaw]

Plus the man is almost on the same level of Sharron Angle in craziness, he just doesn't make as many idiotic statements.

No, he actually is famous for being prolific in making idiotic statements that, in fact, are actually idiotic as opposed to merely outlining his platform in a non-focus-group-tested way.

Frankly, I'm amazed that all our CA Democrats didn't all endorse Whitman, as the fact that a Democrat will preside over the next 4 years in California is the best Christmas present the CAGOP could possibly have received.

[Napoleon]

Plus the man is almost on the same level of Sharron Angle in craziness, he just doesn't make as many idiotic statements.

No, he actually is famous for being prolific in making idiotic statements that, in fact, are actually idiotic as opposed to merely outlining his platform in a non-focus-group-tested way.

Frankly, I'm amazed that all our CA Democrats didn't all endorse Whitman, as the fact that a Democrat will preside over the next 4 years in California is the best Christmas present the CAGOP could possibly have received.

California Republicans will come back in forty years, maybe. Not four, though.

[tpfkaw]

California Democrats are certainly giving it their best shot.  Perhaps they enjoy a little competition.  Very sporting of them.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

IDK, but considering that Bush got 44% of the vote in CA in 2004 (more than in NY), I could see the GOP carrying CA if they're winning nationally in a landslide.

[Psychic Octopus]

When a popular Republican California Governor or Senator wins the nomination, it will presumably be a swing state in the national election he/she participates in. Otherwise, it is not happening anytime soon, unless the GOP restructures its politics.

[Verily]

If the Republican leadership were to grow some brains and try and court the hispanic vote like their predecessors, it could already be a swing state.

Agree, they just need to ease, in general, on social issues.

Depends what you consider "social issues", I suppose, but, generally speaking, social issues are the only thing Republicans have in common with most Hispanics. I mean, you're not going to win them over while advocating economic conservatism, but consider the Imperial County government's attempt to intervene in the Prop 8 case as a defendant (granted, there's some indication that the locals think the county government are being clownish on the whole issue, but still).