Rand Paul: "GOP can turn California red"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:53:32 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Rand Paul: "GOP can turn California red"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Rand Paul: "GOP can turn California red"  (Read 24152 times)
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2013, 04:52:53 AM »

California shifted further Democratic in both 2010 and 2012. I'm not too concerned with what Rand Paul has to say. California voters have put Democrats in charge of all statewide elected positions and supermajorities in both Houses of the Legislature. From what I can tell, Governor Brown and total statewide Democratic control have put the state on the right track. Even if the California Republican Party got its act together, the national party is far too toxic for it to get even modest successes.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2015, 10:46:24 PM »

The Republicans should try to compete for California NOW. Represent all of America.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2015, 11:03:35 PM »

Almost as dumb as the people who think Texas will be a swing state in 2024.
Logged
Citizen Hats
lol-i-wear-hats
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 680
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2015, 11:08:22 PM »

I mean, speaking as a former California resident, there's no reason that in a sensible country with sensible conservative parties California couldn't be a politically balanced state.  There's plenty of affluent or pro-business types who would stand to advocate for what are in most places sensible right of center policies. 

But instead, we get one party rule because the Republicans can't pull it together enough to tell the bumpkins to go home.
Logged
Angel of Death
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,411
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2015, 11:20:00 PM »

The Silicon Valley people have given up on the idea so much, that they are now proposing to split up the state.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2015, 11:20:44 PM »

He's deluded on this one. He can try all he wants, but it won't happen. California is just as consistent as Texas is with its voting patterns.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2015, 12:31:00 AM »

Gutting the EPA could turn California red at sunset. That's something
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2015, 01:40:35 AM »

Yeah, Rand Paul is not a "sensible Republican" and this will never happen.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,798
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2015, 01:00:50 PM »

The Dems can nominate Warren, and it wont matter in CA.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2015, 02:34:57 PM »

I don't think swing state CA is less likely to happen over the next few cycles than swing state TX.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2015, 03:26:53 PM »

California will eventually become a swing state - but the question is when. By default, given that Republicans must at some point within the next three decades expand their outreach to Latinos and other minority groups, California will become closer over time (or the Republicans are relegated to the minority status they enjoyed during the New Deal).

Let me try out a very far fetched hypothetical.

Whites: 50% - 62-36% Republican
African Americans: 10% - 89-10% Democratic
Asians: 13% - 54-45% Republican
Latinos: 27% - 38-61% Democratic

Result: GOP wins 49.28-49.22%

Very far fetched? Yes. Is there a very narrow path to California for a Republican? Yes. What's most interesting is that the white vote has dropped dramatically each presidential election. For Republicans to crack the Golden State, they need to expand their outreach and/or hope that minorities become wealthier and the party's social issues become less of an issue going forward. For example, Asians flipping to 61-38% Republican gives California a 2% Republican edge.

Obviously, Clinton will carry California by a healthy margin in 2016. This is merely a "thought experiment."
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2015, 04:10:20 PM »

California shows what is wrong with the GOP to a greater degree than the rest of America. The Hispanic population is becoming more middle class, and by political logic that used to be solid, the Hispanic population should be turning increasingly Republican as it assimilates economically.

But despite assimilating into the middle class, the Hispanic population is not becoming increasingly Republican. As people get richer they generally develop more concern with taxes... but they are also concerned with the quality of life (pollution, traffic jams, public health) and with economic opportunity (closely linked to formal education).

One connection is to the aging of the suburbs. When the suburbs were fist built they were bastions of conservatism. Close enough to well-paying urban jobs but separated from urban problems (blight, crime), and still having a rural feel they first looked like small-town America with single-family houses as the norm. Even today, small-town America is heavily Republican. The suburbs had new infrastructure that cost little to maintain. But as Suburbia has aged, the infrastructure has become more costly to repair. Many tracts of single-family houses have been demolished for apartment complexes that generate traffic jams... and have demographics more typical of slums than of single-family houses.  School quality deteriorates (California is way below average in educational attainment) while educational costs skyrocket.

In general, the older the suburbs, the more D-leaning they are. Kids who have never lived in places other than the suburbs are often workers at jobs paying near-minimum wages who have no stake in the low-wage, low-tax, low-regulation world of the GOP dream. When the suburbs are about 50 years old they generally tip from R to D. (About the only exception to that pattern is Milwaukee -- go figure).

Suburbs of Dallas, Fort Worth,  Phoenix, and Atlanta voted heavily R... and they are comparatively new.  Houston and Indianapolis have practically devoured their suburbs before they could form, so it is hard to make a political description of their suburbs (the suburban areas of those cities are fairly new). But the suburbs of Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, St. Louis, Kansas City, Seattle, and San Francisco are now old.   
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2015, 04:48:33 PM »

California has changed as a state a HECK of a lot more than the GOP has changed as a party during the time span since it was last competitive.  It's a waste of time.  This isn't the CA that elected Reagan; it's not even close.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2015, 10:19:20 PM »

sure a pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-immigration, pro-environment Republican could do well in CA. I wish more of those existed
Well Pro-Choice probably of the 3 of those that you named. Maybe middle of the road environmentally too.  The GOP is actually liberal on immigration its the 11 million people here in the US illegally that splits the party.
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2015, 10:26:15 PM »

sure a pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-immigration, pro-environment Republican could do well in CA. I wish more of those existed

Which is why we have Governor Kashkari.

Oh wait.

Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2015, 10:29:02 PM »

California shows what is wrong with the GOP to a greater degree than the rest of America. The Hispanic population is becoming more middle class, and by political logic that used to be solid, the Hispanic population should be turning increasingly Republican as it assimilates economically.

But despite assimilating into the middle class, the Hispanic population is not becoming increasingly Republican. As people get richer they generally develop more concern with taxes... but they are also concerned with the quality of life (pollution, traffic jams, public health) and with economic opportunity (closely linked to formal education).

One connection is to the aging of the suburbs. When the suburbs were fist built they were bastions of conservatism. Close enough to well-paying urban jobs but separated from urban problems (blight, crime), and still having a rural feel they first looked like small-town America with single-family houses as the norm. Even today, small-town America is heavily Republican. The suburbs had new infrastructure that cost little to maintain. But as Suburbia has aged, the infrastructure has become more costly to repair. Many tracts of single-family houses have been demolished for apartment complexes that generate traffic jams... and have demographics more typical of slums than of single-family houses.  School quality deteriorates (California is way below average in educational attainment) while educational costs skyrocket.

In general, the older the suburbs, the more D-leaning they are. Kids who have never lived in places other than the suburbs are often workers at jobs paying near-minimum wages who have no stake in the low-wage, low-tax, low-regulation world of the GOP dream. When the suburbs are about 50 years old they generally tip from R to D. (About the only exception to that pattern is Milwaukee -- go figure).

Suburbs of Dallas, Fort Worth,  Phoenix, and Atlanta voted heavily R... and they are comparatively new.  Houston and Indianapolis have practically devoured their suburbs before they could form, so it is hard to make a political description of their suburbs (the suburban areas of those cities are fairly new). But the suburbs of Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, St. Louis, Kansas City, Seattle, and San Francisco are now old.   

Genuine question. What are the statistics showing that Latinos are gradually becoming part of the middle class?
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2015, 10:29:59 PM »

When will we hear Rand's plan for flipping Hawai'i and D.C.?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2015, 10:32:56 PM »

California could be relatively close if the GOP became a sane center-right party instead of a bunch of nutjobs. Of course, that's not gonna happen (and Rand Paul is part of the problem).

The sane center-right types increasingly find themselves  irrelevant to the Republican Party. Just look at what it did to Bob Bennett in Utah and Richard Lugar in Indiana. Just note that elder statesman John Warner said of the Republican Party in Virginia.

The GOP is not going to get the message until it feels a left-populist backlash, especially in the South.       
The South is not even left-populist now economically.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2015, 10:38:47 PM »

I would think that ship sailed for good in 2010, if not 1992.
No, 1994 Feinstein almost lost her race for US Senate. The GOP won a majority in the States General Assembly for the 1995-1996 session.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2015, 10:46:42 PM »

He is trying to reach out to the black vote Wink.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 08, 2015, 10:49:33 PM »

California will eventually become a swing state - but the question is when. By default, given that Republicans must at some point within the next three decades expand their outreach to Latinos and other minority groups, California will become closer over time (or the Republicans are relegated to the minority status they enjoyed during the New Deal).

Let me try out a very far fetched hypothetical.

Whites: 50% - 62-36% Republican
African Americans: 10% - 89-10% Democratic
Asians: 13% - 54-45% Republican
Latinos: 27% - 38-61% Democratic

Result: GOP wins 49.28-49.22%

Very far fetched? Yes. Is there a very narrow path to California for a Republican? Yes. What's most interesting is that the white vote has dropped dramatically each presidential election. For Republicans to crack the Golden State, they need to expand their outreach and/or hope that minorities become wealthier and the party's social issues become less of an issue going forward. For example, Asians flipping to 61-38% Republican gives California a 2% Republican edge.

Obviously, Clinton will carry California by a healthy margin in 2016. This is merely a "thought experiment."

I'm three decades, California's demographics will look nothing like that.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 09, 2015, 01:10:54 AM »

California will eventually become a swing state - but the question is when. By default, given that Republicans must at some point within the next three decades expand their outreach to Latinos and other minority groups, California will become closer over time (or the Republicans are relegated to the minority status they enjoyed during the New Deal).

Let me try out a very far fetched hypothetical.

Whites: 50% - 62-36% Republican
African Americans: 10% - 89-10% Democratic
Asians: 13% - 54-45% Republican
Latinos: 27% - 38-61% Democratic

Result: GOP wins 49.28-49.22%

Very far fetched? Yes. Is there a very narrow path to California for a Republican? Yes. What's most interesting is that the white vote has dropped dramatically each presidential election. For Republicans to crack the Golden State, they need to expand their outreach and/or hope that minorities become wealthier and the party's social issues become less of an issue going forward. For example, Asians flipping to 61-38% Republican gives California a 2% Republican edge.

Obviously, Clinton will carry California by a healthy margin in 2016. This is merely a "thought experiment."

I'm three decades, California's demographics will look nothing like that.

Given that Latino voter turnout will likely remain considerably lower than their actual share of the population, it's closer, but 13% Asian electorate is ludicrously high for 2040 or whatever.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 09, 2015, 01:39:51 AM »

Let me try out a very far fetched hypothetical.

Whites: 50% - 62-36% Republican
African Americans: 10% - 89-10% Democratic
Asians: 13% - 54-45% Republican
Latinos: 27% - 38-61% Democratic

Result: GOP wins 49.28-49.22%


Not only would that mean a dramatic increase in non-whites, but whites as well.
For comparisons, Romney vote in CA in 2012 it was...
Whites: 55
African Americans: 3
Asians: 21
Latinos: 27

An election with your CA number's would already be an insanely huge landslide across the country.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 09, 2015, 01:55:31 AM »

California will eventually become a swing state - but the question is when. By default, given that Republicans must at some point within the next three decades expand their outreach to Latinos and other minority groups,

Why not start now?
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,930
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 09, 2015, 02:02:16 AM »

California will eventually become a swing state - but the question is when. By default, given that Republicans must at some point within the next three decades expand their outreach to Latinos and other minority groups, California will become closer over time (or the Republicans are relegated to the minority status they enjoyed during the New Deal).

Let me try out a very far fetched hypothetical.

Whites: 50% - 62-36% Republican
African Americans: 10% - 89-10% Democratic
Asians: 13% - 54-45% Republican
Latinos: 27% - 38-61% Democratic

Result: GOP wins 49.28-49.22%

Very far fetched? Yes. Is there a very narrow path to California for a Republican? Yes. What's most interesting is that the white vote has dropped dramatically each presidential election. For Republicans to crack the Golden State, they need to expand their outreach and/or hope that minorities become wealthier and the party's social issues become less of an issue going forward. For example, Asians flipping to 61-38% Republican gives California a 2% Republican edge.

Obviously, Clinton will carry California by a healthy margin in 2016. This is merely a "thought experiment."

That's not a realistic hypothetical, though. That is a higher number than Republican presidential candidates get nationwide. California isn't going to be a swing state barring realignment of some sort. It's sort of a moot point, anyway, since it's not essential to a winning strategy for Republicans.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.