In 1984 California “voted” Dem!!

[Shira]

President Regan won the 1984 election by a landslide 58.77:40.56 but in CA he got “only” 57.51% which is 1.16% below his national victory. To the elections gurus, this is a clear sign that CA was basically a Dem state already in 1984. In 1988 Bush Sr. also won in CA but this time he was 2.24% below his nationwide number. In 2000 Bush Jr. was in CA 6.35% below his nationwide and Gore easily won there.

These numbers are the best indicators to asses the real strength of a party in a specified state. It totally eliminates the impact of a nationwide strong victory and/or the participation of a third party, since we are dealing with differences and not with the absolute numbers. These numbers are not looking good for bush in FL.

In 2004 Bush can take CA if he wins nationwide by a margin of 57:43. In this case Kerry will still win in NY, RI, MA, CT, HI, MD, and VT.

I strongly recommend looking into these numbers when you try to analyze or predict outcomes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't understand why Republicans even talk about winning California. It's not going to happen. Oh but wait, they elected Arnold! That proves they'll vote for Bush! </sarcasm>

[Shira]

Prediction: Bush numbers in WI will be better then in FL.

In close election the most important factor is the makup of the population in the state.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Prediction: Bush numbers in WI will be better then in FL.

In close election the most important factor is the makup of the population in the state.

I doubt this...just because a trend in a state has exisited in the past doesn't mean it will continue in the future.  Florida became increasingly Democratic during the 1990's, but the 2002 election seems to indicate that that trend has stalled.    

I also don't think Kerry has much appeal to Southern or Hispanic voters, and he seems likely to take a running mate who will appeal to the Midwest.

[classical liberal]

The 2002 election did not indicate that the trend had stalled.  The 2002 election indicated that while the state is trending left, a popular rightist governor can still win big on popularity alone.

[WalterMitty]

pete wilson f'ed up the republicans electoral chances in california.  only now, 10 years later, arnold is slowly mending some of the damage.

[© tweed]

1988 was the transition year for California.  IT only went for Bush by 3%.

[classical liberal]

pete wilson f'ed up the republicans electoral chances in california.  only now, 10 years later, arnold is slowly mending some of the damage.

arnold is as much a republican as sebelius is a democrat in the national sense.  there may be some slowing to the leftward drift, but SF and LA are getting more liberal and more populous regardless.

[WalterMitty]

pete wilson and the anti immigration republicans RUINED california for the republicans.

arnold cant mend all the damage, but it's a step in the right direction.  i do expect the gop to bounce back (at least on the state level) in cali.  (just keep pete wilson and mike huffington away fromt he controls)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The 2002 election did not indicate that the trend had stalled.  The 2002 election indicated that while the state is trending left, a popular rightist governor can still win big on popularity alone.

Arnold definatley isn't rightist. Even calling him center-right is a stretch.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

pete wilson and the anti immigration republicans RUINED california for the republicans.

arnold cant mend all the damage, but it's a step in the right direction.  i do expect the gop to bounce back (at least on the state level) in cali.  (just keep pete wilson and mike huffington away fromt he controls)

The GOP will never hold California again, at least not until the next alignment.

Pete Wilson did a lot of harm, but the main reason California has shifted into solidly Dem control is the suburban shift. Because of this Orange county and suburban San Diego no longer give the GOP the massive margins they use to get, Los Angeles county votes even more Democratic, and the Bay Area is as Democratic as can be. The Republicans can't cancel out LA and the Bay Area because their one time strongholds have greatly weakened. In today's California, Dukakis would've won easily.

[classical liberal]

The 2002 election did not indicate that the trend had stalled.  The 2002 election indicated that while the state is trending left, a popular rightist governor can still win big on popularity alone.

Arnold definatley isn't rightist. Even calling him center-right is a stretch.

i was referring to jeb, not arnold.

[12th Doctor]

Prediction: Bush numbers in WI will be better then in FL.

In close election the most important factor is the makup of the population in the state.

I doubt this...just because a trend in a state has exisited in the past doesn't mean it will continue in the future.  Florida became increasingly Democratic during the 1990's, but the 2002 election seems to indicate that that trend has stalled.    

I also don't think Kerry has much appeal to Southern or Hispanic voters, and he seems likely to take a running mate who will appeal to the Midwest.

I agree with you there Nick.  Kerry will have a tougher time in FL than Gore did for two reasons:

1) Bush won't make the mistake of taking for granted 2 weeks before the election that he has Florida won.  Bush won't piss his last week away in New Jersey and California like he did last time around.

2) The GOP ground will be better there this time around.

The fact is that in a close election, ground game is the determining factor.  Bush is already way ahead of Kerry here and in many other states when it comes to that factor.  I think also that Jeb's victory in 2002 doesn't look good for the Dems, especially since they were braging, a week before the election that that seat was theirs.

[Storebought]

Could it be that CA is more Democrat because the Republicans left?

California's population grew enough during the 1990s that it added a new congressional seat in reapportionment. However, that masks the fact some 800,000+ white, mostly middle class, mostly Republican, Californians fled from the state at the same time. Illinois is undergoing the same Republican flight, except in IL's case no one is replacing them.

We all talk about "suburb liberalization", but there is a significant "exurb conservatization" that is occuring at the same time.

[classical liberal]

but the population of said exurbs doesn't come close to cancelling out the liberalization of the suburbs.

[Shira]

You are right on target. Migration is a significant factor which should  seriously be taken.

[Storebought]

but the population of said exurbs doesn't come close to cancelling out the liberalization of the suburbs.

In the sense that old liberal suburbs have representation while new, growing exurbs don't, then yes.

But the fact that (conservative) people are fleeing, say, hellaciously expensive Nassau County NY for their own patch of scrub brush in AZ or Placer County CA is undeniable. And, in time, those barren exurbs will have representation in Congress, while the liberal suburbs will lose theirs.

[Shira]

The migrating population to Florida is different then the existing one.

There is substantial migration from NY, CT, and MA to FL. If you randomly pick someone from these migrants there is 65% chance that this person is voting Dem.

[??????????]

The migrating population to Florida is different then the existing one.

There is substantial migration from NY, CT, and MA to FL. If you randomly pick someone from these migrants there is 65% chance that this person is voting Dem.

Maybe to South Florida. But most of the ones around here come from Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and most of the rust belt states. The New Yorkers and other such Yankees usually head to Miami/Dade area.