Will California, Washington or Oregon ever vote Republican?

[Rob]

Gordon Smith?

He lost.

[War on Want]

Gordon Smith?

He lost.

After pushing hard to the left too.

[Dan the Roman]

What no one mentions is that the Washington GOP, or at least its base, has a strong evangelical component. Going libetarianish is not really going to help. The suburbs are voting Democrat not because they are socially libertarian but because they are socially liberal, and contrary to the views of online libertarians there is a significant difference(ie. the Gay Rights movement long ago ceased being libertarian). On the other hand there a lot of socially Conservative voters that can be lost too.

The real problem for the GOP is that the voters a successful candidate needs to appeal to are so broad that no one person can satisfy all of them. This is the same problem the party has in New Hampshire. Could more than 50% vote for a Republican? Yes. Could a single Republican get over 50%? Unlikely to impossible.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Arnold would be able to win oregon if he would run other than that, the GOP is toast in Oregon.

[War on Want]

What no one mentions is that the Washington GOP, or at least its base, has a strong evangelical component. Going libetarianish is not really going to help. The suburbs are voting Democrat not because they are socially libertarian but because they are socially liberal, and contrary to the views of online libertarians there is a significant difference(ie. the Gay Rights movement long ago ceased being libertarian). On the other hand there a lot of socially Conservative voters that can be lost too.

The real problem for the GOP is that the voters a successful candidate needs to appeal to are so broad that no one person can satisfy all of them. This is the same problem the party has in New Hampshire. Could more than 50% vote for a Republican? Yes. Could a single Republican get over 50%? Unlikely to impossible.

I know loads of evangelicals that are of the same type as eastern Washington ones. They wouldn't vote for a democrat just because the republican is a little socially liberal in the West. Sure they wouldn't enthusiastically vote for the republican but they would still do it.

Evangelicals in the West are a completley different breed than those in the South. Along with having far-right social views, they generally have Goldwater-esque views on the economy, and military. There are differences where you are at but I can confidently say that if Romney or someone similar to him was nominated most evangelicals in the West could stomach voting for him over the communist, Islamic, fascist, homosexual loving Obama. It would be a different story in the South, where people would just stay home.

[Citizen James]

not in my lifetime. I'm convinced they're all lost causes.

Oh, come now - your profile says you're only 21.  You could easily live past 2060 or even 2080.  A mere two decades ago California seemed pretty safe Republican - it had gone that way for the past 6 elections.  Although 4 of those had Californians at the top of the ticket, we still supported Ford '76 and Bush '88.

Within my lifetime (and I am not 'an old' except in the context of this board) Mississippi and Massachusetts actually voted for the same candidate (Carter, 1976)

Things change.  It can be interesting to speculate on trends, but taking certainty about social trends is foolish.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Probably not. West Coast is getting more and more blue since 1984 and it seems that this trend will continue for a few time.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Probably not. West Coast is getting more and more blue since 1984 and it seems that this trend will continue for a few time.

Here, if it is getting more blue, it is getting more Rep.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, sorry. I was still talking with traditionnal colors.

[pogo stick]

Cali =No
Wash = Maybe
Oregon = Gordon Smith for president?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Smith isn't even able to win his home State's Senate Election !

[Citizen James]

Ever is a very, very long time.

Within the next few cycles (2012,2016,2020) - probably not.  But 50-100 years from now - that's a lot harder to guess.  Demographics change, as do party positions.  A century ago the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives.

Things change.   I would think fellow students/enthusiasts of American political history would recognize that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ever is a very, very long time.

Within the next few cycles (2012,2016,2020) - probably not.  But 50-100 years from now - that's a lot harder to guess.  Demographics change, as do party positions.  A century ago the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives.

Things change.   I would think fellow students/enthusiasts of American political history would recognize that.

Obviously.

[Psychic Octopus]

Its possible that the GOP can pick up Oregon sometime, They'd just have to work very hard (See Indiana) as for Washington, I think that's a bit of stretch right now. California will have to see some major revelations in the next few decades to vote Republican. Perhaps if we get a good strong Republican governor  elected in 2010 who becomes extremely popular with latinos and independents it can be done one day, but the GOP will have quite some work to do before it happens.   

[DS0816]

Its possible that the GOP can pick up Oregon sometime, They'd just have to work very hard (See Indiana) as for Washington, I think that's a bit of stretch right now. California will have to see some major revelations in the next few decades to vote Republican. Perhaps if we get a good strong Republican governor  elected in 2010 who becomes extremely popular with latinos and independents it can be done one day, but the GOP will have quite some work to do before it happens.   

…Which means a change in the Republican Party's platform. Big changes!