Talk Elections

THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA ELECTORATE (PART 1):
LARGE-SCALE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA’S ELECTORATE FROM WHAT IT WAS THIRTY YEARS AGO. (http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2309.pdf)

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. :)

THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA ELECTORATE (PART 2):
VOTERS, ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATS, HAVE BECOME MORE SOCIALLY TOLERANT ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES OVER THE PAST THREE DECADES. (http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2310.pdf)

() (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/3763w5pollxlgraphicprod.gif/)

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.

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?

I am really surprised by the results of the Republicans.

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

- 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

Subtract 0.5% from the %Asian/other, and you have %Asian...

"Crime" is (http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/bot/propaganda/images/willie_horton_ad.gif) 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.

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.

Carry Los Angeles? Maybe you meant "Keep LA County within ten points" or something.

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.

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.

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.