why didn't California start voting democratic up ticket until the 90s?

[freepcrusher]

Down ticket, California has always been a democratic state for the past 50 years. The legislature has almost always had democratic majorities with a few exception here and there. Republicans haven't controlled both legislative chambers since 1955-1956.

But this never translated into success in presidential elections. In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly lost the state to Ford. But in the legislature, there were more democrats than there are now. They had a 26-14 Senate majority (65%) and a 57-23 assembly majority (71%).

Why did it take so long for California to flip up-ticket?

[DrScholl]

There's a lot behind those numbers. Republicans could compete in Los Angeles County and the Bay Area, while Democrats were playing well in the Central Valley and some of the Gold Country. Democrats did well in the legislature with a different pattern of winning and just continued to maintain control even with the changes in the electoral. Democratic and Republican strength shifted to different places.

[Antonio the Sixth]

California is more democratic than the nation overall since 1984. That means in a tied election, Mondale would have picked it despite being his opponent's home State.

Just like Vermont, California's shift toward democrats has happened sooner than people usually think.

[phk]

Basically what set the stage was an outflux of conservatives in the early 1990s with the scaling of the defense industry.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Basically it was sociially libertarian and then when Pete Wilson made a law against illegal immigrants that was right when the time Mexicans were moving in and it made it a democratic state.

[DS0816]

Republican Party was a different one from what it is now. After World War II, Calfornia produced two Republican U.S. presidents: 1968 and 1972 Richard Nixon and 1980 and 1984 Ronald Reagan.

We should keep this in mind: During the 20th century, California voted with the presidential winner in all but three: 1912 Woodrow Wilson (D), with the state voting for Theodore Roosevelt (P); 1960 John Kennedy (D), who was erroneously called the state's winner on election night when it barely carried for home son Richard Nixon (R); and 1976 Jimmy Carter (D), when the state held by under 2% for Gerald Ford (R).

[Sbane]

The Democrats in California changed. Back in the day the central valley was the Democratic stronghold, just like the American south, and these two regions voted similarly in ways. While the central valley started voting Republican for President, it continued to vote in Democrats to lower offices. I believe a Democrat represented a white central valley district up till 1994.

At the same time the Bay Area and Los Angeles used to vote more Republican, but these places have been trending Democrat for a while now. I don't think ticket splitting happened as much here, so if they voted for a Democrat for President, they would vote similarly down ballot. This meant that a time came when Republicans did well in Presidential races, as they did very well in the central valley and decently enough in the urban areas. At the same time, those central valley areas that were voting Republican upticket, weren't voting as such downballot and the newly Democratic areas in the cities were also electing Democrats downballot.

[Beet]

Well let's see, you're really only talking about the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and in those 30 years, there were only 1960, 1968, and 1976 as competitive elections. All the other ones were landslides. And in those elections, in two of them, Richard Nixon, a Californian, was on the ticket. So you're only really talking about 1976. My guess is that Jimmy Carter wasn't the right kind of Democrat for California.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It helped that between 1952 and 1984 (9 elections), only twice did the Republican ticket not feature a Californian (1964 and 1976). As it happened, the Republicans lost California only once during that period (coincidentally, 1964; and yes, I know that the Republicans would have lost California in any case).

[RI]

It helped that between 1952 and 1984 (9 elections), only once did the Republican ticket not feature a Californian (1964), also the only time during that period that the Republicans lost the state (yes, I know that the Republicans would have lost California in any case).

What about 1976?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It helped that between 1952 and 1984 (9 elections), only once did the Republican ticket not feature a Californian (1964), also the only time during that period that the Republicans lost the state (yes, I know that the Republicans would have lost California in any case).

What about 1976?

Oh, right, sorry. I'll fix that. Still, the Republicans featured a Californian 7 times in 9 elections.

(I'm not counting 1948, because even though Dewey's running mate, Earl Warren, was from California, Truman won the state. Still, he only won by less than 1%.)

[phk]

The Democrats in California changed. Back in the day the central valley was the Democratic stronghold, just like the American south, and these two regions voted similarly in ways. While the central valley started voting Republican for President, it continued to vote in Democrats to lower offices. I believe a Democrat represented a white central valley district up till 1994.

I lived in that district at the time he was voted out. The Democrat barely survived in 1992 and was probably the most DOA come 1994.

The best a Democrat has done since than was 1994 itself when the incumbent D received 39.64% of the vote. Next closest was 39.4% in 2006 and that involved spending a few millions coupled with a wave to achieve that result.

But yeah, Beet is basically on target.

California would have flipped in 1988 had Dukakis not imploded.

[DrScholl]

That Central Valley Democrat, Richard Lehman was originally given gerrymandered district which went from Fresno to Stockton, including the most Democratic precincts. When it became more compact, Lehman was done. It was surprising he won in 1992, as the district was quite Republican. A Democrat in the Assembly, Margaret Snyder also went down in 1994, further solidifying the shift in the Central Valley.

[phk]

That Central Valley Democrat, Richard Lehman was originally given gerrymandered district which went from Fresno to Stockton, including the most Democratic precincts. When it became more compact, Lehman was done. It was surprising he won in 1992, as the district was quite Republican. A Democrat in the Assembly, Margaret House also went down in 1994, further solidifying the shift in the Central Valley.

His survival in 1992 is interesting considering it was a Bush +5 district.

[phk]

California is more democratic than the nation overall since 1984. That means in a tied election, Mondale would have picked it despite being his opponent's home State.

Just like Vermont, California's shift toward democrats has happened sooner than people usually think.

Btw, this universal swing stuff that comes up constantly on this forum isn't exactly true.

Some state's voting habits are more swingable and more elastic at certain %'s. But I do agree that California would be razor-think for anybody in 1984 assuming a tied election.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

California is more democratic than the nation overall since 1984. That means in a tied election, Mondale would have picked it despite being his opponent's home State.

Just like Vermont, California's shift toward democrats has happened sooner than people usually think.

Btw, this universal swing stuff that comes up constantly on this forum isn't exactly true.

Some state's voting habits are more swingable and more elastic at certain %'s. But I do agree that California would be razor-think for anybody in 1984 assuming a tied election.

Yes, indeed. Even if the nation did swing 18 points, that wouldn't mean that California would swing 18 points.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Universal swing may not be 100% perfect, but it's the only tool we have to get a somewhat clear idea of what is really a democratic and a republican State.

[phk]

Universal swing may not be 100% perfect, but it's the only tool we have to get a somewhat clear idea of what is really a democratic and a republican State.

I was thinking of actually seeing elasticities of states wrt to the nation on average to gauge their sensitivity.

Regression results can be useful too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Universal swing may not be 100% perfect, but it's the only tool we have to get a somewhat clear idea of what is really a democratic and a republican State without having to do an awfully long, complicated and boring work for every damn State.

I was thinking of actually seeing elasticities of states wrt to the nation on average to gauge their sensitivity.

Regression results can be useful too.

Ok, fixed.

[Mechaman]

I'm going with the Ajax Theorem.

[phk]

Universal swing may not be 100% perfect, but it's the only tool we have to get a somewhat clear idea of what is really a democratic and a republican State without having to do an awfully long, complicated and boring work for every damn State.

I was thinking of actually seeing elasticities of states wrt to the nation on average to gauge their sensitivity.

Regression results can be useful too.

Ok, fixed.

Not that hard or complicated if you have a spreadsheet with 5 columns.

State %D, National %D, Change in State%D, Change in D, Change in State D% divded by Change in National %D.

So we have:

1 = unit elastic.

x > 1 is elastic. Anything higher than 1 is more sensitive than the national swing. Where the "trend" as defined on this site occurs.

x < 1 is inelastic. Anything lower than 1 is less elastic than the country.

A


You could also do this for Republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I still find it slightly more complicated than a substraction.

[phk]

The Democrats in California changed. Back in the day the central valley was the Democratic stronghold, just like the American south, and these two regions voted similarly in ways. While the central valley started voting Republican for President, it continued to vote in Democrats to lower offices. I believe a Democrat represented a white central valley district up till 1994.

The South Valley flipped in the 1950s to the GOP, even though national landslides obscure it the rest of the Valley flipped in the 1980s.

Fresno lasted up until 1992.