did George W Bush drag down republicans with him in CA 2000?

[freepcrusher]

George W Bush on the ballot probably helped republicans everywhere - except for CA it seems. The state was one that Bush was supposed to win as no candidate had ever won an election without winning CA. What's more is that the state had been rapidly gaining EVs. When his dad ran in 88, they only had 47 EVs. Now they had 54. The California Rs lost four us house seats that year.

The 49th district was the northside of San Diego. Bilbray was a strong incumbent who took the right positions on issues but it seemed that George W Bush, who only got 44% in the district, dragged him down and he ended up losing.

The 27th District was in the San Gabriel Valley and hadn't elected a democrat since the end of the great depression. Nevertheless, Jim Rogan lost to state senator Adam Schiff.

Jane Harman also retook her us house seat and the dems recaptured the 15th. The 36th was actually fairly close but the 15th was an inevitable pickup as Campbell was the only republican who could win that seat.

Steve Horn who represented a Long Beach based district had a close call. David Dreier and Elton Gallegly also got below their usual performances in their districts as Gore narrowly carried both of them.

Tom Campbell, who vacated the 15th, ran for the senate and was supposed to be the strongest candidate. Yet he lost by nearly 20 points and even lost his home district.

Interestingly enough, the 20th district was one where Bush helped the ticket. It was a strongly dem district and had given Dukakis 53% twelve years earlier. Yet Gore only won the district by 2-3 points. The incumbent Cal Dooley, had survived 1994 and was a strong incumbent. He also was well to the right of most CA Democrats. Yet he had a close call in 2000.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Carter and JFK won without California. California's swing was due to the fact that it was trending D, not because it hated Bush in particular.

[Username MechaRFK]

California was D by the time Bush was nominated as president. Farther back, it was 1992 that change  California from a R state to D state.

[Antonio the Sixth]

California was D by the time Bush was nominated as president. Farther back, it was 1992 that change  California from a R state to D state.

No, CA was already more dem than the country since 1984.

[Napoleon]

California was D by the time Bush was nominated as president. Farther back, it was 1992 that change  California from a R state to D state.

No, CA was already more dem than the country since 1984.

That doesn't matter at all!

[Antonio the Sixth]

California was D by the time Bush was nominated as president. Farther back, it was 1992 that change  California from a R state to D state.

No, CA was already more dem than the country since 1984.

That doesn't matter at all!

*facepalm*

[Napoleon]

California was D by the time Bush was nominated as president. Farther back, it was 1992 that change  California from a R state to D state.

No, CA was already more dem than the country since 1984.

That doesn't matter at all!

*facepalm*

You aren't taking into account the relevant factors such as how many swing voters are in a state. Imagine a state that is 51% Democrat in 2004 and 2008. Suddenly a Republican state in 2008? No, not at all.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

It was trending D in the 1980s. Reagan (and his coattails in 1988), are what kept it in the R column.

[Jerseyrules]

It was trending D in the 1980s. Reagan (and his coattails in 1988), are what kept it in the R column.

Yes but the original question was if the state and local elections were effected; states like Rhode Island and Vermont were the same way yet still managed to elect many a GOP governor and representative, and in Delawere held the state legislature for many years.  Now were a stronger GOP candidate to win the nomination, maybe lose the state but by a smaller margin, then perhaps the closer HOR and senate races would have tightened in favor of the GOP