Future of the California GOP in Gubernatorial Elections

[sterk001]

I'm new to the Atlas Community, and am a self described political scientist, and I have a question that I think I already know the answer to but just want everyone's opinions, but should the California GOP take a socially liberal and fiscally conservative (so more libertarian) approach to politics to become relevant again, or are they already dead and a new party needs to take it's place? I think I posted in the right category.

[libertpaulian]

Build a time machine, travel back to 1993-94ish, and advise Pete Wilson to tone it down with immigration in his campaign.

While California's drift to a D state was inevitable, the CAGOP could have at least staved off the decline and made CA like a Massachusetts, Maryland, or Vermont type state in which GOP governors could still get elected while D's get elected to the White House and the Senate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well I could see them have a chance in 2026 if this happens :


- Democrats win in 2020, and 2026

- Democrats move in a more anti big tech  direction (Especially statewide)

- GOP nominates a Charlie Baker type

[Skill and Chance]

Build a time machine, travel back to 1993-94ish, and advise Pete Wilson to tone it down with immigration in his campaign.

While California's drift to a D state was inevitable, the CAGOP could have at least staved off the decline and made CA like a Massachusetts, Maryland, or Vermont type state in which GOP governors could still get elected while D's get elected to the White House and the Senate.

They will eventually get a Charlie Baker type through, particularly once the Dem legislature is seen as safely veto-proof.  Newsom seems likely to really push the limits even in a liberal state, so whichever of 2022/26 is a Dem president midterm could be the opening.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

I think a better idea for the CA GOP would be to have someone like Falcouner run as an independent like Poizner did. It would have to be someone moderate, but politically experienced.

[StateBoiler]

I'm new to the Atlas Community, and am a self described political scientist, and I have a question that I think I already know the answer to but just want everyone's opinions, but should the California GOP take a socially liberal and fiscally conservative (so more libertarian) approach to politics to become relevant again, or are they already dead and a new party needs to take it's place? I think I posted in the right category.

The best foot forward is in races where 2 Democrats run, they form a unit and the discipline to vote for just one candidate, and convince their supporters they need to actually vote in the gubernatorial race. If they could do that, they're kingmakers and would force the 2 Democrats to come right to appeal to their voters which would be a largest voting bloc up for grabs. The Democratic Party voters in that scenario are more or less split, and you can't really encourage voting discipline in independent voters. But if you could in theory get all the Republicans in the state to vote for one Democratic candidate over the other, it'd be mighty hard for that candidate to lose.

There's some education that needs to take place of the California Republican Party telling Republican voters they must vote in every single race for the candidate that perceive is more Republican issues-friendly, even if no one has an R next to their name.

As far as "is the party dead?", someone needs to actually form these new parties and they need to get votes. The Democratic Party in my state for example is dead. There are large openings in places like California and Indiana and other states for people to form these new parties. No one has actually done so yet.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Another thing is the top two rule can lead to distinct state parties like in Canada.

[TheBeardedOne]

Only one person can take the CAGOP back to the promised land.

[sterk001]

Thanks for replying. I appreciate all your responses. Sorry for the late response, as I'm a college student.

But relating back to the main post, I really think the future of both parties is socially moderate/liberal with there being clear fiscal differences and views on government. In other words, this is because of the eventual urbanization of the country's population, which tends to bring closer contact with other people. To be clear, I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime, but the California GOP should be ahead of the nation in this mass urbanization, as most of the state's population lives within suburban and urban confines. So if they nominate a Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan type, would this mean that the future of the National GOP is looking to progress that way, or is it isolated?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Thanks for replying. I appreciate all your responses. Sorry for the late response, as I'm a college student.

But relating back to the main post, I really think the future of both parties is socially moderate/liberal with there being clear fiscal differences and views on government. In other words, this is because of the eventual urbanization of the country's population, which tends to bring closer contact with other people. To be clear, I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime, but the California GOP should be ahead of the nation in this mass urbanization, as most of the state's population lives within suburban and urban confines. So if they nominate a Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan type, would this mean that the future of the National GOP is looking to progress that way, or is it isolated?

The problem is Suburban Republicans in CA are very right wing as well

[sterk001]

That's true. The suburban Republicans are pretty conservative, although I know a lot of them are turned off by Trump. A friend had a neighborhood bloc party, and it turned into a Trump bashing session, so they are turned off by Trump (he lives in the suburbs). I live in a mostly exurban area in San Diego county, so it's more conservative but there's a lot of farming and I live exactly where the suburbs end and the rural part begins.

[lfromnj]

One thing that dooms the California GOP along with MO dems is constitutional amendments on the ballot.

Sure moderate orange county voters may dislike certain stuff D's do like the gas tax but then they can just vote against it on the ballot. Its the same with the MO dems and RTW/minimum wage increase. When you support those #populist policies but want RW justices you can just vote for Hawley and the increases on the ballots.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

One thing that dooms the California GOP along with MO dems is constitutional amendments on the ballot.

Sure moderate orange county voters may dislike certain stuff D's do like the gas tax but then they can just vote against it on the ballot. Its the same with the MO dems and RTW/minimum wage increase. When you support those #populist policies but want RW justices you can just vote for Hawley and the increases on the ballots.

Didn’t work for them in 2018. Maybe 2022?

[DINGO Joe]

NA

[QAnonKelly]

They need to find a young moderate in the state leg or a DA or something and start investing in him or her. It will probably be 26 or 30 before they actually stand a chance unless Newsom manages to screw something up badly but that’s plenty of time to get someone ready for it. The question is if they want to be more moderate like some of the other blue state GOPs who do well in gubernatorial elections like in MA and VT which seems unlikely at this juncture.

[UWS]

I guess that the resurrection of the California GOP might require Kevin Faulconer running for Governor in 2022, for example.

[Kevin]

The CA GOP(and indeed the Republican Parties in states like NY, CT, and VA) is locked out of office so long as Trump is President.

[rob in cal]

  In terms of kingmaker and using the top two system to have a role, in 2016 in the US Senate race I think GOP voters really missed to boat in terms of not massively backing Sanchez over Harris. Instead, according to exit polls, 44% of self described conservatives backed Harris. Bring that number down to about 14% and we might have a new senator. (Of course would a perceived GOP Sanchez alliance have galvanized liberal support even more for Harris? Perhaps but Harris was already getting the lions share of liberal voters anyway.

[Oryxslayer]

 In terms of kingmaker and using the top two system to have a role, in 2016 in the US Senate race I think GOP voters really missed to boat in terms of not massively backing Sanchez over Harris. Instead, according to exit polls, 44% of self described conservatives backed Harris. Bring that number down to about 14% and we might have a new senator. (Of course would a perceived GOP Sanchez alliance have galvanized liberal support even more for Harris? Perhaps but Harris was already getting the lions share of liberal voters anyway.

Couple problems with this line of thought:

1 - Sanchez was shown to be a god awful candidate during the debates and the general campaign. Her campaign may have got more GOP voters if she was actually seen as someone who could win, rather then someone who self-sacrificed herself.

2 - Why should the GOP whip their voters to support a dem? You're not going to get one party to line up behind anothers candidate unless you spend precious resources to advertise and activate your voters. If Dems try and campaign off GOP voters, they will miss the lions share thanks to polarization. The other option that gets one party to line up behind another was seen in 2018. Feinstein was a known controversial liberal, so the GOP lined up behind the more left De Leon. Feinstein in this situation had tons of conservative scrutiny over Kavanaugh, so the ads and 'whipping' were more or less free.

And what happens if they whip their voters? Another dem goes into the senate from a blue state, takes up Shumers whip, and will win reelection in 6 years off the Dem supermajority among voters.

3 - Why should conservatives vote for a Dem? You're casting a ballot for someone who won't hold your views, and won't respect your opinions. Lets go back to 2018, which saw GOP voters motivated to simply cast a dissident vote against Feinstein. 12,464,235 people voted for Gov, compared to 11,113,364 people for senate. Over one million conservatives left the ballot blank, which would be the more rational option. Hell, the Insurance Commisioner race, with Poizner as a psudo-GOP'er got 650K more votes then the senate race - despite its position far down the ballot.

Now you might say something like this is a national senate race, perhaps the GOP supports dems locally they might foster a crossbench similar to NY's IDC. The problem with this though is that the seats that see top-two dem races are all Deep blue - the place where GOP support dooms candidates rather than lifts them up.

The problem facing the CAGOP is that there seems to be no way out of the death spiral. Poizner was the finger in the wind - a popular former incumbent against a more radical dem, in a race far enough down the ballot for ignorant Dems to drop off. There ended up being enough lockstep dem votes to put Lara in government, basically saying that the Baker route is mathematically closed here.  Sure, the dems might screw up like OK/KS Rs or CT/MD Ds - but the blue moon governor is a situation that can occur in all states. On the other hand, the GOP won't die, they have a loyal but shrinking 30% base in the Far East/North/Inland South. A realignment won't save them - the modern Dem party revolves around CA so much that Clinton had to come back for cash every now and again in 2016. Its now a majority-minority state, and the GOP won't win races until they start winning minorities.

[Mike Thick]

There's really not much they can do unless Newsom becomes the West Coast version of Dan Malloy

[Don Vito Corleone]

There's really not much they can do unless Newsom becomes the West Coast version of Dan Malloy

Even then I think they'd lose (See: OK-GOV 2018, CT-GOV 2018).

[DrScholl]

They would have to shut Democrats out of the top two to really have a chance. Other than that they'd have to have an exceptional candidate against a terrible Democrat.

[_]

Wait the CA GOP has a future?

[Progressive Pessimist]

There's really not much they can do unless Newsom becomes the West Coast version of Dan Malloy

Even then I think they'd lose (See: OK-GOV 2018, CT-GOV 2018).

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Wait the CA GOP has a future?

Wait, there's still a CA GOP?