Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 17, 2019, 10:26:52 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Silurian)
  Future of the California GOP in Gubernatorial Elections
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Future of the California GOP in Gubernatorial Elections  (Read 1992 times)
Joshua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,483
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2019, 03:56:23 am »

I think there is a chance the Republicans could win with a Charlie Baker/Larry Hogan style candidate. And maybe that is with Kevin Faulconer. But I don't see any transcendent CAGOP figure that totally fits that mold yet. And to do it, it has to be in a 2014 style electorate where absolutely no one is voting and it's the sixth year of a Democratic president with middling to poor approvals.

But in terms of how much actual influence on governing they'd have depends on how the redistricting commission draws the new legislative maps in 2020. If they're anything similar to the existing maps, Democrats have locked in a veto-proof majority indefinitely. The rural packing is getting too extreme for the CAGOP.

And believe it or not, the GOP still has their asses hanging out on a handful of State Senate seats that are up in 2020 (districts 21, 23, 29, 37). And could theoretically bleed a handful more State Assembly seats in 2020, although I can't really see there being a total net change in either direction of more than a seat or two.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2019, 04:46:17 am »

Just stunning this was the same state Conservative Republicans(Arnold is more moderate than Today's GOP but hes not more moderate compared to earlier Republicans who were considered Conservatives like Pete Wilson and even Reagan) held the Gubernatorial Office for 31/44 years from 1966-2010 and a period of 16 consecutive years from 1982-1998
Logged
smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,291
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2019, 06:35:33 am »
« Edited: January 30, 2019, 06:39:09 am by smoltchanov »

Just stunning this was the same state Conservative Republicans(Arnold is more moderate than Today's GOP but hes not more moderate compared to earlier Republicans who were considered Conservatives like Pete Wilson and even Reagan) held the Gubernatorial Office for 31/44 years from 1966-2010 and a period of 16 consecutive years from 1982-1998

In 1960th-1970th there were Republicans, like state Senator Peter Behr, who were substantially more liberal, then most Democrats. Where they are now (not personally, of course, but likeminded people)Huh??
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2019, 11:29:00 am »

Just stunning this was the same state Conservative Republicans(Arnold is more moderate than Today's GOP but hes not more moderate compared to earlier Republicans who were considered Conservatives like Pete Wilson and even Reagan) held the Gubernatorial Office for 31/44 years from 1966-2010 and a period of 16 consecutive years from 1982-1998

In 1960th-1970th there were Republicans, like state Senator Peter Behr, who were substantially more liberal, then most Democrats. Where they are now (not personally, of course, but likeminded people)Huh??

Yes but still the ones who the gubernatorial races were solid Conservatives
Logged
Flyersfan232
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 452


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2019, 11:52:44 am »

I think there is a chance the Republicans could win with a Charlie Baker/Larry Hogan style candidate. And maybe that is with Kevin Faulconer. But I don't see any transcendent CAGOP figure that totally fits that mold yet. And to do it, it has to be in a 2014 style electorate where absolutely no one is voting and it's the sixth year of a Democratic president with middling to poor approvals.

But in terms of how much actual influence on governing they'd have depends on how the redistricting commission draws the new legislative maps in 2020. If they're anything similar to the existing maps, Democrats have locked in a veto-proof majority indefinitely. The rural packing is getting too extreme for the CAGOP.

And believe it or not, the GOP still has their asses hanging out on a handful of State Senate seats that are up in 2020 (districts 21, 23, 29, 37). And could theoretically bleed a handful more State Assembly seats in 2020, although I can't really see there being a total net change in either direction of more than a seat or two.
no one who isnt a dem is winning anything statewide in California no matter what.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2019, 11:55:13 am »

I think there is a chance the Republicans could win with a Charlie Baker/Larry Hogan style candidate. And maybe that is with Kevin Faulconer. But I don't see any transcendent CAGOP figure that totally fits that mold yet. And to do it, it has to be in a 2014 style electorate where absolutely no one is voting and it's the sixth year of a Democratic president with middling to poor approvals.

But in terms of how much actual influence on governing they'd have depends on how the redistricting commission draws the new legislative maps in 2020. If they're anything similar to the existing maps, Democrats have locked in a veto-proof majority indefinitely. The rural packing is getting too extreme for the CAGOP.

And believe it or not, the GOP still has their asses hanging out on a handful of State Senate seats that are up in 2020 (districts 21, 23, 29, 37). And could theoretically bleed a handful more State Assembly seats in 2020, although I can't really see there being a total net change in either direction of more than a seat or two.
no one who isnt a dem is winning anything statewide in California no matter what.


Presidential level and in the senate sure


But other than that it will happen sometime in the next 6-18 years
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2019, 02:54:38 pm »

I think there is a chance the Republicans could win with a Charlie Baker/Larry Hogan style candidate. And maybe that is with Kevin Faulconer. But I don't see any transcendent CAGOP figure that totally fits that mold yet. And to do it, it has to be in a 2014 style electorate where absolutely no one is voting and it's the sixth year of a Democratic president with middling to poor approvals.

But in terms of how much actual influence on governing they'd have depends on how the redistricting commission draws the new legislative maps in 2020. If they're anything similar to the existing maps, Democrats have locked in a veto-proof majority indefinitely. The rural packing is getting too extreme for the CAGOP.

And believe it or not, the GOP still has their asses hanging out on a handful of State Senate seats that are up in 2020 (districts 21, 23, 29, 37). And could theoretically bleed a handful more State Assembly seats in 2020, although I can't really see there being a total net change in either direction of more than a seat or two.
no one who isnt a dem is winning anything statewide in California no matter what.


Presidential level and in the senate sure


But other than that it will happen sometime in the next 6-18 years

If you missed my big in depth dive, I concluded that this route is basically shut. Poizner was the finger in the wind, he had everything right going for him: Independent affiliation to drive his separation from the pubs, personal strength with Silicon Valley whites AND minorities, a former record of success to campaign on, endorsements form democratic leaning groups and newspapers, a opponent who was on the far left so Poizner could take mainstream Liberal positions like defending and expanding Obamacare, and a campaign that was based on his opponents positions like single payer, I can go on about the list of things in his favor. Poizer Lost. There are just too many lock-step Democrats.

Poizner probably would have won in a year like 2014, but that shows just how narrow that path is. The candidate needs to have everything, and I mean everything, go right plus a favorable environment to win. Oh and they can't be a Republican, or else the dems will just see the candidate as a friend of the national republicans exclusionary policies.

I mean sure, the once-in-a-blue-moon governor could arrive if dems drive the state into the toilet, but that is always a threat in any state, no matter how partisan. Every other route has worse then 1 in a hundred odds.
Logged
smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,291
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2019, 03:41:05 am »

Just stunning this was the same state Conservative Republicans(Arnold is more moderate than Today's GOP but hes not more moderate compared to earlier Republicans who were considered Conservatives like Pete Wilson and even Reagan) held the Gubernatorial Office for 31/44 years from 1966-2010 and a period of 16 consecutive years from 1982-1998

In 1960th-1970th there were Republicans, like state Senator Peter Behr, who were substantially more liberal, then most Democrats. Where they are now (not personally, of course, but likeminded people)Huh??

Yes but still the ones who the gubernatorial races were solid Conservatives

Of course. But since then a lot of factors changed. Demographic composition of state first of all: it's much less white (non Hispanic) now, then it was then. When i read in my first edition of "The Almanac of American politics", that very conservative Republican congressman of that time Del Clawson is former mayor of Compton, and try to imagine something similar now - my imagination simply fails. The "white flight" of conservative families to Idaho or Utah is almost complete now. The set of "priority issues" changed too: economy and crime (with addition of "race riots") were almost first among them in 1960th-1970th, while abortions or "gay marriage" (plus - environment, including water) - almost surely were not. And a lot of other factors. But, it seems, California Republicans still live in 1960s, with Reagan's "law and order" approach being the pillar. 
Logged
smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,291
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2019, 03:45:05 am »
« Edited: January 31, 2019, 03:48:34 am by smoltchanov »

I think there is a chance the Republicans could win with a Charlie Baker/Larry Hogan style candidate. And maybe that is with Kevin Faulconer. But I don't see any transcendent CAGOP figure that totally fits that mold yet. And to do it, it has to be in a 2014 style electorate where absolutely no one is voting and it's the sixth year of a Democratic president with middling to poor approvals.

But in terms of how much actual influence on governing they'd have depends on how the redistricting commission draws the new legislative maps in 2020. If they're anything similar to the existing maps, Democrats have locked in a veto-proof majority indefinitely. The rural packing is getting too extreme for the CAGOP.

And believe it or not, the GOP still has their asses hanging out on a handful of State Senate seats that are up in 2020 (districts 21, 23, 29, 37). And could theoretically bleed a handful more State Assembly seats in 2020, although I can't really see there being a total net change in either direction of more than a seat or two.
no one who isnt a dem is winning anything statewide in California no matter what.


Presidential level and in the senate sure


But other than that it will happen sometime in the next 6-18 years

If you missed my big in depth dive, I concluded that this route is basically shut. Poizner was the finger in the wind, he had everything right going for him: Independent affiliation to drive his separation from the pubs, personal strength with Silicon Valley whites AND minorities, a former record of success to campaign on, endorsements form democratic leaning groups and newspapers, a opponent who was on the far left so Poizner could take mainstream Liberal positions like defending and expanding Obamacare, and a campaign that was based on his opponents positions like single payer, I can go on about the list of things in his favor. Poizer Lost. There are just too many lock-step Democrats.

Poizner probably would have won in a year like 2014, but that shows just how narrow that path is. The candidate needs to have everything, and I mean everything, go right plus a favorable environment to win. Oh and they can't be a Republican, or else the dems will just see the candidate as a friend of the national republicans exclusionary policies.

I mean sure, the once-in-a-blue-moon governor could arrive if dems drive the state into the toilet, but that is always a threat in any state, no matter how partisan. Every other route has worse then 1 in a hundred odds.

Almost completely agree. If some dumb future Democratic governor will put a state on the brink of the bancruptsy, then - possible. Until then - highly unlikely. There are REALLY too many "lock-step Democrats", who vote not for a person, but for letter after name, in California. Idiocy, IMHO, but - a fact.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC