| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Caliphornia polling shows little to please Republicans in 2010 |
| 2009-10-12 |
| Republicans had to look for a very long time at last week's Field Poll of California voters to find something remotely uplifting as they ponder the 2010 state elections. There it was, eventually: Against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat running for governor, the assorted GOP candidates were losing by only single digits. But they were losing to Newsom, a candidate who was behind in his own party's primary by 20 points and who had a net unfavorable rating among all voters questioned by the poll. Former governor and current Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown was clocking not only Newsom but also his potential GOP general election foes, each by more than 20 points. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, like Brown a longtime punching bag and fundraising tool to the Republican Party, was also running double digits ahead of her two potential Republican challengers in the 2010 race. All told, even as Democrats find themselves on the defensive nationally, California inhabits a different political planet. There is no hint of a backlash against incumbents of the sort that Republicans nationally have hoped will help them gain seats in Congress and in statehouses. That is key in California, given the experience of the Democratic candidates and the neophyte nature of the biggest-named Republicans. Just as troubling to Republicans, the poll served to remind them of the continued Democratic hold on younger voters. Unless arrested and reversed, it could eventually make the party's current challenging times look rosy in the rear-view mirror. True, blizzards of attack ads have yet to fall. True, the only poll that counts -- as losing candidates often proclaim -- is the one on election day. And true, polls can be on soft ground as they measure match-ups featuring many candidates -- in this case mostly the Republicans -- about whom voters know little. "I don't necessarily think the Republicans don't stand a chance," as Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo put it. Right now, however, there is one group in which they really don't, and that is among younger voters. The conundrum for the state Republican Party and its candidates: how to get ethnically diverse voters who demand healthcare reform and environmental protection to side with a party associated with neither, and whose icon remains a former president elected before they were born. In match-ups against Republicans in the race for governor, both Brown and Newsom did better as voters grew younger, although Brown also won among older voters. Taking the hint, GOP state party chief Ron Nehring blasted Brown via press release for his "last failed governorship." Democrats have a driving impetus to corral younger voters in 2010. Generally speaking, newcomers are perceived to be free-floating and unattached in their early voting years; a party that manages to attract them for several elections in a row stands a good chance of keeping them indefinitely. Many of the young voters in question streamed to the polls for the first time in 2008. If Democrats' dreams are realized, the youngsters will stick with the party -- much as young voters attracted in 1980 to President Reagan formed the bulwark of the conservative revival of the 1990s and beyond. "If they can get them for two to three election cycles, they're pretty much locked in," said Republican pollster Steve Kinney. That said, he added, "that's easier said than done." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 not even Duncan Hunter(retired)/Duncan D. Hunter (my current Rep)? I have donated to both. They're what we should be asking our R's to be |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-10-12 21:07 |
| #17 I lived in San Diego from 1997 through 2007 and, as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative, didn't find much in the Republican party there. The problem is that the old line Republican party is just too smug and off-putting. I might agree with them politically, but wouldn't want to live next to them, or for that matter, even have a beer with them. The Dems are thieves and the Republicans snobs, not much to choose from. California politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are just a cut above pond scum. |
| Posted by: rwv 2009-10-12 20:37 |
| #16 Dear California, Please Secede. Signed, The "flyover" states who have paid their bills and limited government. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-10-12 20:29 |
| #15 As the old saying goes 'As California goes, so goes the nation.' |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-10-12 19:40 |
| #14 Sadly, both Procopius and Ricky are correct, CA is over. If you dobt that simply drive through L.A., S.F. most of the Central Valley towns and S.D. and down to the border. The demographics visible on the street will tell you they aren't going to vote for anything except more benefits and bribes. Sadly, since the tax base has fled or is fleeing, and the state is already completely bankrupt, watch the Nobama administration and the facre of Congress just vote other people's money to the state to keep the natives from becomming restless. |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2009-10-12 19:26 |
| #13 Or just a straight-up civil war. Actually, certain elements ['protected class' any surprise] are already in their own Bleeding |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-12 18:20 |
| #12 California's last big economic collapse - driven by the twin storms of the early '90's recession and the shuttering of much of the region's defense/aerospace industry - wound up driving millions of Republilcan and Republican-leaning working folk (like your humble correspondent) out of the state. The CA Republican Party just doesn't have sufficient demographic support to regain a legislative majority. California's over, folks - it's about to become the USA's own little combination of Bangladesh and the Balkans. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2009-10-12 17:12 |
| #11 Or just a straight-up civil war. There's just something pleasing about the idea of burning SF to the ground (after a suitable period of looting, of course) and thousands of SFite corpses floating out the Golden Gate to feed the great whites... Oh, sorry - did I say that out loud? |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-10-12 16:16 |
| #10 Certain areas in California are red. San Diego, Orange County and the central valley for example. Other areas are more liberal than the Democrats. Santa Cruz and up to the Oregon border with spots elsewhere. The populace would be better off having more representative government. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-10-12 15:58 |
| #9 Don't forget the Republican stood by and said nothing while the state was being overrun by illegal aliens. I've been here long enough to remember a time when the most popular name of newborn babies was not Jose. The Republicans can whine and cry all they want but from my perspective it's their own damn fault. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-10-12 11:53 |
| #8 California is generally socially liberal and supports Democratic positions in that area. Voters have relied on ballot initiatives to keep the lid on taxes, but have not worried about spending as the economy of the last twenty years has supported massive increases in state expenditures. That's all coming to an end, and at the beginning (of the end) it's political beneficiaries are the Democrats. One reason is that the governor is Republican and, right or wrong, the chief executive is the first in the line of fire. The other reason is that the first to get hit are those that live off the state: workers, contractors and other beneficiaries. They are bitter at the Republican minority in the legislature for blocking tax increases, and that bitterness outweighs any gratitude taxpayers may have. For the forseeable future I suspect the state will keep electing liberal Democrats. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2009-10-12 11:13 |
| #7 ...well that explains "57 states". |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-12 10:59 |
| #6 California needs to divide. Some time ago I saw a plan to split it into 5 pieces about the size of East coast states. Yeah it would mss up the plans but getting the politicians closer to the voters is a good thing. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-10-12 10:14 |
| #5 Since all the current republican governor in CA seems to be able to do is stick a republican "face" and "brand" over Democratic policies driving the state under, one wonders what the point is of having one. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-10-12 09:32 |
| #4 gorb, CA's "too big to fair", so it will be 'rescued' by the rest of the country. Since the current rescuers are Dems it would be foolish for Californians to elect Pubs (though I think pubs are a good solution - a round of ale for the house!) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-10-12 08:04 |
| #3 CA is so going to die. They think it's bad now, but they just can't seem to kick the habit. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-12 02:55 |
| #2 Having lived there in the early 1980s, I agree with your analysis Pappy. Most people seem to know of the "Chicago Machine" or the "New York Borough Parties" but few seem to realise that in the great migration from East to West in the 1970-90's the New York crowd took their borough system with them. It was transplanted to California and thrived under the county-city-town political system. Grassroots - grew like Kudzu vine and strangled all political independent thinking, rationality or dissent to the prevailing political winds. Sounds very familiar today - "California Scheming" - We are all thats LEFT, so you can't be RIGHT! Regards Large Uniter8538 |
| Posted by: Large Uniter8538 2009-10-12 01:03 |
| #1 What the California Democrats have is a farm-team system. They recruit candidates to run for the most mundane offices. They support them through their campaign (or find support for them - union money helps), and then groom the more successful ones for higher office. The Pubs either treat it like it's a family business, or they back a candidate only because they have momentum/star-power/heavy-outsider support. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-10-12 00:44 |