Republicans Surrender California?

Black Swan

California is the largest US state in population (38 million) and GDP (2 trillion USD). If a country, it would be 8th in world GDP, slightly ahead of Russia. It leads the nation in Electoral College votes with 55, way ahead of 2nd place Texas and 3rd place New York. In terms of geographic size, the United Kingdom would just about fit within California's borders (403,932 sq.kms).

Given that California has been identified as a key trend-setting state for American cultural change (John Naisbitt, Megatrends), you would think that the Republican Party would go all out to capture it. Anecdotally, I've heard it claimed that Hollywood runs the state, and Hollywood favours Democrats, yet the only two well known actors I can recall who became California's governor were Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003-2011) and Ronald Reagan (1967-1975). Anecdotally I've also heard that Republicans are favoured in the nation's major agricultural states, yet California is the #1 state in agricultural receipts (32 billion USD), almost twice 2nd place Texas in Ag production.

Tuesday (3 June 2014) California held its primary elections. For all practical purposes Democrat Governor Jerry Brown (1975-1983; 2011-present) is running unopposed, and should take first place in votes for both the June primaries and November general election. First place? California is trying a new election system where the candidates with the 1st and 2nd greatest number of votes runs for Governor in November, regardless of party affiliation.

There are several candidates running for Governor, including two Republican candidates: Tea Party candidate State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, and former US Treasury official and investment banker Neel Kashkari (endorsed by Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush). One of these two will probably take 2nd place in votes and run against Brown in November. If these two Brown opponents are the best the Republicans have to offer, then the California GOP is in deep trouble.

What does this suggest about the state and national GOP leadership, if they cannot offer a serious candidate to challenge Brown, in essence surrendering the state 1st in GDP, 1st in population, 1st EC votes, and 1st in Agriculture?

Amerika

Right now we need to concentrate on shoring up Texas for the future... As California falls into financial ruin, the residents will be pouring into Texas and bringing their crazy ideas.

Manic Moran

I think the short term goal isn't so much to turf Democrats out of office, but to get more moderate democrats in. In this, it seems to be working.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Right now we need to concentrate on shoring up Texas for the future... As California falls into financial ruin, the residents will be pouring into Texas and bringing their crazy ideas.

Except that CA isn't falling into financial ruin.

Do let's try and stay current and honest, hmmm?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Right now we need to concentrate on shoring up Texas for the future... As California falls into financial ruin, the residents will be pouring into Texas and bringing their crazy ideas.

Mjollnir wrote: »

Except that CA isn't falling into financial ruin.

Do let's try and stay current and honest, hmmm?

California was listed in the top 10 fastest growing state economies during 2012, as well as 1st in real GDP for the 50 states. Plus, during the past 3 years it's gone from a 60 billion USD deficit to a budget surplus during the Jerry Brown administration.

Mjollnir

Black Swan wrote: »

California was listed in the top 10 fastest growing state economies during 2012, as well as 1st in real GDP for the 50 states. Plus, during the past 3 years it's gone from a 60 billion USD deficit to a budget surplus during the Jerry Brown administration.

Yup. Those pesky facts tend to ruin everything.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

California was listed in the top 10 fastest growing state economies during 2012, as well as 1st in real GDP for the 50 states. Plus, during the past 3 years it's gone from a 60 billion USD deficit to a budget surplus during the Jerry Brown administration.

Wasn’t that “budget surplus” of Brown's achieved by ignoring the $3 billion payment to a retiree health-care trust fund, and in this year’s budget also ignoring more than $3 billion in required contributions to the state teacher pension fund? And since he’s taken office this time around hasn’t Brown’s budgets ignored more than $12 billion in retiree health-care costs and other funding requirements? Isn’t that what governors are supposed to do, pre-fund future retiree health-care expenses and pensions so future generations don’t have to pay for stupid decisions of earlier generations, such as Brown's? So now the future generations will have less money for their own services because they will have to pay for Brown’s decisions to skip costs, right? But hey, CA has a "surplus," wink wink.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Wasn’t that “budget surplus” of Brown's achieved by ignoring the $3 billion payment to a retiree health-care trust fund, and in this year’s budget also ignoring more than $3 billion in required contributions to the state teacher pension fund? And since he’s taken office this time around hasn’t Brown’s budgets ignored more than $12 billion in retiree health-care costs and other funding requirements? Isn’t that what governors are supposed to do, pre-fund future retiree health-care expenses and pensions so future generations don’t have to pay for stupid decisions of earlier generations, such as Brown's? So now the future generations will have less money for their own services because they will have to pay for Brown’s decisions to skip costs, right? But hey, CA has a "surplus," wink wink.

Sources and links?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Sources and links?

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_22396772/dan-pellessier-state-budget-balances-only-by-ignoring

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2013/07/08/jerry-brown-stands-atop-californias-collapsing-house-of-cards/

And can you provide me the sources that show it's "gone from a 60 billion USD deficit to a budget surplus during the Jerry Brown administration?" This I've got to read.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And can you provide me the sources that show it's "gone from a 60 billion USD deficit to a budget surplus during the Jerry Brown administration?" This I've got to read.

Unfortunately it's a brief statement without data or tables to evalutate the validity and reliability. USA Today, 15 June 2013:

...through a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts, California recently recorded a budget surplus. Just three years earlier, the state had faced a deficit of nearly $60 billion.

In any case, the state is not falling into financial ruin like you suggested, given that it was reported to be in the 10 fastest growing economies of the 50 states, as well as growing to 8th in world economies surpassing Russia.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Unfortunately it's a brief statement without data or tables to evalutate the validity and reliability. USA Today, 15 June 2013:



In any case, the state is not falling into financial ruin like you suggested, given that it was reported to be in the 10 fastest growing economies of the 50 states, as well as growing to 8th in world economies surpassing Russia.

I tend to believe Forbes over USA Today in financial matters.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I tend to believe Forbes over USA Today in financial matters.

Is that a case of hearing what you want to hear?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Is that a case of hearing what you want to hear?

No

arold10

The fact is California has long been a blue state. This is a state that Republican don't even try to compete in when there is a general election. If I were the Republican, I can not be in good conscience to invest my precious time, efforts, and money in a state in which the prospect of doing well is quite low. As you are saying that, have you noticed the Democrat try to compete as hard as they can in state like Texas which is a red state? I think election is about competing in places where you think you have a shot.

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

In any case, the state is not falling into financial ruin like you suggested, given that it was reported to be in the 10 fastest growing economies of the 50 states, as well as growing to 8th in world economies surpassing Russia.

Size of the economy has very little to do with its condition. Look at the US, huge economy, with equally huge expenses.

Bloomberg.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-13/how-jerry-brown-hoodwinks-reporters

I'm beginning to wonder, Swan, if you still live in this State.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder, Swan, if you still live in this State.

I live within a bubble that's within a bubble MM. I attend, work, and live within an Orange County So Cal Ivory Tower; i.e., living a metaphor.

California continues to experiment politically. They just got enough signatures to place a citizen initiative on the next ballot to break the state up into 5 parts. Doubt that it will pass, any more than the historic attempt to break the north apart from the south (Shasta and So Cal).

State debt resembles individual debt in many ways. The state and its citizens whip out their credit cards and charge it, not worrying about how they will pay for it. Of course California is not alone in these practices, given how the Feds continue to stack debt upon debt regardless which party runs the Executive or Congress. The 2-party finger pointing in this country regarding the increasing Fed deficit is a craic.

Manic Moran

Six parts, according to the news report I heard. I could see three (though I can't see quite how the Great State of Cascadia would be particularly economically viable), six is overdoing it.

Mjollnir

Black Swan wrote: »

I live within a bubble that's within a bubble MM. I attend, work, and live within an Orange County So Cal Ivory Tower; i.e., living a metaphor.

LOL! Come up to Hollywood some day. You need the grit and grime that simply isn't there behind the Orange Curtain.

California continues to experiment politically. They just got enough signatures to place a citizen initiative on the next ballot to break the state up into 5 parts. Doubt that it will pass, any more than the historic attempt to break the north apart from the south (Shasta and So Cal).

It's dead in the water. It will never go anywhere. Just look at the map drawn up to see the wildly divergent demographic data that will doom it.

Black Swan

In the November 2014 race for California governor, this week the Republican candidate Neel Kashkari is hitting the telly with a young boy drowning political ads that are drawing criticism from many. Because of all the private and public pools in California, there have been several families that have lost children to drowning every year. But Kashkari is not advocating swimming pool safety, but addressing education that has nothing to do with swimming. Talking about insensitive! Methinks the Republicans are drowning with him as a candidate for governor.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

arold10 wrote: »

The fact is California has long been a blue state. This is a state that Republican don't even try to compete in when there is a general election. If I were the Republican, I can not be in good conscience to invest my precious time, efforts, and money in a state in which the prospect of doing well is quite low. As you are saying that, have you noticed the Democrat try to compete as hard as they can in state like Texas which is a red state? I think election is about competing in places where you think you have a shot.

Democrats are competing in Texas because the demographics of the state suggest that it will be more hospitable to Democrats in the future. Also, given that California has had Republican governors in recent history, it isn't necessarily the case that CA voters are hostile to voting for a Republican, its just that the kinds of Republicans who get elected in CA tend to be seen as RINOs by many in the party's national base.

Also, despite its out-there reputation, I never found California to be all that liberal. People talk a good game, but affluent Californians don't seem that vested in rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in addressing many of the state's social problems, and many Democrats are too scared of the Latino vote to state the obvious: the influx of undocumented Mexicans and Central Americans place an enormous financial burden on the state, to the point where public services for everyone have been imperiled.

If Republicans could figure out how to link the affluent NIMBY/not-my-problem-ism in Southern California with the growing support for libertarianism among young tech workers in Northern California, it could revitalize the party at the state level, and perhaps begin to emerge as an important counterweight to Southern/Evangelical conservatism which seemingly dominates the party. A party that was low-tax, pro-environment, pro-individual rights when it came to drugs, sexual orientation, and reproductive rights, pro-investment in science and research, and that didn't equate being pro-business with pro-BIG business, could do well in California, especially among younger voters. But the dominant voices in the party (and the media echo chamber that amplifies these voices, perhaps beyond their actual level of influence) that are vitriolic towards immigrants, anti-science, and socially conservative are a big turnoff to this pool of potential voters.

Black Swan

During the time I've lived in California, I've found it to be very diverse, like a checkerboard of microcosms each with their particular interests. Do not believe that those residing there can be lumped into a nominal classification of Californian or not. Even behind the Orange Curtain there is great diversity. For example, Santa Ana is heavily represented by working class families and has serious gang problems, while next door Irvine has upwardly mobile professionals with zero gangs, and next door to these two cities is Newport Beach with a heavy concentration of rich along with one of the largest yacht basins in US. The Brown Machine has learned how to appeal to a large segment of such voters, producing 2 governors and a host of elected positions in state government over the decades.

It's interesting to compare the recent governor race campaign ads between Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Neel Kashkari. Brown is not bothering to challenge Kashkari, rather he is featuring several ads that encourage voters to pass Propositions 1 and 2. While Kashkari has had his sensationalist attacks on Brown with axe chopping of a toy train and drowning child ads. Kashkari looks foolish and Brown professional.

Amerika

With so much of California politics dictated by the vast population of southern California, looking at a stylized political map by party strengths of the area it is not hard to see why Republicans have little chance there.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

With so much of California politics dictated by the vast population of southern California, looking at a stylized political map by party strengths of the area it is not hard to see why Republicans have little chance there.

55 ECs and climbing! That's a big chunk for the GOP to lose. A lot more than tiny Iowa at 7 ECs.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

55 ECs and climbing! That's a big chunk for the GOP to lose. A lot more than tiny Iowa at 7 ECs.

True. If anything would get us to change the Electoral Voting system, it surely will be the voting power of California and their detachment from the viewpoints of much of the rest of the country. Is there still talk of splitting California into anywhere from 2 to 6 states?

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Black Swan wrote: »

55 ECs and climbing! That's a big chunk for the GOP to lose. A lot more than tiny Iowa at 7 ECs.

And yet Iowa receives an insane amount of attention for traditionally holding the first Presidential primaries of the year. I would hardly call Iowa and New Hampshire representative of the rest of the country, yet they play an enormously outsized role in the presidential nomination process.

Amerika wrote: »

True. If anything would get us to change the Electoral Voting system, it surely will be the voting power of California and their detachment from the viewpoints of much of the rest of the country. Is there still talk of splitting California into anywhere from 2 to 6 states?

Yes, drat that California and their enormous, diverse economy. Clearly people are being forced against their will to move there and to generally support Democrats.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

True. If anything would get us to change the Electoral Voting system, it surely will be the voting power of California and their detachment from the viewpoints of much of the rest of the country.

John Naisbitt suggested that tend setting in the US had shifted from New England to the west. California was seen as one of the few megatrend setting states in the US. For example, California passed the 1st citizen initiative in the US, where citizens bypassed their legislature and enacted their own laws more directly, rather than representatively. Following California's lead, other state citizens have passed initiatives.

Amerika wrote: »

Is there still talk of splitting California into anywhere from 2 to 6 states?

I have heard that such state-splitting talk has gone on for ages, but I would suspect that such a breakup will not occur during our times, if ever. Frankly, if California could declare its independence from the US (which it can't), it would do better as an independent nation than as one of he 50. I would have to do a current search to confirm, but I think it would be 8th in the world of nations in GDP if independent.

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

And yet Iowa receives an insane amount of attention for traditionally holding the first Presidential primaries of the year. I would hardly call Iowa and New Hampshire representative of the rest of the country, yet they play an enormously outsized role in the presidential nomination process.

It's a political game played by the two parties, which they spin to meet their own agendas.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

True. If anything would get us to change the Electoral Voting system, it surely will be the voting power of California and their detachment from the viewpoints of much of the rest of the country. Is there still talk of splitting California into anywhere from 2 to 6 states?

California's detachment from right wing viewpoints is what you really mean.

How would one split a state? Federal or state vote?

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

How would one split a state? Federal or state vote?

Both state and federal.

Per a short summary of California laws governing citizen legislative initiatives, to split the state would require a state constitutional amendment. During the 2011-2014 years a minimum of 807,615 eligible voter signatures would be required to place the initiative on an election ballot within a specified time frame. Once on the ballot the amendment would only require a simple majority in California to pass, but would also have to be signed into law by the state governor. If the governor fails to sign, I am not sure what happens, although I suspect the initiative fails. If the initiative was extremely close, I doubt the governor would sign, but who knows?

If it were to pass at the state level, then the US Congress would have to vote on the split state(s), and for it to become law, the president would have to sign too.

US Constitution, Article IV - The States, Section 3

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


But if it got this far, I would bet that political interests opposed to the split would have filed a case in a Federal District Court to stop it, which would probably climb all the way to the US Supreme Court for a decision. That could take years. Or they could collect signatures and place a Veto Referendum on the next ballot to repeal the earlier state split constitutional amendment.

This is a complex issue. There is a good chance that I have missed several critical legislative and legal points, and if so, apologise for errors due to oversimplification. In any case, I doubt that California will split in my lifetime.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

California's detachment from right wing viewpoints is what you really mean.

No cigar. The majority of the country is slightly right of center politically. California leans left of center. Slightly right of center isn't "right wing."

How would one split a state? Federal or state vote?

Black Swan gave the legalities. Here are some examples how it would look.

Here is one proposal for 2 states:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F5jwJdfqaSU/maxresdefault.jpg

Here is one proposal for 6 states.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/20/article-2563649-1BAB833600000578-311_634x402.jpg

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

No cigar. The majority of the country is slightly right of center politically. California leans left of center. Slightly right of center isn't "right wing."

Seriously? By definition anything right of centre is right wing.

Black Swan gave the legalities. Here are some examples how it would look.

Here is one proposal for 2 states:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F5jwJdfqaSU/maxresdefault.jpg

Here is one proposal for 6 states.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/20/article-2563649-1BAB833600000578-311_634x402.jpg

It's not going to happen.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Amerika wrote: »

Here is one proposal for 2 states:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F5jwJdfqaSU/maxresdefault.jpg

Here is one proposal for 6 states.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/20/article-2563649-1BAB833600000578-311_634x402.jpg

The proponent couldn't get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Seriously? By definition anything right of centre is right wing.

Who's definition?

Black Swan

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

The proponent couldn't get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

The whole 6 state split-up issue is being championed by someone that looks very strongly to have personal financial interests, not public. This John Galt venture capitalist is a Silicon Valley made billionaire, and he would make Silicon Valley a separate state for techie rich like himself. He doesn't care what happens to the remaining 5 split-ups, no more than Ayn Rand cared about those citizens outside the isolated Colorado valley (of rich) in Atlas Shrugged. If you know anything about California, some of the split-ups proposed would surely fail. "Follow the money," not the words, and you will see that the public interest is being sacrificed for minority private rich interests in proposing the State of Silicon Valley.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Amerika wrote: »

Who's definition?

I'm not sure these broad left-right distinctions even make sense: people take left or right leaning positions on certain issues, and hold multiple positions simultaneously. Recent research on polarization in American politics argues that the 'myth of the middle' exists because public opinions tend to average out where voters fall on the ideological spectrum across a number of issues - which papers over the fact that on some issues voters can be very liberal (higher minimum wage) while on others very conservative (no abortion under any circumstances).

A voter’s ideal policy is significantly more extreme than the legislator’s on each of two policies. However, when mapping their views to one dimension it is the legislator who appears extreme. Why? When asked whether he would like to nudge the policy status quo in a conservative or liberal direction, this voter gives inconsistent answers, answering in a liberal manner on one question and a conservative manner on a different question. “On average,” then, this voter is in the ‘middle’ of the liberal-conservative continuum.”

Black Swan

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I'm not sure these broad left-right distinctions even make sense: people take left or right leaning positions on certain issues, and hold multiple positions simultaneously. Recent research on polarization in American politics argues that the 'myth of the middle' exists because public opinions tend to average out where voters fall on the ideological spectrum across a number of issues - which papers over the fact that on some issues voters can be very liberal (higher minimum wage) while on others very conservative (no abortion under any circumstances).

The NYT article fails to address why voters join a party, Democrat or Republican, if their bundle of widely variable issue preferences range greatly to both left and right depending upon issue, rather than fall towards the average (i.e., moderate). It's almost a justification to not join either party, but rather to be Independent. Furthermore, this article does not explain why there is a disproportionate number of California voters that tend to vote Democrat rather than Republican.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Black Swan wrote: »

The NYT article fails to address why voters join a party, Democrat or Republican, if their bundle of widely variable issue preferences range greatly to both left and right depending upon issue, rather than fall towards the average (i.e., moderate). It's almost a justification to not join either party, but rather to be Independent. Furthermore, this article does not explain why there is a disproportionate number of California voters that tend to vote Democrat rather than Republican.

I'm not 100% sure, but don't something like a third of voters identify as 'independent'? The fact that we have a 2-party system generally means that a lot of people don't vote, or they vote for the party that best represents their interests on the issues they feel the most strongly about (or vote against the party that seems to threaten those interests).

I agree that the article doesn't explain California directly, but it wasn't really meant to - I was addressing the point Amerika made in terms of defining the US as generally center-right and California as being too out on front of the rest of the country. What this study suggests is that making broad claims about left-right doesn't make sense because people are generally left-right on specific issues, and then their preferences are aggregated. But this aggregation doesn't weight preferences, with the implication that this kind of public opinion polling can therefore be misleading for parties in deciding what kind of candidates to field or what campaigns to support.

Black Swan

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure, but don't something like a third of voters identify as 'independent'? The fact that we have a 2-party system generally means that a lot of people don't vote, or they vote for the party that best represents their interests on the issues they feel the most strongly about (or vote against the party that seems to threaten those interests).

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent this diverse bundle of preferences (by research subjects) that fall towards both the left and right extremes. If moderate only occurs through averaging, and does not normally occur in reality, and neither party satisfies the voter's range between right and left on issues, then why are voters not all (or mostly) Independent rather than a party member? Why do most voters support the Democrats in California, rather than be Independent and more consistent with their diverse bundle of right and left preferences?

This makes me suspect that there is something missing, either in the Stanford research design, or more than likely the focus taken in the NYT article. I think that party membership introduces yet another variable into this analysis that may influence voters and their government representatives to "vote along party lines," regardless of the right and left disparity in the individual voter bundle that lacks a moderate position. Otherwise we could not have a "Party of No" in reality, as opposed to an academic survey.

Black Swan

Yet another multi-millionaire Republican failed to buy the California governorship. Super rich Meg Whitman lost in 2010. Super rich Neel Kashkari ran up against the Brown Machine, a family state political dynasty that won by a huge landslide in favour of Jerry Brown November 2014. We will now see if Brown can deliver on his state deficit reduction, reform their prisons, as well as what Kashkari called building Jerry's Crazy Train (to be the first bullet train in US history).