Posted on 11/23/2006 1:21:35 PM PST by FairOpinion
In cruising to a 17-point re-election victory this month over Democrat Phil Angelides, the governor received 39 percent of their vote, according to exit polling done for The Bee.
That threshold has not been reached by a GOP gubernatorial candidate in California since 1990.
State Sens. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, and Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, tallied only 23 percent and 20 percent of the Latino vote, respectively, in their losing bids for lieutenant governor and attorney general.
Running against the state's high-ranking Latino officeholder, Poizner -- a social moderate who spent more than $13 million of his fortune on his campaign -- received 35 percent of the Latino vote, according to GOP pollster Steve Kinney.
For the GOP to hold on to the Governor's Office in 2010, after the centrist Schwarzenegger moves on, Republicans may have to turn to a candidate who is more like Poizner and less like McClintock and Poochigian.
No GOP candidate for governor since the 1970s has won in California without getting at least one-third of the Latino vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
What lesson? That if you take the low road, sell long term bonds to pay for current expenses, and bankrupt the future of your state, people will love you in the short run?
We already knew that about California.
The GOP needs latino voters -- not just in CA, but everywhere -- if they want to win, that is.
If they want to win what? The race to destroy our country?
Of course we need Latino voters, but corrupting them and hooking them on the welfare state isn't the right way to go about it.
"Of course we need Latino voters, but corrupting them and hooking them on the welfare state isn't the right way to go about it."
===
And who, other than you, suggested to "corrupt them and hooking them on the welfare state"?
Latino voters actually have more in common with Republicans and we need to help them realize that.
Most of them are pro-life, very religious, work hard.
It's nice and all that Arnold got re-elected and that he picked up 39% of the Latino vote.
But 39% is still a minority, which means that more Latino voters is going to inexorably mean more votes for Democrats, even if the Republicans do "well" among them.
California used to be a state where a true conservative like Ronald Reagan could get elected. Now, it's probably impossible for that kind of conservative to win a statewide election there.
The real lesson of California is that demographic trends continue to go against the Republicans more and more every day. The same thing is happening right now here in my state of Virginia.
"The real lesson of California is that demographic trends continue to go against the Republicans more and more every day. The same thing is happening right now here in my state of Virginia."
I agree. That's why I think that for Republicans to avoid becoming totally irrelevant in CA they have to move to the center, as Arnold did, and learn to get a few critical important things, instead of nothing.
If Arnold had done nothing, but vetoed the universal healthcare bill, as he did, he was worth electing. And he vetoed many other critical bills that a Dem would have signed.
Best "GOP" showing? Surely they gest. This was not a GOP showing. It was an election showing, and it had nothing to do with traditional GOP or Conservataive gains/values.
Lesson to be learned... Conservatism in California is the best kept secret west of the Mississippi. It still exists in the hearts and souls of men and women, but it is seldom seen in the halls of our government.
You do realize that Schwarzenegger is talking about a new comprehenisive healthcare plan for Californians don't you.
Agreed. Absolutely. It should be possible to reach out to family oriented Latino citizens and appeal to them, without pandering to the baser instincts as the Democrats do.
And I think it can also be done with blacks, perhaps with greater difficulty because of the lock Democrats have on their leaders, by appealing to their Christian beliefs. Republicans will never win the black vote by trying to out-Democrat the Democrats; it can't be done.
The Democrat method is to debase morality, break up families, and make ethnic groups dependent on welfare. My problem with Arnold is that he has been a very big spender, and his policies have grown virtually indistinguishable from Gray Davis. His most notable accomplishments have been huge new bond issues.
The demographic in California is not going against Republicans. The problems with California is that there are very few traditional Republicans in power these days. Those that do hail from that party are not making any cold calls, hence no new sales.
I could have the most fantastic car the world has ever know, but if I kept it in a closet and never told anyone about it, I wouldn't sell even one. Todays Republican office holder has kept Conservatism in a closet and hasn't told anyone it still exists.
It's no wonder California slips leftward, but it isn't based in ideology. It's based on the left having the only sales team on the block.
I think you're right about that, but I'm a conservative and not an especially big fan of so-called "moderate" Republicans.
I'm far more concerned about the country than I am about a political party.
"I'm far more concerned about the country than I am about a political party."
===
And what do you think the Dems will do to the country, except destroy it?
What it probably says, and what you are trying not to hear, is that it appears that the anti-immigrant cause is a political death warrant.
Republicans actually did well with Latinos until Proposition 187. Then our share dropped like a stone, and understandably so, because 187 was like a punch in the face to them.
Arnold, by not showing hostility towards immigrants, is increasing our share and our popularity among them. This is of course natural to him because he himself is an immigrant who represents the American dream at its best.
I'm a little puzzled by the Arnold haters out there. Arnold tried very hard to pass a conservative program through the initiative process. I think it was a good idea and worth trying, but we can't forget that it failed miserably. Instead of giving up, Arnold picked up the pieces and reinvented himself as someone more attractive to the voters. I can't say I love his new look policies, but if he wanted to stay in office it was necessary for him to change.
As others have mentioned on this thread, I think Latinos can move towards our side given time, if we don't actively try and push them away through anti-immigrant measures.
Hatred of immigrants is not a winning strategey ... and I consider accepting new citizens and helping them to assimilate to be a core concept of the American dream. If Bush can push together an immigration program combining those elements, I think it would be good for America and for the immigrants themselves.
D
Latinos are very pro-family, anti-crime ... and very religious.
Let's try to emphasize what we can offer.
If you believe what you just said, how do you explain McClintock's defeat?
No one "hates" immigrants, we just want them to apply and come in legally and we don't want them all to be from one ethnic group... something that has been in every GOP position statement clear back to the 1800's.
I'm a full supporter of LEGAL immigration from many different countries, assimilation, and the melting pot idea, such as we had when my immigrant grandparents came here.
I'm adamantly opposed to an ILLEGAL and seeimingly endless wave of people flooding in from basically one country and refusing to assimilate into the broader culture. That to me isn't immigration, that's a hostile invasion.
Excellent analogy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.