Skip to comments.Obama widens lead over GOP rivals in California
Posted on 02/23/2012 7:44:06 AM PST by SmithL
With the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in increasing disarray, Democratic President Obama has significantly strengthened his hand in California, where his margin over his strongest GOP challenger, Mitt Romney, has doubled in the past three months, a new Field Poll shows.
Obama leads the former Massachusetts governor by 20 percentage points, 55-35, in the nation's most-populous state. Independent voters, who will be critical in the November election, prefer the president 59 to 27 percent, the poll found.
The president has an even more commanding lead - of 28 points - over former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who is surging in Michigan and Arizona, where crucial primaries will be held Tuesday.
Obama holds a 23-point lead, the poll showed, over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich - who on Saturday will deliver the keynote address to California Republicans holding their state convention at the Burlingame Hyatt.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I’m devastated that the land of fruits, nuts, illegal aliens, depravity, social decadence, environmental overregulation, and general overall sorriness would vote for Zero!
California is a lost state.
At least until their accounting games no longer work.
Thank God for the Electoral College.
BFD. What would one expect from what is arguably THE single most screwed up state in the union?
I watched “2012” again last evening....and I swear I cheered when California broke up and slid into the Pacific.
Who else will promise to use OUR money to pay for the dim-bulb-crat bankrupt state when it finally has to admit that it’s a non-English speaking, corrupt, piece of trash destined for the tarpits (or the ocean - depending on when the next big one happens).
I’m telling all my Republican friends in Caliph-phony-a to vote Green Party in November. We know damned well that Obama is gonna take this God-forsaken state, might as well get enough support for the Greens to get them real status on the ballot.
Perhaps they can eat into this Demo-socialist cabal in future election cycles to the point where we might actually get some people in there who will actually listen to other than the vociferous special interest geeks!
There are still some of us sane here boys. We are not all fruits and nuts. At least, I know I’m not! Screw this state!
But if the Republican is the popular vote winner, it doesn’t matter what the vote is in California. By law, all the electoral votes go to the Republican, thanks to the legislature’s paranoia that the 2000 election could happen again.
Let’s send all of the libs to California, create their own country, they can let in all the illegals they want, and see how long that lasts.
Southern California is a de facto Mexican state.
Let’s just give Southern California to Mexico. We can break off the north to the State of Jefferson, like they wanted to do in the 40s.
Yup. I deserve a front row seat and see my state go bankrupt from illegals, liberals and morons.
—California is a lost state.—
I confess guilty pleasure at seeing LA slide into the ocean in 2012. :-)
That is just so unexpected.
Especially since we have almost no Republican representation in this state.
Persona non grata.
Thank heavens the founding fathers were wise. Without the Electoral College a few states and blue cities would always control the country.
They were wise indeed to create a system that still works over 200 years later to protect it's citizens
I just realized you beat me to it (see my post just before this one...)
I can just see them scrambling to undo that particular piece of legislation when a Republican wins the popular vote.
Metaphorically speaking, it has.
Libs inherently want to control you,
so they’re not just going to “go away and leave you alone”.
Which is important because....
That's about as relevant as "predicting" the GOP will carry Utah.
If the polling is that lopsided, then there’s no reason to compaign in Ca.
I would argue that California (my home state) has a larger percentage of takers to producers, homosexuals, and illegal aliens... Its a give they will vote for Obama
Not so. Cali may have passed that law, but generally speaking (not ABSOLUTELY sure about Cali) those laws have a provision that they don't go into effect till the same law is passed in states with electoral votes totaling 270 or more. That way, they don't give up the influence that comes with a winner-take-all system until enough of the entire nation is on a majority vote system to elect the winner.
I actually heard some guest who claimed to be conservative shilling for this idea on a supposedly conservative radio talk show in Salt Lake City a couple weeks ago. Jerry Doyle I think was the host. It boggled the mind. Every analysis I've seen says this would give every national election to the liberals and cheaters (but I repeat myself) forever thence, with no chance of rolling it back. I can't imagine two conservatives pushing it.
There never was, and I'm sure both sides know this are are planning to spend next to zero dollars there. Doubt if Zero is spending big bucks in Utah either. That's simply not news (unless they're so terrified of Zero's unpopularity they actually suspected Cali might be in play, and this is a relief to them).
Obama widens lead over GOP rivals in California, Syria, Somalia, Libya and Egypt
....and other shitholes of tyranny too numerous to mention...
I guess Californians can be grateful there’s no need for the parties to run TV ads all the time.
The place is uncontested.
Check how many Freepers live in CA and none of us support the destroyer, Zero. Absolutely no one I talk to in CA supports the Socialist. I don’t believe the polls nor the MSM.
What percentage of the state is on either federal or state welfare? There’s your answer.
I agree. I don’t know anyone who will vote for the evil bastard. And with gas prices going up.......
But we can never underestimate the ignorance of so many Americans who vote.
Are Californians really as dumb as they appear?
Thank God for the electoral college.
Then again, I live in South Orange County and the Liberal Cancer hasn't metastasized here yet. Might be time to add my “Antiobamunist on Board” sticker to the mix just to shake things up.
Independent California Voter = a California voter who has not begun to memorize Mao’s Little Red Book yet
“There are still some of us sane here boys. We are not all fruits and nuts. At least, I know Im not! Screw this state!”
Yep. It is easy to forget just how big and varied CA is. Lots of EVERYTHING, including some of the best conservative movements in the country (The Tax Revolt, stolid Duncan Hunter, Ronald Reagan-yes I know he is from the Midwest, and now, Free Republic).
That said, I don’t know how a NORMAL person deals with the prevailing perversion, neurosis and fiscal insanity out there.
Don’t write California off entirely. The coast is 66% socials and 33% good guys. You get out into the valley’s and mountains it is 66% good guys and 33% socials.
It’s worse than that... they didn’t poll the dead voters.
The National Popular Vote bill that California has enacted would not go into effect until states with 270 electoral votes enact it. It is now 49% of the way, with 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes.
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of Californias population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
When every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense to try and elevate your share where you aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Texas, or for a Republican to try it in California.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldnt be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution— “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
The current system doesn’t protect it’s citizens. It ignores 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered fly-over now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored —including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.
National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots activists committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 33870 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.
On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 4713 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 2111. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 177.
Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state and every voter to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or dont fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (RUT), and David Durenberger (RMN) and former congressmen John Anderson (RIL, I), John Buchanan (RAL), and Tom Campbell (RCA).
Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote “ http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 20052010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
* * *
In a recent Gallup poll, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation, is now:
53% among Republicans, 61% among Independents, and 71% among Democrats.
* * *
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
By state (Electoral College votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3) — 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
Arkansas (6) — 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
California (55) 61% (R), 74% (I)
Colorado (9) — 56% (R), 70% (I).
Connecticut (7) — 67% (R)
Delaware (3) — 69% (R), 76% (I)
DC (3) — 48% (R), 74% of (I)
Florida (29) — 68% (R)
Idaho(4) - 75% (R)
Iowa (6) — 63% (R)
Kentucky (8) — 71% (R), 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 70% (R)
Massachusetts (11) — 54% (R)
Michigan (16) — 68% (R), 73% (I)
Minnesota (10) — 69% (R)
Montana (3)- 67% (R)
Mississippi (6) — 75% (R)
Nebraska (5) — 70% (R)
Nevada (5) — 66% (R)
New Hampshire (4) — 57% (R), 69% (I)
New Mexico (5) — 64% (R), 68% (I)
New York (29) - 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
North Carolina (15) — 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
Ohio (18) — 65% (R)
Oklahoma (7) — 75% (R)
Oregon (7) — 70% (R), 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20) — 68% (R), 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4) — 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
South Carolina (8) — 64% (R)
South Dakota (3) — 67% (R)
Tennessee (11) — 73% (R)
Utah (6) — 66% (R)
Vermont (3) — 61% (R)
Virginia (13) — 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
Washington (12) — 65% (R)
West Virginia (5) — 75% (R)
Wisconsin (10) — 63% (R), 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) 66% (R), 72% (I)
The National Popular Vote bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a Presidents term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
NPV = No Way
...it’s all BS
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.