You could say the same exact thing for the entire United States.
Fact is, over one million MORE Californians voted for Bush, than did Texans, as recently as 2004.
That being said, at the rate were going, and as corrupt government has become, you'll have a pro illegal alien Hispanic president in office within 12-16 years.
By then I would imagine things will be really bad, worse than most imagine.
I did almost add parenthetically (and the US) re changes in CA population. I don’t think there’s a state that doesn’t have a significant illegal population. It’s just worse in the southwest.
Our government won’t improve, however, if we seek perfection. Never was, never will be perfect. If Fiorina is only 80% conservative, that’s 80% better than Boxer. And on most of the key issues, she would be voting with the majority of GOP Senators. That could never be said for Boxer. Never.
Are we better off with Scott Brown in the Senate? Or were we all happier with Teddy Kennedy? MA is a blue state, too, and Brown won’t cast a conservative vote every time. A Senator does have to vote in his state’s interest. That doesn’t mean we want Teddy back.
Fiorina may not be the conservatives’ top choice, but for now she’s their best choice of what’s available in CA. Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint couldn’t get elected in CA any more than Boxer or Saunders could get elected in CA or VT.
If elected, Fiorina would empower Sessions/DeMint in the same way a ‘moderate’ Dem like Bayh empowers Boxer just by being in the same caucus. But don’t let that get in the way of ideological purity.
The way to stop that dreaded future you envision is for people to vote realistically based on where they live, and accept they are not always going to get everything they want. It’s virtually impossible for any “RINO” to do more damage to this country than has been done by Obama and his compliant Democrat Congress for the past 1.5 years. Why would any conservative do anything to give them one moment’s more power?