My memories are different. All references are to the combined efforts of both the national and state parties.
If memory serves me correctly George Deukmejian was the last Republican gubernatorial candidate that the parties fully supported in California. Wilson, who succeeded in spite of the national party, got even utilizing a stalking horse in 2003 and is now laughing himself silly. Lungren and Simon faded away licking their wounds and McClintock was smart enough to maintain his base, and grovel a bit (privately) when it became obvious that the state party needed him in the aftermath of the recall fiasco.
The last two Republican candidates for US Senator also received lackluster support from, or were outright sabotaged by, the parties. A real pity since Boxer is the quintessential definition of the new left in the US, at times verging on loony toons and Feinstein has consistently done a terrible job bringing home the federal bacon to California, even under Clinton (speaking of B1 Bob; Dornan probably brought more federal contracts to his district than Feinstein brought to the whole state). Both Democrats were beatable, by rational conservatives, through crossover votes, had the Republicans mounted a well funded and aggressive challenge.
Note - Both Feinstein and Boxer will probably represent the last statewide success of the old Irish Democrat machine in San Francisco. Allowing their new, rising star to venture into the maelstrom of homosexual marriage dooms him to his fiefdom in Baghdad by the Bay. By the time the good old Irish recover the Hispanic labor lawyers from the LA basin will rule Democrat politics in the state.
State party has needed Tom McClintock for a long time. IMHO.
I disagree with yours in re "Repubs" being able to have beaten Feinstein and Boxer, however. A world of change happened, starting with the 60s; culminating into a mass language/ideology "change" which empowered Democrats through mere "buzzwords" which Dem candidates used. Furthermore, there are/were real differences in the perceptions and demographics between North, Central, and Southern CA. I recall Dems focusing on North CA (SF, in particular) -- Feinstein, and Boxer (marin, north side of golden gate bridge) and extending their pavlovian election platform strategies to win more districts going north. Meanwhile, Southland, dealing with race and "not well publicized" illegal immigration issues. This then went north, affecting the political scene in Central CA.
Frankly, I don't think Republicans were able to put forward a solidly coherent language set for election(s) that would have offset all the "largesse" building by Dems at the district/precinct levels throughout the state and NOT given rise to Repub candidate platforms crashing into each others' (or being used by Dems against individual and overall GOP).
Giving rise, early 90s, to finger-in-wind testing about splitting the state into two or three regions.
Sure, one could say it was about the "funding" -- but which end of the elephant to fund most, or first, was how I saw the internal dilemna.
Feinstein has consistently done a terrible job bringing home the federal bacon to California, even under Clinton (speaking of B1 Bob; Dornan probably brought more federal contracts to his district than Feinstein brought to the whole state)
Worth repeating.
Both Democrats were beatable, by rational conservatives, through crossover votes, had the Republicans mounted a well funded and aggressive challenge.
I found both those cases interesting. It was neck and neck in Di-Fi's election -- keeping me up unto the wee hours only to see the crossover wasn't as significant as I'd been led to "perceive" early on. In the other case, Boxer.. I figured Boxer barely won but only because the crossover was more due to people overtired of hearing her screechy, unprofessional whining; but not enough crossover because she's such a liberal pushover for pork and "feel my pain agenda" gratifying. Frankly, I don't think extra funding would have helped that particular race. We needed Sinatra to run against her. A Mel Torme. A Mel Gibson (pre-The Passion) would have significantly altered the entire political scene up and down North CA.
Note - Both Feinstein and Boxer will probably represent the last statewide success of the old Irish Democrat machine in San Francisco.
I agree. Allowing their new, rising star to venture into the maelstrom of homosexual marriage dooms him to his fiefdom in Baghdad by the Bay.
IMHO, he'll get tossed. Not re-elected. Race lobbies and coalitions are moving faster and more aggressively than the homosexual lobbies.
By the time the good old Irish recover the Hispanic labor lawyers from the LA basin will rule Democrat politics in the state.
Brilliantly put. I'm in perfect accord with your projection.
I would guess that this might coincide with a resurgent GOP in Calif.