Voter data suggest California may be more purple than blue

Sacramento BEE ^ | 2/6/06 | Dan Walters

[SierraWasp]

Dan Walters: Voter data suggest California may be more purple than blue

By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist Published 2:15 am PST Monday, February 6, 2006

The conventional wisdom these days is that California is a solidly blue state - based on Democrats' near-sweep of major political contests over the last decade and especially George W. Bush's two million-plus-vote losses in the state. More accurately, however, California is a purple state, as new voter registration data indicate.

California's 15.8 million registered voters now divide themselves into 6.7 million Democrats (42.68 percent), 5.9 million Republicans (34.68 percent), 2.9 million independents (18.8 percent) and a smattering of minor party adherents.

Three decades ago, it was an entirely different story. The Democratic Party, buoyed by fallout from the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, hit a modern high point with 57.4 percent of nearly 10 million registered voters in 1976 while Republicans were, interestingly, almost exactly where they are now at 34.8 percent. Democrats, moreover, had pluralities or majorities in 57 of 58 counties, lacking only Orange County.

(snip)

Since then, there has been a steady erosion of Democratic voter strength in California while Republicans have maintained a consistent share in the mid-30 percent range. Clearly, Democrats' registration losses have not translated into Republican gains, but into a fast-growing independent sector. Indeed, the margin between the two major parties - eight percentage points - is about as small as it's been since the Great Depression.

There's also been a massive redistribution of voter strength. The coastal urban areas have become more Democratic while the faster-growing inland counties - dubbed "Edge Cities" by some - and rural areas have become more Republican. Republicans, in fact, now claim 37 counties, a huge increase from just one in 1976.

[calcowgirl]

Your research is really cool cowgirl!

Thanks! :-) I think I've told you I'm a research hound, lol.

I really enjoy the snips from the 1920's on Hiram Johnson... the stuff you posted was definetely NOT what I was taught in school during the 70's and 80's!!!!

Well, I was never taught about Hiram Johnson at all, so you're one up on me! Note also, from 1881 until 1960, the LA Times was a hugely partisan Republican newspaper (some said "rag") founded by Harrison Gray Otis. It was run by the family with management ultimately passing to his grandson Norman Chandler (husband of Dorothy Buffum Chandler). In 1960, that leadership passed hands again, to Norman Chandler's son Otis Chandler who turned the newspaper leftward, immediately. The change in tone of the paper is evident. I now view the newspaper archives always keeping in mind if I am reading Pre-Otis and Post-Otis, lol.

I am totally intrigued by the loss of the massive GOP majority in the period 1930 to 1934. From your post I note the following...

I don't think you can attribute that many additions to folks moving in from out of state. If so, there should have been a similar rise in the "eligible voters", unless those numbers were totally unreliable (which I don't know).

There was something else going on at the time too. A law was passed for "permanent registration" in 1931. I didn't follow up and research what the ins and outs were. It seemed that before that time, one had to register for every election? And this somehow changed that? I don't know if that was a factor in the dynamics, but just mentioning it in case anyone else has more info.

[calcowgirl]

Oh, you should read the headlines on the communist stuff! LOL.
Always in all caps and huge headlines... RED PROBE... RED'S DISCOVERED... etc.
Ahh... the good old days. :-)

Here's one I was just reading:

SECRET RED REVOLUTION
SCHOOL NEAR L.A. BARED
Communist Methods Taught at Crestline
Los Angeles Times, Mar 26, 1953; pg. 1

[calcowgirl]

Interesting statistics. Thanks!

[calcowgirl]

Where have you gathered info on California political history?
Do you have a good reading list to recommend?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Actually, I've gathered the info for my personal reference on my own computer. I don't have a particular reading list to point you to, since I pieced the info together from a variety of sources.

[calcowgirl]

What's your synopsis on Thomas Kuchel? (if you have one)

[fieldmarshaldj]

Did you mean biographical data, or my personal conclusion on Senator Kuchel ?

[calcowgirl]

Personal opinion/conclusion. I can find plenty of the other.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, Kuchel's lineage came from the Johnson/Warren line of the GOP. He was the State Comptroller during the Warren Administration and was appointed Senator by Warren when Richard Nixon became Vice-President. He remained pretty much your typical (of the time) liberal Republican throughout his career, although was still considered trustworthy enough to rise the position of Republican Whip, just as his Conservative colleague Bill Knowland exited the job as GOP Senate leader in 1959.

With the advent of Conservatives rising up in the '60s, even as he Whip, could not save him from a challenge, and he was beaten by colorful Conservative State School Superintendent Max Rafferty in the '68 GOP primary, who had hoped to join fellow Conservative George Murphy in the Senate. A lot of outraged GOP liberals refused to support Rafferty in the fall, enabling ultraliberal Alan Cranston a victory (Cranston, too, had previously served as State Comptroller like Kuchel, though he lost his job in the Reagan landslide of '66). Had Kuchel prevailed in the primary, it's rather likely that Cranston would not have been able to beat him (I'd go so far as to say Kuchel probably would've survived without a primary challenge even past Watergate, and lasted until at least 1980, when he likely would've retired and the open seat presumably would've gone to a Republican instead of a 3rd-term seeking Cranston).

Also noteworthy is that had Kuchel survived Rafferty's primary challenge in '68, and defeated Cranston, he would've succeeded Conservative Everett Dirksen as GOP Senate leader upon his death in late 1969 (as it was, the job went to another Senate GOP liberal, Pennsylvania's Hugh Scott). Part of the reason why many Conservatives wanted Kuchel gone was because as long as he remained, is that he reflected the power of a rather large liberal presence in the Senate GOP.

Two of the highest profile Kuchel Republicans (ones who served as his personal assistants) would later go on to serve in Congress. One was Steve Horn, the rather liberal RINO from Long Beach whose seat was eliminated by the Democrats in '02. The other was a fella named Leon Panetta, who switched to the Democrats, beat a sitting Conservative GOP incumbent in the House, Burt Talcott, in 1976 (the last Republican to represent coastal Monterey County in Congress to date), and, of course, would go on to greater infamy as a Clintonista.

Well, that's my take (mostly off the top of my head).

[calcowgirl]

Thanks! That gives me a look into some stuff I hadn't read about.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Sure thing. One additional comment, since many in the GOP felt that Cranston's win of the seat was an aberration, there was a strong push to try to get then-Governor Reagan to run against him in '74 to take the seat back, as RR was concluding his 2nd term. But Reagan realized that given the political climate, he'd likely have come up short against Cranston (a very smart move on his part). Reagan had actually not performed so well running for a 2nd term in '70 in a very radicalized atmosphere (a closer margin of victory over Jesse Unruh than he had won by in '66 over Pat Brown -- and Sen. George Murphy lost reelection to the empty liberal suit, Congressman John Tunney), so he faced a very strong possibility of a loss even if he ran for a 3rd term as Governor (I don't recall if Governors were eligible at that point to run for one, as Pat Brown was able to in '66).

[nickcarraway]

He's about the opposite of a libertarian. He is fiscally way to the left, socially moderate. When he was elected, he said something about his mission was to make the government do as much as possible for the people.

[nickcarraway]

Are you insane? I signed on to volunteer for campaign as soon as it was up. But let's face it. she was a lousy candidate.

[stand4somethin]

If you are outside of California don't let this report fire you up too much. We are like a drug addict... we will have to hit the bottom of the barrel before anything good can happen!!! We have democrats running all aspects of the state government and Ah-nowld has practically caved in. We could use a real good shake-up... like about a 10.0 if you pick up what I'm puttin' down!

[SierraWasp]

"Shake it up baybeeeee... Twist and shout!!!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That sledgehammer approach was responsible for so many victories over his liberal, Democratic opponents.

You don't defeat rottweilers like Waxman, and Burton, and Brown, and Torres by adopting a let's make nice, conciliatory approach.

And as much as I admire Dan Lungren, he's the personification of that ineffective political strategy.

I'm not saying that Pete Wilson was the answer to all of the GOP's problems, and there are certainly bad public policy decisions-for example, his halfhearted attempt at energy deregulation-for which you can ascribe blame to his administration.

However, I think that-on balance-he was a remarkable, ruthless political figure-who accomplished things that no California governer ever had, and which his successors probably will never emulate-and that the Republican Party could use a lot more Pete Wilsons.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"That sledgehammer approach was responsible for so many victories over his liberal, Democratic opponents. You don't defeat rottweilers like Waxman, and Burton, and Brown, and Torres by adopting a let's make nice, conciliatory approach."

But in winning the victory of 1994, it was more a nuclear option that blew back in our faces for the long run. It's one thing to win a battle and lose the war, and for right now, where CA is concerned, we aren't winning. I think Wilson did a great disservice to the Conservative movement in CA and sandbagged people like McClintock who would be our future Generals in the war.

"However, I think that-on balance-he was a remarkable, ruthless political figure-who accomplished things that no California governer ever had, and which his successors probably will never emulate-and that the Republican Party could use a lot more Pete Wilsons."

I'd rather have a lot more McClintocks, Deukmejians, Reagans, and Knowlands.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

How were any of them more effective than Wilson?

If the California Republican Party had adopted Wilson's ideas, i.e. moderated its opposition to abortion, spoke out forcefully and eloquently for controlling our borders, and repealing preferential treatment based upon race, then they could very well be in a position to challenge the Dem. Party for supremacy in that state.

Wilson is a winner, and has been for his entire political life.

The CA GOP tried the "I hate Wilson, let's welcome our Mexican compadres" approach in the past, and it was an unmitigated failure.

The only thing it got them was double-digit losses in every single statewide race.

[Amerigomag]

However, I think that-on balance-he was a remarkable, ruthless political figure-who accomplished things that no California governer ever had

A accurate analysis in a detached fashion.

and which his successors probably will never emulate-

Also accurate. Although throughly prepped by Wilson and his old gang, Schwarzenegger simply lacks the self control and temperament to pull it off. I shudder what might happen if Schwarzenegger were bettered controlled by Wilson.

and that the Republican Party could use a lot more Pete Wilsons.

Spoken like a true, conniving politician, willing to abandon any pretense of principle, whether liberal or conservative, to achieve political victory for the sake of victory and the advancement of his personal gain.

It came as a shock to many younger ideologues on this forum that Wilson latched onto the recall, just as he had latched onto Prop 187, in an effort to revive his fallen image and regain power over his old enemies in the CRP rather than any ideological crusade guided by conservative principles.

What is needed today, sorely, is a mechanism to convince Wilson to enter retirement for the good of all who suffer at his hand.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"How were any of them more effective than Wilson?"

How was he effective in the end ? He handed the Democrats the Governorship on a silver platter, he handed the Democrats the legislature on a silver platter, he did nothing to improve the national GOP's fortunes with being competitive, and he allowed the GOP to be captured by the Country-Club RINO set, the Parsky's, the Firestone's, et al. In the end, with the exception of the current Governor, he managed to set the party's fortunes back for the worst since the infamous 1958 Knight-Knowland office switcheroo.

"If the California Republican Party had adopted Wilson's ideas, i.e. moderated its opposition to abortion"

You mean morph us into the Democrats with its abhorrant amorality ? No thanks. Let them be the party of infanticide.

"spoke out forcefully and eloquently for controlling our borders,"

"They keep coming !" Ah, yes. He not only spoke out so forcefully, he managed to make LEGAL immigrants feel like they were criminal invaders. He made fence-sitting California Hispanic voters into rabid Democrats for the next generation. Well done, Pete. Good show. Perhaps he might've paid better attention to how we treat Hispanic voters in Texas (where nearly half vote GOP), or Florida (where the MAJORITY vote GOP and its very hard to find sizeable chunks of Hispanic Democrat officeholders).

"and repealing preferential treatment based upon race"

A worthy goal, but when it came from someone who could easily be painted as a racist, caused unintended problems.

"then they could very well be in a position to challenge the Dem. Party for supremacy in that state."

We're living with the Pete Wilson approach today, and it has been a fiasco. It's time to try something else that works.

"Wilson is a winner, and has been for his entire political life."

For being such a winner, he sure made the whole damn party into a gargantuan loser.

"The CA GOP tried the "I hate Wilson, let's welcome our Mexican compadres" approach in the past, and it was an unmitigated failure. The only thing it got them was double-digit losses in every single statewide race."

I'm sorry, but we tried it his way, and it has been a major-league loser. Country-clubber liberal "let's vilify the Mexicans" schtick has gotten us nowhere. If the Wilson method worked, we'd have the legislature, a majority of Congressional seats, Senate seats, statewide offices, et al. We don't, because it failed... miserably. You're not going to find many people in here who are going to say Wilson was a positive for California. He did more to improve the fortunes for the CA Democrat party than any Democrat. Now, of course, we got Ah-nold trying to outdo Pete... we just never learn.