Posted on 02/06/2006 12:36:41 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Los Angeles Times, Jun 22, 1928; pg. 1In 1912 Johnson bolted the Republican party, denouncing it as a "tool of capitalism," a "cesspool of corruption," "rotten to the core," etc. He was then the "Republican" Governor of California, in office by virtue of Republican voters given him as a Republican candidate.
In the same year when the Socialist La Follette was being boomed for President, Johnson organized the La Follette campaign committee and threw the support of his machine to La Follette. Then, Theodore Roosevelt organized the Progressive party and promised Johnson the Vice-Presidency in return for Johnson's pledge of California. Johnson instantly threw La Follette overboard, changed the name of his committee to the Roosevelt League and helped to engineer the nation-wide split in the Republican party which resulted in the defeat of Taft.
In 1914 Johnson used his authority as Governor to dismiss from all boards and commissions of the State every registered Republican.
In 1915, after building up a political machine which trebled the costs of State government in one gubernatorial term, Johnson forced through the Legislature a bill prohibiting the use of any party name or designation on State election ballots for no other purpose than to hamstring the Republican party and give him absolute control.
In 1916, as a candidate for the United States Senate, Johnson made an open and notorious deal with the Democrats whereby he and his then powerful State machine threw their support to Wilson, Democratic candidate for President, and opposed Hughes, the Republican nominee, in return for Democratic support for Johnson. Newspapers supporting Johnson openly carried the ticket "Johnson and Wilson" as their editorial mastheads. Eleven high Johnson State officials declared for Wilson. Johnson denounced Hughes at the Progressive convention and when Hughes toured California in the interest of the Republican campaign Johnson insulted and refused to meet him. Johnson's State Central Committee blocked every effort of the League of California Republican Clubs to carry the State for Hughes. Republican campaign funds, controlled by the Johnson machine, were spent to oppose Republican candidates. Over half of Johnson's falsely registered "Republicans" voted against Hughes. As a result of this flagrant and insolent treachery, the Republican party lost the national election singly and solely because California went Democratic for the first time in a generation-but Johnson, the "Republican" candidate for the Senate, won.
In the same year Johnson double-crossed his Progressive allies and scuttled the Progressive party at Chicago. With Roosevelt's letter of refusal to run concealed in the speaker's table Johnson and his lieutenants proceeded with a prearranged program of, fund-raising for a campaign which they knew would never be conducted. The price for this treachery and for a never-kept pledge to deliver the California Progressive vote to Hughes was to be Johnson's reinstatement as a "Republican"--this within four years of the time he had said: "To hell with the Republican party!"
Repeatedly defeated in his own Presidential ambitions, Johnson has openly and covertly fought every Republican President from Taft to Coolidge, has bitterly denounced them from the platform, has opposed their appointments, has fought their national and international policies, has consistently outlawed himself from the Republican administration forces in the Senate by filibuster and open threats of party sabotage, voting either with the Democrats or with his own little group of fellow-wreckers. During his own campaign for the Presidential nomination in 1924 he intemperately attacked the Harding administration and declared Henry Ford's indorsement of Coolidge was "bought" by Muscle Shoals considerations. He has consistently opposed the efforts of his colleague, Senator Shortridge, to serve the interests of California and stopped at nothing to prevent Shortridge's re-election in 1926. He toured the State denouncing his fellow-Republican Senator, a spectacle without precedent in all the annals of American politics.
Los Angeles Times, Jun 22, 1928; pg. 1So far from aiding Hoover or maintaining "party harmony," The Times believes that any deal between Republicans and this notorious traitor to the party will do more to damage Republicanism and its candidate, not only in California but elsewhere, than any other single mistake which could be made. Any effort, passive or active, calculated to delude the rank and file of the party into the belief that Johnson, who so often has betrayed them, has suddenly become a fit object for their support, would be, an act of treachery comparable only to Johnson's own black record of political betrayals during the past eighteen years.
Ping to above.
Some old California political history on Hiram Johnson which, if nothing else,
is fun for a laugh to see the LA Times in its old Rabid Republican days.
1932 is universally considered to be a realigning election.Roosevelt's campaign saw the New York governor committing himself to battling the Great Depression, promoting a platform with "Three R's - relief, recovery and reform." He coined the term "New Deal" when he stated: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."
Compare that to today's gubernatorial platform of the Three R's - recover, reform and rebuild.
More FDR we don't need.
It's RED IN THE MIDDLE!
Medium Rare?
So9
Raw at my house.
;-)
One little mention of a tax hike
Wilson's record of the largest single increase in state income tax rates in US history.
.. and blammo;
piss and moan ..consistently fault him .. never seem to remember .. never fail to ascribe blame .. the Republican Party in California experienced unparalleled success under his leadership .. ex post facto reasoning
.. personal vitriol, boorish sensibilities and a litany of partisan success under an immaculate leadership.
I do love partisans. I do.
Can we discuss the Wilsonegger gang? Please.
Leaving aside this delusional belief-supported by not a scintilla of evidence-that there is an ascendant Republican Party in the state of California, what have the people who have lamented all of the damage inflicted by the gruesome, malevolent, ogreish Pete Wilson upon the GOP-neglecting to explain why this public backlash manifested itself only after he was no longer on the ballot-accomplished in order to advance conservative values, or to repulse a single left-wing initiative in that state?
Aside from their ceaseless, monotonous kvetching, which I readily concede you folks are very adept at.
They have made many Republicans aware that the come back kids are imposing a liberal, foreign national on the CRP.
That education has armed conservative voters with enough information to stymie the gang's attempt last November to further corrupt California's republican system and has cast a long shadow on the gang's stealthy, liberal shenanigans since early 2004.
An informed California electorate, on Oct 7, 2003, tossed out the most corrupt administration in California since WWI. History will probably credit conservatives alone for stopping a second, consecutive, corrupt California administration. The CRP and California will owe much to the vast, right wing conspiracy.
Go have a nice life in old NY with your RINO Governor!!!
He sure didn't stand on ANY tradition, good or bad, did he? NOPE! He broke the mold and now Arnold thinks he can make something of himself out of such black mold!!! Phhhhhht!!!
Although I usually agree with you, I have to part company on your support of Wilson. Wilson's "success" happened to coincide with an increase in GOP fortunes nationwide, and he succeeded a fairly successful GOP Governor attempting a "stay the course" stance. The problem, however, is that Wilson was already undermining the situation even as the party was expanding itself in other offices. It came crashing down completely by the time he left office. A large part of why Dan Lungren lost so horribly in '98 was because the voters voiced their displeasure with Wilson (in stark contrast to their "thumbs up" to Deukemejian 8 years prior). Wilson's sledgehammer approach with "those people" (and you know what I'm talking about) has caused (as of now) irreparable damage to the state party. While he may not be entirely to blame, he plays no small part.
Well, you send me off on these socratic learning adventures, I can't help but share what I find! LOL.
Seriously, I love reading this old stuff. I'd rather read old news than someone's slant in a book (while the news is slanted, at least I don't get the info slanted again by the book writer). Plus, the articles have many more details than books.
I'm glad you enjoyed them.
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:
DATE ELIGIBLE DEM REP OTHER TOTAL
PERCENT REGISTRATION
Nov. 4, 1930 -- 20.3% 73.0% 6.7% 100.00%
Nov. 6, 1934 -- 49.5% 45.5% 4.9% 100.00%
REGISTRATION
Nov. 4, 1930 3,463,000 456,096 1,638,575 150,557 2,245,228
Nov. 6, 1934 3,674,000 1,555,705 1,430,198 154,211 3,140,114
Looking at the figures above, I made the following calculations:
*The number of (R) voters dropped by 208,377 people (-12.7%)
*The number of (D) voters increased by 1,099,609 (+241%)
*Total number of voters increased by 894,886 (grapes of wrath?)
*Assume all of the folks who moved to CA during 1930-1934 voted (D) and add the 208,377 former (R) voters and it adds up to 1,103,263 - that is within 3,654 people of the additional amount of (D) voters.
Thus I conclude the following:
*Of the million plus people who migrated to CA during the depression years (1930-1934) virtually all of them must have voted democrat. This shifted the state from a 73% republican majority to a 45% republican minority within four years.
I find this facinating, I had no idea the %*%#^ okies were the ones that did the State in!!!!
All great stuff exposing California's penultimate RINO of the 20th Century, Hiram Johnson (followed closely by Earl Warren, though his destructive implications had national impact). I'm amazed that lunatic managed to stay in office (as a sitting Republican !) from the 1910s all the way up until his death in the '40s. However, one of the things that helped him was the cross-party filing that candidates could do at that time (sometimes confusing when doing research on pre-'50s CA pols). It's amazing when you think of this man's apostasy that he has almost no equals today, as bad as many RINOs are today. Probably Chafee of RI is the only one who comes closest to the model.
To get an idea of the dramatic shift of the state at the Federal level, in 1930, there were 2 GOP Senators (the RINO Johnson, and regular Republican Samuel Shortridge, who still managed to prevail in '26 despite Johnson's denunciations), and of the then-11 House members, 10 were Republicans and 1 was a rural Democrat (who usually would be cross-nominated by the GOP). By the period between 1934-36, only Johnson remained as a Senator for the GOP, Shortridge lost renomination in '32 (and the GOP and Prohibitionist candidates split the vote allowing a Democrat to win with a plurality), and the House delegation (CA gaining a whopping 9 seats for 1932), flipped to a 15 Democrat+1 Progressive Dem to 4 GOP by 1936. Not until 1947 did the Republicans recover their House majority, and 1956 was the last year the GOP won a majority of the delegation to date. Johnson, of course, played a considerably large role in making CA a 'Rat majority state today... as a sitting Republican. And who is it on here that says ANY Republican is better than a Democrat ?
It's almost inspiring.
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.