On KNBC’s The Filter Wednesday night, I talked with Fred Roggin about why California had run counter to what appeared to be the national trend and gone so resolutely blue in Tuesday’s election. (Okay, Fred talked, I rambled a bit, let’s be honest.)
So why did California go so blue?
Well, duh. First of all we’re a resolutely blue state. We elect Republican governors and have plenty of both Democrats and Republicans making up our diverse state.
But when it comes to things like presidential elections, and midterms, we’re blue. We went 61 to 37 for Obama in 2008, 66 to 33 against Bush (and for the not-terribly-popular Kerry) in 2004.
Yes, like the rest of the country, we’re suffering. We have over 12 percent unemployment. The state’s broke. Our schools are a mess, and we have a list of complex social problems that few regions can match. But we don’t think Barack Obama caused our problems, even if we are somewhat less than thrilled with how he’s handled everything on his preposterous full plate. We don’t think he’s a socialist. And we don’t think our ongoing economic woes are his fault. (And we truly shudder to think what might have happened had McCain/Palin been elected.)
And , now two years later, we have seen zero to suggest that the Republicans —tea partiers or otherwise—have any kind of plan to fix it.
Yes, we’re pissed off at the Democrats in Congress, but we’re way angrier at the Just Say No obstructionist Republicans, and we aren’t insane enough to believe it was better under that Bush guy and his group. (In California, Obama has a 53 percent approval rating, Democrats have 50 percent, while the GOP has 34 percent, the Tea Party movement rates slightly less than the Republicans.)
All that said, however, had Republicans chosen an appealing centrist not-terribly-partisan candidate she (or he) might very well have beaten Barbara Boxer, because she represents the kind of Beltway entrenchment that is getting on everyone’s last nerve.
Instead, however, the Republicans chose a far right leaning, rich woman who demonizes immigrants, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, doesn’t think gays should have equal rights, and is a tad too gun happy for our taste—AND, most significantly, is a job-exporting former CEO who represents, in most people’s minds, the only group that Americans dislike more than they dislike Congress right now—namely the combo burger of rich-Wall-Street-big-business.
When Fiorina said she felt our pain and that we should throw the rascals out and put her in, we kinda suspected that she might be one those frying-pan-into-the-fire variety rascals we most wanted most to avoid.
Ditto Meg Whitman.
Another thing: we haven’t bought the myth that health care reform is an evil socialist gargoyle that will eat our children and grandchildren. In fact, the majority of us are happy about it, such as it is, and 37 percent of us want it expanded. (The majority of the rest of the country wanted it back in 2007, before they were sold the gargoyle narrative. Not that the democrats and the president have done a whole lot to advance a more fact-based narrative, but that’s another discussion.)
Interestingly, in California, Democrats came out to vote, even though the exceedingly annoying pundits said we wouldn’t. The so-called enthusiasm gap didn’t happen here. Dems showed up at the polls in large numbers—mainly to vote in the state races, correctly realizing that the elected official that could most affect our daily lives was, not our US Senator, but the governor of our fair state.
With that in mind, we figured the gubernatorial candidate with the best shot at turning things around was that 72-year-old Jerry guy, who talked sense, not the obviously lying, rich, Wall Street-friendly mean girl, eMeg and her $160 million. Thus the senior citizen dude who looks a whole lot like the state bird, but who was once a visionary for California, and just might be again—this time with his feet more firmly anchored in practicality— won with 53.6 percent to Whitman’s 41.
Here’s the bottom line. People all over the country are really hurting and they/we want the hurting to stop. What prescription we were willing to buy as a remedy, determined our vote.
The swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado, who were less sure about Obama from the get go were more willing to buy the Tea Party line that he was at fault.
Californians were not. In the end, we decided to vote for the notion that we could band together and fix our own state (and maybe lead the way toward a greener future for the rest of the nation while doing it). We went for the option of hard work, creativity and no easy fixes.
And I’m proud of us for doing so. I think in our own uniquely California-ish way, we behaved like grown-ups.
WHY DID MEG LOSE?
Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg writes in the LA Times that it was she came across as a patronizing, money flaunting, reckless spender.
THE ONCE AND FUTURE JERRY – MAKING HISTORY THEN AND NOW
Thursday’s LA Times Op Ed about who Jerry was as a governor 30 years ago, and who he might be for us now, is precisely the essay the LA Times should have written when they endorsed Brown over Whitman a month ago, instead of the preposterously tepid “Well (groan) if we HAVE to” endorsement they penned at the time..
Okay, better late than never. It’s a lovely essay—and pretty much dead on. Read it here.
The truth is, Celeste, California isn’t that much different than the country. We just have two major metropolitan regions that are mostly liberal. That’s really why we almost always go Democrat. But Arnold’s victories and the prisons having an open checkbook is proof that even many LA county and bay area residents aren’t immune to the right’s fear mongering.
There are an awful lot of liberals in every state. Millions. And they’re all distinctive to their own parts of the country. Texas liberals are Texans through and through. Just as California conservatives are Californians through and through.
The cable news racket, with its industry leader, FoxNews (per their bragging, as if tabloid journalism is something to be proud of), has done a good job of convincing us that Californians are all hippies, while Texans are all sitting on their fence posts with shot guns waiting for undesirables to dare walk their street. We get too much of our information from news bytes, hate radio, and hollywood entertainment produced by people who’ve seldom been outside of LA or NY.
And, a lot of these news bytes are playing the same game with this election. They’re saying that California is on its island, floating apart from the rest of the country philosophically. While as a Californian I might be tempted to take some kind of misguided pride in that, I first can’t help but to consider the source of this blanketed assessment of the election results. California was the only state that went blue, so they’re saying we’re different from America, as if we’re strange, not to be trusted. I don’t feel comfortable playing right into a strategy obviously designed to make Republicans seem like the norm and Democrats seem like the whackadoo party only supported by those zany Californians. No thanks. California is California because we have two giant metro areas that are mostly Democrat. That’s it. It’s not even that deep. But nice try, Fox.
Sorry to serial post, celeste, but I just thought of this. Is it me or does it seem like since 2006 every election has gone in the favor of whichever party seems to represent struggling middle class citizens the best? True that Democrats represented struggling middle class citizens, and far more than Republicans when you consider platforms alone. But did they act like it? Who put on a better show of caring between the two? That whole tea party, ‘we’re mad as hell’ thing outweighed the Democrats strategy of just trying to sell their plan. Bottom line, Republicans just did a better job of convincing struggling middle class people that they care about them, even though I don’t think they do as much as Democrats. And in 2006 and 2008, while Republicans were still chasing their post 9/11 tales and trying to tap into American’s fears of terrorism, Democrats had the run of the place when it came to the issue that was most important to Americans, the economy and how much people are struggling.
Imagine if someone truly loved their spouse, but just stopped telling them?
Here’s something Fiorina said and it’s how most of the nation feels.
But when asked in an interview with POLITICO if Republicans needed to make any changes in their approach to the growing Hispanic community, Fiorina replied, “There has been a very unfortunate racist tone that has emerged in a lot of the discussion about immigration and that’s inexcusable. We must be a country that welcomes legal immigrants to this country. We must be a country that recognizes that we have industries like agriculture that have depended on temporary migrant labor for generations.”
Yeah she’s really demonizing “immigrants”. She had no problem stating her beliefs but you can’t even put “illegal immigrant” into a sentence where it obviously belongs in an attempt to smear her.
Nice try.
Our true unemployment rate is 20% Celeste, there’s enough sources around to back that up. It’s your people who have been in charged forever and the failures of this state lies at their feet. So what do we do, we put more of them in office, brilliant.
By the way, PORAC endorsed 75% of Democrats that ran, they know who the big spenders are because cops hate supporting the softer on crime people but labor organizations, cop or other, will always lean that way.
SF and LA would pass this, probably just a matter of time.
Portland, Maine, rejects noncitizen voting
Wed Nov 3, 1:05 am ET
PORTLAND, Maine – Voters in Maine’s largest city have rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in municipal elections.
The proposal in Portland was defeated Tuesday 52 percent to 48 percent.
Supporters said it was only fair that immigrants who are not yet citizens be allowed to vote because they pay taxes, send their children to public schools and even serve in the military.
The measure would have allowed noncitizens to cast ballots in school board, city council and other local issues, but not on federal or statewide matters.
Critics said allowing noncitizens to vote would cheapen the meaning of citizenship. They said that if immigrants want to vote, they should become citizens.
Combo burger…yummm…
Homer Simpson, 11/4/10
Thanks jim. Now I’ll be thinking about an In-N-Out Double-Double all day.
Finally I found something to agree with Lee about. CA DOES go blue because it’s major metro areas along the coast. If you get east of I-5 people are more moderate than liberal. But because of the major population centers along the coast, that’s where the majority of votes comes from.
If you look at the state map on a blue/red basis, you will see that it’s decidedly more red east of I-5.
Where it’s really telling is if you check it out on a county by county basis.
Democrats have done a GREAT job of selling our brand to the major metropolitan areas.
We have done a HORRIBLE job of selling it elsewhere.
The nationwide blue/red maps prove this, and it cannot be denied. If we’re going to have a future, at some point we’re going to have to address this issue.
We have CA/NY/MA locked up tight. If we write off the rest of the country, we will see future elections like Tuesday.
It’s good to play to your strengths. But if you ignore your weaknesses, you cannot be successful in the long term.
We can’t ignore the fact that we have some weaknesses in mid-America. We have to listen those people and value their opinions and desires.
If not, it’s going to be more of the same in the future.
The coasts ARE on an island if you look at the map from a blue/red perspective.
That’s a fact.
Jim, you have just reminded me of one of my favorite Homer Simpson lines ever:
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WsDtn-feuI&feature=related
SF, that’s a good Fiorina quote and very eloquent. Indeed, I think “demonizes” was too extreme a word on my part. And the other pieces of info are interesting as well. (BTW,I noticed PORAC’s endorsements.)
But do you think in the future you could manage to disagree with me—or whomever—without using your flame thrower set to full blast? It would be a big help.
The point I’m making ATQ is this “great divide” is a theory that I believe is propagated by the political party that benefits from it most. As a California liberal, I refuse to believe I’m that much different than the rest of the country. I’ve met people from all over this country, of all political views, and have things in common with every one of them.
Sure Fire, wealthy Republicans like Meg Whitman have already given our jobs to illegal immigrants, now wealthy Democrats are going to make it legal for them to vote, to build up their base. Tick for tack.
Most likely Jerry Brown will provide the same dissapointment as Obama. The only “solution” coming California’s liberal politicians is increased taxes, more money and spending solves every problem in their minds. It’s time to try a three party political system.
Spending solves problems for the people who need the money, WTF. And, last I checked, almost everyone today can use a little cash infusion. I’m no socialist, but remember that Bush doled stimulus checks out to everyone to stimulate the economy. He really did it twice, disguising it as a tax rebate the first time. Same concept. Took money from the treasury, gave it to the American people, in hopes that they would spend it. And, NOBODY criticized him. Maybe Jerry Brown and Barack Obama need to just start calling themselves Republicans, then they can spend all they want to and nobody will make a peep about it.
I’m no Bush fan. Let me say that right up front so to avoid being labeled as one.
Here’s the difference between what Bush’s tax cuts (or sending a stimulus check to everybody) and the current stimulus package.
Under Bush’s deal, EVERYBODY got a check. To spend how they pleased, where they pleased.
Under the current stimulus package, the money goes where the current administration decides it should.
Let me amend…EVERYBODY who paid taxes got a check. Yeah, I know, it’s obvious that’s what I meant.
Just so we don’t get in a debate over minutiae.
The reason for that is because if Obama just gave everyone a check the way Bush did he’d be called a socialist by his critics. So he has no choice but to only give stimulus money to businesses. Giving money directly to the people is a third rail for Democrats. Republicans, however, can airdrop bags of hundred dollar bills all over the country, and nobody would complain.
If EVERYBODY who pays taxes gets a check, it’s fair.
If a politician decides who gets it, it’s possible that the money is going to their cronies.
There isn’t a politician at ANY national level that doesn’t have BUSINESSES PEOPLE she/he is indebted to for their support and mostly, first and foremost, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
That tends to make people suspicious, and rightfully so, when politicians decide how the money gets divvied up.
lol, that’s what politics is.
That’s what earmarks are all about.
“And, last I checked, almost everyone today can use a little cash infusion.”
******************
I could also use a cash infusion, by NOT having the government take my money and wasting it.
If I had more of my own cash, I could provide the much needed economic stimulus by buying useless Chinese products, cash give-aways to single mothers working as strippers or support the gaming tables at the local Indian casinos.
The longer I live, the more I tend to be in favor of the flat tax. Let’s put it at 20% and call it good.
A person who only makes $30k a year only pays 6k in taxes.
A person who makes 100k a year pays 20k in taxes.
If it’s done on a percetage basis, it is fair to everyone.
Everybody needs to get some skin in the game. The only way to do that where it is equitable to everybody involved is to go to a percentage tax rate.
I already do that Celeste, seriously.
The gamebook of the left is to sometimes make comments, like yours, thinking those on the right, like me, will just let them slide. When they are so blatantly wrong I react as I wish the rest of your posters would, with proof and a slight dig, which is what I did. I’m not saying you do it all the time but what you said, and that people buy it, imho was what turned voters against Fiorina and Whitman. To lose on the facts is one thing, to be defeated based on lies is another and there’s no honor in it.
Do you know why the majority of the responses I get from people like Randy and Rob are filled with snide remarks and not facts to debate what I write? Because they can’t do it. I don’t do battle like the left, and I’m easy on people here as comapred to a few other places. I could write a book on Reg who ran from our pension debate here only to post the same type blatant b.s. on Cooper’s site later. That is Reg in a nutshell, all talk and no honor. Think what you want about me but I wouldn’t pull that type of sleazy move.
I’ll probably mess with Reg and Randy over at Cooper’s blog pretty soon because they don’t get challenged near enough and I can put that flamethrower on the max setting there.
I understand you want people to argue nicely here but sometimes it’s impossible to do because the left is so nasty in their remarks and attempts to show their superiority to those on the right you have to fire back the same way at times and hit them where it hurts.
I’ve told you before I’d rather play nice and have a healthy exchange here, it’s not me you have to convince to get on board with that.
Peace.
California is way different than the vast majority of states, nocal is in la-la land. Rob needs to take a road trip.
Rob, if you won a million in the lottery do you know how much the goverment would tax you?
You wouldn’t be winning a million at all.
You would be winning $669,530.
The goverment would win $330,470.
My idea would only give the goverment $200k of your money.
WTF Says:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I could also use a cash infusion, by NOT having the government take my money and wasting it.
……………
What would you consider wasting it? To me, wasting it is giving it to these banks that are just going to sock it away in hidden accounts, and not lend it to responsible loan applicants, which is what they were supposed to do with it.
Why is it that we only consider government spending to be a waste if it’s going to people poorer than us? And, this attitude goes all the way up the ladder. Rich people think unemployment insurance and stimulus checks to the middle class are a waste. They think you, me, ATQ, Sure Fire, Celeste, and Randy will just blow it all on malt liquor and Philly Blunts.
FACT:
While Howard Dean was DNC chair, the Democratic party took control of the house in one election, and gained more seats in the next. The first election after Dean resigned, Democrats lose the house.
Peace.
I agree with your bank take Rob but why do you think that’s happening?
To me, wasting it is giving it to these banks that are just going to sock it away in hidden accounts,
Here here. EXACTLY. I agree 100%.
Now, who is it that decided that the banks would get a BIG chunk of the stimulus money?
Of course, it’s politicians.
Some people believe that politicians in DC know better than they themselves how to take care of them.
Talk about low self esteem.
Too bad Dean got a little too relaxed and let himself go in one instance.
He had a lot more experience the the Junior Senator from Illinois.
We we’re willing to fall for his charisma, and we embraced the ability for each of us to cast a history making vote. …..so we overlooked his lack of experience.
I’ll quote Hillary during a primary debate:
“The President of the United States is not a place for on the job training”.
More and more IMHO, she appears to be right.
I didn’t vote for Obama because of his charisma. Speak for yourself. I voted for him because I thought he was the best candidate.
And, I think Obama is experienced enough to be president. If the requirements, all of which he’s met, aren’t good enough in the eyes of some, they need to write their congressperson and ask them to pass a law requiring a certain level of experience in government before becoming president. Just make sure you don’t set it so high as to where Sarah Palin can’t run.
Answering The Question Says:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Too bad Dean got a little too relaxed and let himself go in one instance.
………
I don’t know what this means.
The Democratic Party only took control of the house, senate, and white house on his 2 year watch.
Tell the truth, you voted for the Black guy, saying he had enough experience when you look at his record is pretty pathetic.
Too bad Dean got a little too relaxed and let himself go in one instance.
What that means is, had Dean not screwed up and gave that one interview where he went a little over the top and screamed like a WWE wrestler, he might very well be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
From CNN.
Romney, Huckabee beating Bam in ’12
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:17 AM, November 5, 2010
Posted: 1:29 AM, November 5, 2010
WASHINGTON — Two days after his self-described “shellacking” in the election, President Obama has another reason to feel bad: He’s trailing two Republicans in the first post-election poll of the 2012 presidential race.
Obama is lagging behind both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.
Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, leads Obama 52 to 44 percent in a hypothetical matchup, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, tops Obama 50 to 45 percent.
Sarah Palin, who has been coy about her plans, trails the president 52 to 44, while Obama barely edges out former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 49 to 47.
****************************************************
Looks like the rest of the country finds Huckster and Romney “sane”.
Sure Fire/Nikki Says:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Tell the truth, you voted for the Black guy,
………..
What’s wrong with voting for a black candidate? Is this a revelation that you voted against Obama because he’s black?
Answering The Question Says:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Too bad Dean got a little too relaxed and let himself go in one instance.
What that means is, had Dean not screwed up and gave that one interview where he went a little over the top and screamed like a WWE wrestler, he might very well be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
……………..
I wasn’t talking about Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. I was talking about Howard Dean’s leadership of the Democratic National Committee. And, again, in his short time as DNC chair, the Democrats took the house, the senate, and the white house. In the first election since Dean’s resignation from the DNC, they’ve lost the house. Plenty other factors, I’m certain. But this is still an undeniable fact.
Nobody is denying it. You’re not hearing what I’m saying. I’m saying our party would have been in better shape with Dean as POTUS than Obama.
I look at Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney about the same way as I look at Howard Dean. They’ve said some crazy things, but I think they could certainly be competent if they put their mind to something. Just like a lot of people might think Howard Dean is nuts because he got a little overexcited in a speech during his presidential bid in ’04, he still steered the Democratic party into power with his leadership of the DNC 2 years later. I’m not going to make the mistake of judging a book by its cover.
Nothing wrong with it unless the only reason you voted for him was that he was Black. I voted for two Dems in the election Tuesday, I actually read up on candidates and look at their record, skin color mean zero.
To claim he had the experience is laughable but that’s what you’re trying to make people believe here. That leaves his color and with the comments you’ve made about whites here on several issues Rob, is it really a stretch for me to think you only voted for Obama because he was Black?
Do you think a significant number of people voted for Obama only because he’s black, Sure Fire? Even if Obama were a Republican, the very same people still would have voted for him?
1) Yes
2) The question makes no sense
If Obama were a Republican, Sure Fire, would the same people who voted for Obama in ’08 solely because he’s black still had voted for him? Does that question honestly not make sense to you? It’s pretty easy.
It makes no sense because different Republicans carry different messages. I already stated I voted for two Democrats so your question makes no sense to me. Would I vote for a Black candidate, depends on who it is and what he’s running for, I think most Whites feel the same as I do.
Do you know why the majority of the responses I get from people like Randy and Rob are filled with snide remarks and not facts to debate what I write?
Actually, with respect, this appears to be a bit of projection on your part. A recent case in point: the letter from SSA received by meg Whitman regarding her housekeeper. I presented a logical analogy, which, instead of being discussed on the merits was attacked by you as “silly” without addressing the substance at all.
Often, it appears to me that you present your opinion as fact. Let me assure you: they are not interchangeable.
I have attempted, with great restraint being employed to respect the wishes of the host of this blog. Celeste will correct me if I’m wrong, but since she has started enforcing her commenting rules, she hasn’t had a need to delete my comments.
I think everyone – me, Reg, you, Rob and his many incarnations, WTF, ATQ – should respect Celeste’s requests regarding comments. I have no problem doing so. I have made a strong effort to avoid insulting anyone since the rules change. It’s not difficult.
No Randy, you turned it into a “How do people legally get served with lawsuits” debate. The part of my response more directed at you was the “snide remarks”. You did it here again with your last sentence.
I know you try to back yourself up with facts, I just disagree with you most of the time.
I don’t need to be preached to, you seem to have a desire to do so. You’re wasting your time.