What can we do to win back voters in California?

And Muslims, don't forget the Muslims, always plotting to blow everybody up. Always remember, Muslims are constitutionally incapable of not being violent religious fanatics.

The best way of getting more people to love you is to treat them worse and worse. Cancel all the poor people's Healthcare, welfare and unemployment. Throw all the Hispanics undocumented relatives out of the country, put all the Muslims into Internment camps. They'll vote for you in droves if they can get to the polls during their new hours of 10 to 3 on one day only.

 

The demographics of California say California will probably never be conservative again.

We have a large immigrant population conned into believing that the Democrats care about them. Ditto the African-American population that still largely lives in poverty under decades of progressive Democratic policies. Add the dysfunction of a very large politically indoctrinated College/University population. Mix in a touch of the influence of progressive/liberal entertainment and tech industries, and you have a toxic brew that won't be flushed away without some disaster turning the world upside down.

That disaster might be the looming pension crisis that could bankrupt the state. The problem with promising goodies that can't be delivered is that someday the smoke and mirrors don't work. That day of reckoning could hit in the next 20 years.

 

fizbo;

The insanity of California's policies (I live here) can increase ten-fold and it would make no difference politically.

California is the largest state with the largest population, but it is only one state with so many electoral votes. The democrats can agitate as much as they want and carry California with 100% of the vote. It still has the same number of electors.

The rest of the country can laughs at (I mean judge) what is happening here and vote their way. How do I know?

Donald Trump won.

 

Yea, I live here too, and have my whole life.

Your point about the Electoral College is well taken. If there is an indisputable argument for keeping the system, all one has to do is look at California.

 

Its a mixed bag, mostly good but sometimes bad.

In the prehospital environment its much less controlled and therefore more stressful, but you are only with your patients for a relatively short time. I've seen the worst there and the hospitals have no idea what kind of stuff doesn't make it to them. The idea is to keep them alive till they get to the ED.

The ED is more controlled but you are with your patients longer. Having to be with family and patients who know they are dying is difficult. Idea is to exclude that which kills, and admit, or stabilize and send home for follow up.

In hospital (upstairs) is the most controlled, but can be the toughest. When you have tried every angle in the fight and its not working. And the patient you have gotten to know (and family) know it. The idea is to stabilize and definitively treat.

 

I wouldn't say never conservative again, but it probably wont happen in our lifetimes. It took decades of freebies and lowered expectations to get us here, and it will probably take decades of promoting policies intended to get people out of poverty before we see an improvement.

I've lived in California since the mid 80's and even the decline from back then has been astounding.

 

Now were doing time buddy.

 

You have to be careful with sarcasm. The right actually thinks that stuff is true.

 

To abolish 1965 Immigration Act and to invite white refuges from South Africa and Ukraine, qualified workers from Europa to change demography.
Otherwise CA is lost.
For ever.

 

Over Bender;

Don't worry.

California could vote 100 percent for one party for the next 100 years and it would make no difference in the electoral college. Other states with opposing views can (and do) outweigh California's votes--just look at the 2016 election.

As designed in the Constitution, the rights of smaller states prevailed over the tyranny of the large states with California, New York and Illinois falling short in the race.

In 2016, Trump carried 30+ states and 80-90 percent of the state counties. That is not bad for a guy with no experience in politics and a smaller war chest than the Democrat Superstar Hillary with $1 billion.

The Democrat Party is currently a regional party with support along both coasts and the great lakes. It has a lot of support from the mass hysteria (I mean mass media) and a lot of big donors--all of which meant nothing last November.

As for California, its problems are internal.

California's population is growing fast in every category except tax payers. It's budget is ballooning and could crash if there is an economic downturn. Past governors have taken one year's budget shortfall and pushed it into next years budget and so on. Someone should see if Governor Brown is doing the same thing.

I know, there are some out there who think predictions of a budget crisis are unfounded, but I grew up in Orange County which was one of the richest counties in the country. It went broke overnite when the market took a dive some years ago.

The last shortfall in California was some ten years ago. It was $30 billion and caused the governor to be impeached. With the budget three times larger now, the next bomb could be atomic.

 

In 2004 Bush lost it by less than 10pts (and actually won some cities, i.e. San Diego), Trump lost it by more than 30. I think the main difference is what *kind* of Republican. Democrats aren't all the same, but when you look at the candidates that are top competitors for their nomination, it's more style than substance, whereas Republicans have genuinely different kinds (which is why you can have more than a dozen different Republicans debating and having significant disagreements - compare Trump-Paul-Cruz-Rubio-etc.). Trump is a kind of Republican that appeals more to the working class - which helped him in the rust belt (OH, IN, PA, and to a lesser degree WI & MI). That doesn't do as well in California. Also, you had Trump running on building a wall, when nearly 40% of California is Hispanic. Add in the old hippies and the new-age hippies (think latest fashion trend + stabucks cofffeeeeee), and Trump had no chance of even a close race in California.

The best way to break that, imho, actually is by trying to win over hispanic voters. They tend to be more receptive to the religious Republicans (see how Bush lost Cali by less than 10% and won 40% of the Hispanic vote), but whites are becoming less receptive to religious Republicans. So in the short term there was a trade-off (also, there were far more predominantly white states that were competitive, few states with large hispanic populations were).

There is this giddy idea that some on the left have that the demographic trends will result in an unstoppable Democratic coalition - the obvious problem with that, to any student of history, is that there was always been a party more nativist and one more receptive to new immigrants, but over time the 'new' populations assimilate and aren't considered foreign anymore. The Irish and Italians are prime examples, but over time that changed. And if anyone really doubts this historical trend, you need only look at modern Hispanic-Americans: 3rd generation Hispanic-Americans actually vote more for Republicans.

 

Dude, I'm a Republican, and it worries me that so many Republicans don't realize how close that victory was. The GOP won a good chunk of the electoral college, but it was just thousands of votes away from losing that. It didn't win WI, MI, or PA by much, and his popularity has fallen in those states. If the landscape doesn't change, Republicans will lose in 2020.

 

Back at ya dude;

"...If the landscape doesn't change. the Republican will lose in 2020..."?

Don't give in to nitwits and naysayers. They don't know anything more than the n and n's on this website. If Trump follows through on his promises, or demonstrates a reak effort, he'll carry the day in 2020. Who is th

 

troianii;

Sorry for the incomplete post above.

As I was saying. Trump and the Republicans have 18 months to get healthcare and jobs underway. Healthcare is actually a no lose proposition for them. If they cannot agree right away, the failing obamacare system will implode and panic everyone into doing something.

Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor? He came into office because of a budget panic then.

The mistake he made was to put a band aid over the problem which took away the urgency. When he placed several propositions on the following ballot to keep it from happening again, the urgency was gone. The public sector unions (police, teachers, nurses...) affected by his propositions spent millions calling him a monster for cutting their incomes and benefits. The voters defeated his proposals. the unions still get fat salaries and benefits at our expense.

Schwarzenegger should have let the problem fester until the election. then he could have gotten those proposition passed to tax payer relief.

Trump and the Republicans can afford to let the healthcare problem fester for another year while they work on a solution. By then, voters will be panicked to do something.

 

Good post. There is a movement here amongst gun owners to vote for hispanic democrats, over white lefties.

Reason being they are less totalitarian on guns. Its the best one can do when the entire state is essentially democrat.

 

3rd generation Hispanic-Americans actually vote more for Republicans than...who?

That sounds a bit dodgy to me. Do you have any back up to that?

 

The best thing Democrats can do to win more support, albeit to the detriment of the nation, is let Trump and Congressional Republicans enact their radical agenda.

If allowed to build a silly, costly wall (that, despite the fake advertising hype, Mexicans will not pay for), adopt religious discrimination as immigration policy, bloat the Pentagon's annual budget from from $583 billion to $639 billion (a Pentagon that an independent audit just exposed as wasting $125 billion,) deprive tens of millions of Americans of health care coverage, and achieve a major government-contrived transference of wealth to the wealthiest Americans, the GOP would become as noisome as a slaughter house during the increasingly high temperatures they pretend are not happening.

Unfortunately, for Democratic politicians, Republicans are incapable of chewing gum and chewing gum at the same time, so their asshat-trick control of the Executive, the Senate, and the House hamstrings their actually perpetrating their squalid wish list upon the nation.

​

 

You will never win back sensible voters in CA. It is too late.

 

Maybe if the Republican party actually had some values like back in the 80's or 90's you could win some people back. Right now the only way Republican politicians get elected is if the Democrats run the worst campaign of recent history or they run in local gerrymandered districts. Look at the disfunction of the past 150 days. How can Republicans think about expanding when they cannot do anything while owning the House, Senate and presidency? What will the Republicans have to show in the midterms that they should be given the majorities again?

 

More for Republicans than they do Democrats.

Didn't think that had to be spelled out.

 

Well it seems counter intuitive. Where are you getting the idea that third generation hispanics are more republican than democrat?

 

I'm having a bit of trouble finding the link, but this one refers to a poll which found 35% of Hispanics born in the U.S. supported Romney. This obviously include hispanics who are not 3rd generation, so I don't think it's any leap to believe, even though I can't find the link at the moment. The point is pretty simple - the longer immigrants stay in the U.S., the more likely they are to be Republican.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-more-conservative-than-immigrant-hispanics/

 

Well I'll anxiously await studies of 3rd Generation Hispanics.

 

I would not read too much into that trend. It consists of two data points. It is not wise to attempt to extrapolate from two data points. Another concern, would be the legitimacy of comparing the two samples. Did they use the same sampling procedure for both groups? Specifically, do these groups only difference on parents birth place?