It's Not the Brand

progressives vs corporatists (0.00 / 0)

i agree with u that progs vs corporatists is the real alignment in this state-but its not just CA, its the whole country.  unfortunately i think social identity issues still-i think-r what most voters use in determining party registration (or not) and who they vote for.  the dem party has ALOT of people who r basically conservatives/corporatists but do not like the Christian right, they believe in global warming & do want some govt svcs-mainly for the purpose of $$$/profits.

the gop has many people in their base who think corps r out of control & have too much power-but r socially intolerant (rascists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc).  and as for global warming, they believe that carbon tax, etc will further hurt their economy/jobs further-they believe the govt has already hurt their economic prospects enough & believe this will hurt them further.  im from coal country (wva/sw pa) and i know/have seen this for myself.  

---

by: John Estok @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 19:35:49 PM UTC

Your "realignment" is between liberal and libertarian blocs (0.00 / 0)

That would be fine if there were no more social conservatives -- but there are.  Plenty.

I hope that what you're saying isn't true, because if so the libertarian elites will just do what they have traditionally done on the national stage (and here): form an uneasy "Romney-Huckabee" coalition between corporatists and traditionalists.  You can't just wish away social conservatives.  If it were possible, we would already have done it.

---

by: Seneca Doane @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 21:39:46 PM UTC

That's not the realignment (5.00 / 1)

It's progressive vs. corporate, with social conservatives on the margins. It's not that social conservatives are gone, but that their numbers are so small and their beliefs so toxic that nobody can win by appealing to them.

Look at Meg Whitman. She attempted exactly what you describe - a coalition between corporatists (herself) and traditionalists. But because the traditionalists are so radioactive, voters would not accept a candidate who appealed to the traditionalists. And the traditionalists would not vote for the corporatist unless she appealed to them - had Whitman not done so, Poizner would have come much closer to winning.

California statewide elections will come to resemble a French presidential election, where you have a first round with basically three candidates - a progressive, a corporatist, and a far-right wacko. Every so often, you might get a 2002 situation where the far-right wacko (Le Pen) outpolls the progressive (Jospin) for 2nd place, and the corporatist (Chirac) wins an easy victory in the general election because he rejects the traditionalists to win the progressive vote en masse.

I get that being in the middle of Orange County might give you a different perspective. I agree that the GOP and its hard-right base have not disappeared. But they are a fringe, and OC wingnuts are increasingly anomalous. They will never again win a statewide election. They will never again win majority control of the Legislature.

The goal for progressives is to then ensure that their candidates win the statewide races and that enough of them win the legislative races to prevent a de facto coalition in the Capitol between the corporate elite and the traditionalists - although again, that would render the coalition toxic and give an opening to the progressives to overcome that coalition at the next election.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:12:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suppose we'd have to define "fringe" (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that social conservatives are a fringe even outside of my orange homeland.  (The real one, not the virtual one.)  I doubt, in fact, that they are much smaller of a group than progressives or corporatists.  What they are is less willing to compromise their ideals these days.

Thinking about it more deeply, I think the problem (and why I disagree with your conclusion, even though I think you are describing a real tendency) is that a great number of Californians are in the mushy middle.  They don't fit into any of the three groups.  They don't necessarily find any of the three groups entirely offensive in principle.  They can be attracted, with the right pitch and framing, to any or all of the three groups -- enough so that where there's a candidate who can smooth over the ends of the Republican coalition, they can still win.  (I don't think that Poizner would have beaten Brown, but I do think that he might have beaten Newson -- and I get that being in the middle of Generation X may give you a different perspective.)

I can't imagine any Democrat not infected by Penn and Schoen who would not agree with your last paragraph -- which is to say that I think that you're right and that it doesn't derive solely from your premises.

---

by: Seneca Doane @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:49:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "mushy middle" has no room for the right (0.00 / 0)

Again, my point is that the clear majority of Californians have rejected the right and that any effort to bring them into a governing or a campaign coalition will render that coalition toxic to the majority. The evidence for this is very clear, dating back at least to the 1998 election. If it was just the 2010 election alone I wouldn't have reached the conclusions that I did.

Consider the demographic trends, where Millennials and people of color make up a large and growing portion of the electorate, and the analysis is solidified.

While I quibble with your claim that most Californians are in the "mushy middle," it is quite clear that they absolutely do not consider the right to be a legitimate part of state government. Arnold's ratings were best when he was seen as acting centrist, and worst when he was acting like a right-winger. California's electorate is complex, but the one thing we can say clearly is that as a statewide group, it is inhospitable to the right.

And because Republicans have defined themselves as a solely right-wing party, they are now unelectable on a statewide basis, and are headed for the fringe of state politics. Being in Orange County, it won't feel like that, but that is exactly what is happening.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 15:30:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quinn's historicity (0.00 / 0)

While other GOP apologists like Tony Quinn think that their party's setback is temporary, noting that California Republicans bounced back from big losses in the early 1960s with Ronald Reagan in 1966, the fact is that their party is destined for the margins, and is already becoming a small fringe group with declining influence over our state's future.

 It is important to realize that Republicans had blacks
to run against that fueled their rebound, peeling off urban (white) ethinics from the New Deal coalition.  There is no
such group this time (I mean, there's Latinos, but the Reps
are already demonizing them).  As Latinos become a greater and greater share of the electorate (Whitman won among whites), Republicans will be forced to change nationwide.  Our goal as progressives is to wait until the Latino minority is numerous enough to prevail politically.

---

by: MarkD @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:00:58 AM UTC

And to keep Latinos on board (0.00 / 0)

What happened in 1966 was that Reagan figured out how to peel off part of the white working class and turn them against the New Deal. But 45 years later, that group of people are either aging off the political stage or have left the state, or are otherwise outnumbered and have fallen below the replacement rate.

The GOP could recover by somehow peeling off Latinos. But so far they've never been able to do this, because the GOP base hates, hates, hates Latinos and will not accept them as a coalition partner, whereas the portions of California's white population that identify as Democratic are quite open to sharing a coalition, and sharing a state, with Latinos. It's the difference between those who embrace a 21st century reality and those who don't.

The thing that would concern me more is a corporatist winning enough Latinos, like Schwarzenegger did in 2003 and 2006. Democrats need to deliver for Latino voters, otherwise the corporatists will start winning them, especially in a top-two election where corporatists don't have to sabotage their chances by appealing to a far-right fringe (aka the California Republican Party base).

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:18:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why does the GOP suck? (4.00 / 1)

Obviously, the GOP is a failure.  I think its important to examine why. Is the entire agenda of the GOP a complete failure?  The success that they have had with initiatives suggests that some of their ideas can be popular, but the failure over many elections shows that electing people statewide is a bridge WAY too far.

Of course this last election was a total washout for them.  2008 was such a washout that the Obama campaign used all of their volunteer resources in California to make calls into other states.  

2006 was nearly a washout.  Schwarzenegger was not as much a Republican as a pure corporatist. I don't think the GOP can claim a victory with his election.  Steve Poizner, who in an earlier life was a moderate Republican, beat Cruz Bustamante by painting him as a crook.  

So it's been years since the GOP has had a legitimate success at the ballot box.  Why is this? I think Robert has it almost right--he lists all the things that the GOP hates.  But I think it has more to do with hatred itself.  People don't like haters.

Hatred can work accutely, but not chronically.  For example, you can win a hate-fulled initiative campaign but the object of the hatred will never, ever forgive.  And they will work to defeat the haters for as long as they can remember the insult.

I remember Prop 14 that would allow people to refuse to sell or rent property to anyone for any reason.  The obvious target was blacks who wanted to move out of the cities.  The initiative passed, was deemed unconstitutional and generally forgotten by all except blacks.  How much have they warmed to the GOP since then?

Prop 187 went after the Latino population.  That is a constituancy largely lost to the GOP for generations.  Various initiatives have pitted gays against traditional conservatives.  Once again, gays are a constituancy lost to the GOP for generations.

Hatred is a loser.  I have to work harder to not hate the GOP especially with the likes of Cheney, Palin, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, etc.  But I have to say, it is a real challenge.

---

by: smoker1 @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 17:18:37 PM UTC

Excellent stuff. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: duder @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 19:16:48 PM UTC

It's been mentioned in other diaries that the Republican's 2/3 stranglehold (0.00 / 0)

held on the legislature has made it possible for them to rule without being a majority party.

This has made them politically lazy, deferential to easy money from large donors, and easily intimidated by small blocs of single-issue voters.

I think that a return to majority rule would actually revive the GOP in California.

However, the crystal ball is cloudy. We took minority control of the budget away from them, but handed them new power over regulatory fees. The open primary will probably empower big money in new ways, and our initiative system remains a loose cannon on deck, as always.

---

by: jjohnjj @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 21:22:19 PM UTC

A home for social conservatives (4.00 / 1)

Are social conservatives going to end up closer to the corporatists or to the progressives? The majority of "social conservatives" in the state today are of color. If anyone doubts that, look at the demographics of Prop 8. So I wouldn't be surprised if social conservatives join the progressives - after all progressives and social conservatives both support a larger role for government, don't they?  

---

by: Hcat @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:38:59 AM UTC

Then why does CA keep electing wingnuts to Congress? (0.00 / 0)

Pombo, Doolittle, Cunningham, Issa, Denham. There are more. I just can't think of their names right now. But California has elected some doozies. And we still are. Denham is brand new, and Issa got re-elected. I hope you're right and they turn out to be unelectable under the new top-two rules. But there are some places in the state where I'm not sure that's true.

---

by: cfinnie @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 18:23:16 PM UTC

Then why does CA keep electing wingnuts to Congress? (0.00 / 0)

I think he was referring primarily to statewide elections.  There will always be pockets to where the wing-nuts can retreat and isolate themselves.  Those pockets are getting smaller and fewer in number.  I think the Dems only need a few more state senate seats to give them a 2/3 majority, which would allow them to deal with the budget in the way in which it needs to be dealt (i.e. cuts AND tax increases).  Of course, the Gov. has painted himself into a corner by saying no tax increases without voter approval.  But short of a Constitutional convention, the 2/3 majority is what the Dems need to shoot for.

---

by: PeixeGato @ Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 05:49:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]