Republican Registration Continues to Crater

Don't worry (0.00 / 0)

Don't worry

With 'Leaders' like Nude GinGrinch, Willard Romney and Simple Sarah, Goopers will continue to shrink

You can only describe Nude GinGrinch as an 'Evildoer'
I heard his 'concession speech' last night

He wants to END regulation on the big banks !!
WOW !!
That'll really help !! so will that moon colony/State

The trick is for Democrats to come up with Good candidates
(NOT Gores and Liebermans and Clintons and Gavin Newsomes!!)

BRING BACK the REAL Democrats, the Phil Burtons and the Sherrod Browns and the real populists)

---

by: frisco @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 16:07:13 PM UTC

What's more interesting... (4.50 / 2)

Is that the Republican plus independent number is still over 50%.  Considering Republicans have higher turnout than Democrats, the "lower taxes" voters (which the vast majority of independents I've ever met are) are in a very good position.

As I've said before the redistricting, while bad for the GOP, is good for the taxpayer.  Without the benefit of blaming the Republicans a Democratic majority that passes increased spending will have members in marginal districts held accountable at the polls.

I don't think a representative in a district that just went Democrat by a sliver will want to cast a deciding vote in favor of higher taxes when a "moderate" Republican is waiting in the wings to run against him.

The dogmatic ideologues (on both sides) are in for some electoral surprises.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 18:31:31 PM UTC

Don't (2.00 / 1)

Count Yer chickens before they hatch, just cause Repugs and DTS voters amount to somewhere over 50%, does not mean all will vote for Crazy and Delusional Idiots, It means they'll vote for Whom they want, but not a bunch of NUTS...

---

by: VBobier @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 03:56:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was the exact point I was making... (4.33 / 3)

Redistricting is going to render the social-cons irrelevant.  Moderate Republicans will end up the controlling voice as they won't be easily booted from gerrymandered districts by nut jobs.  At the same time any Democrats who gain seats through redistricting will be doing so by very slim margins and none of them is going to risk putting their seats at risk by voting for the loony nanny state stuff and spending the far left would prefer.

If you figure the redistricting outcome is that both sides get reigned in from their fringes , my thesis is quite likely.

As a libertarian I find this outcome the best I could hope for.  Government out of my wallet and my life to the greatest extent possible.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 18:59:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem with your calculations (5.00 / 1)

In California, NPP voters tend to vote Democratic. So I still can't see how that helps the Republicans. Or where you expect them to find these moderate candidates. They've spent too many years pandering to the extremists and have pushed the Party too far to the right.

I know a few moderate Republicans. But most have left the Party because of what I just described. I suppose they might vote Republican still, if the Party does manage to scare up some candidates that aren't batshit crazy. On that score, at least, I hope you're right. It would be a welcome relief from the loonies in office now.

---

by: cfinnie @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 23:13:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Parties generally run candidates to win... (1.00 / 1)

... So "moderates" (who in reality are just Reagan Republicans) will be the only choice.  Throwing up a sacrificial lamb for a symbolic senate race is quite different from a winnable district race.  Swing voters tend to be more socially liberal than Republicans and more fiscally Conservative than Democrats.

The new districts will require BOTH parties to run these types of candidates.  There is no appetite for the higher taxes on EVERYONE that would be required to continue the states spending levels.  In a balanced district a Democrat running on that platform is in serious danger from a Reagan Republican.

If some how the Democrats achieve 2/3rds I want to see the brave soul who will cast the deciding vote to take more of peoples hard earned money.  No district is that safe.  Davis got recalled for a reason...

Anyway it should make for entertaining political theater no matter what :-)

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 00:13:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i don't know what state you've been living in (0.00 / 0)

but it sure as heck isn't california. i can guarantee you haven't bothered yourself to look at the partisan numbers for the new districts, with the claims you're making.

---

by: wu ming @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 02:35:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Taxes Popular (0.00 / 0)

LOL - didn't Californians just pass a law preventing any tax increase to require 2/3rds?  Or how about this: try and put a repeal of prop 13 on the ballot.

As CJ says the only way the Dems are able to get any taxes passed in this stay is by Pointing out millionaires or children. That is not thedefinition of  apro-tax state.  Other than that Californians do not like taxes.

These new districts will be intersting.

---

by: CaliCon @ Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 18:50:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

additionally (5.00 / 1)

the actual "reagan democrats" - middle aged white blue collar democrats who flipped parties in the 80s - are mostly in convalescent homes these days, and stopped being swing voters decades ago. the CAGOP doesn't have any moderates anymore, having driven them out of the party in the past several decades, and it can't get the remaining registered republican voters to vote for anyone who isn't a right winger.

---

by: wu ming @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 02:38:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never once refered to Reagan Democrats... (3.00 / 2)

I said "Reagan Republicans".  The real fact is gerrymandered seats have left both parties represented by the fringes.  That includes Democrats.  I.E. most Democrats were AGAINST the Dream Act, and yet the Democrat legislature pushed it through.   Most were AGAINST the 2009 tax increases yet the Democrats AND Republicans pushed it through.  It's time that political junkies (on both sides)wake up and realize most people do not agree with them.  EMeg lost for this reason, Gray Davis and Angelides (however it's spelled :-) lost for this reason.

I read this place, I read Flash Report and you guys are both about as equally outside the main.  Just because a majority of people vote Democrat doesn't mean they are far left.  If they were every attack against Prop 13 and other attempts at raising taxes would pass easily.

Sadly Californians are comfortable with taxing OTHER people to fund services, no themselves.  The reality of course is that the OTHER's money can no longer maintain the whole.  Critical choices are about to arise as to the extent of services the state should provide.  Apparently you guys are going to be surprised at the outcome of those choices.  It's pretty obvious to the rest of us...

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 17:56:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And on moderate Republicans... (1.00 / 1)

...the only reason you don't see them is because the gerrymandered districts keep them from exiting primaries.  That is all about to change.  Also get ready for some "Lower Taxes" Democrats on your ballot.  These new districts will be quite unpredictable.  Fiscal conservative voters always have the highest turnout (amazing what keeping your money does to motivate you) and will gladly vote for a Democrat who will be responsible with the purse strings.

And many of those decline to states (including myself) are libertarian types who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  We know the social climate in CA will ALWAYS be progressive.  Our sole reason to vote is economics.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 18:02:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i know moderate CA republicans (5.00 / 1)

because i grew up in a moderate CA republican family, and was one myself until the party went off the rails in the 90s. all of my siblings (in their 20s and 30s) are democrats now, and my moderate once-republican parents, the sort of educated small-town type that dutifully vote for school bonds and volunteer in the community but don't think of themselves as particularly liberal, are now DTS and vote near-exclusively for moderate democrats, and openly curse the bible-bangers and howard jarvis types for destroying their ancestral party.

the anti-tax fanatics don't win elections in this state outside of gerrymandered ones, because the middle in this state is fine with paying taxes if they go to projects they value like schools, infrastructure, clean air and water, etc. when school bonds and transportation bonds regularly pass with 67+%, it's pretty clear that howard jarvis does not speak for more than a superminority of californians. if this state was run like most democracies, with a simple majority to pass taxes, the voters you claim are the swing voters in CA would be utterly marginal outside of a few local districts.

the 2009 tax vote was shot down with a huge number of votes from the left because of the budget straitjacket BS, this site was at the center of organizing that no vote on the left. it should not be read as a signal of an anti-tax electorate.

---

by: wu ming @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 18:53:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You ignore all polling on the tax issue (1.00 / 1)

The only positive polling for taxes is on "The Rich" which it's shown time and again cannot support this welfare state.

Why was Gray Davis Recalled?
Why is the public against the Dream Act?
Why are Brown's tax plans polling as losers?

You're thinking a bit to much within a bubble my friend.  Everyone is okay with increased taxes as long as it's not on them.  Maybe you get education taxes passed more often than not (Oh the children :-) but show me a tax measure that polls well or has passed at the ballot.  Exclude high speed rail as it was passed during the housing bubble when everyone thought we had money to burn.  I don't think you'll have that much luck on the whole.

Put a 5-10% increase in sales taxes on the ballot tomorrow.  That should really help with our deficit and protect "The Needy" right?  Do you think it would pass???  If not then you're proving my argument right there.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 01:12:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You ignore electoral history (0.00 / 0)

cjackson3,

Go read on ballotpedia all the many, many local sales taxes that have passed over the past 15 years with 2/3 + majorities.

You all letting your anti-tax ideology blind you to the history of SUPER-majority votes in favor of local and regional sales taxes increases in this state.

Now a fair question is if the governor can true around the utter lack of faith in state government (much earned over the past 12 years) enough that a majority will support a statewide tax that goes to the state government, rather than county/regional government.

---

by: Eastbayblue @ Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 02:30:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You compare apples and oranges... (0.00 / 0)

I'm perfectly fine with individual communities raising taxes and determining the level off goods and services they wish to provide.  It's the top down bureaucratic mess in Sacramento I take issue with because inevitably they deal only in wealth redistribution.  Taking from a class (the working one in many cases) and redistributing it to their favored interests.

It is a form of oligarchy that would be best done away with.  The redistricting puts this responsibility squarely on the people.   We'll see if they have the political will to make change.  Safe seats are no longer an excuse.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 21:48:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by november of 2008, the housing bust was in full effect (0.00 / 0)

the market was in free-fall, and everyone's hair was suddenly on fire about budget disaster, and yet the voters of the state still funded HSR.

the only reason why anti-tax fanatics are politically relevant in this state is because of the 67% threshold, both in local taxation, school bonds, and at the state level. were these votes simple majority, they could not block them outside of a few conservative enclaves.

---

by: wu ming @ Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 08:39:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

RE Wu (0.00 / 0)

Prices had only dropped 10% by late '08.  What's HSR polling at now???  And the 67% threshold is a beautiful protector of the minority.  A Republic protects against the tyranny of the majority.  If you can't get two thirds of the people to agree on spending the money of all, then perhaps it should not be done.

The 30-70% of people who oppose taxation of various kinds (percentage varies by issue of course) are just as worthy of protection as gays, Hispanics, etc.  Just because they do not agree with your world view makes them no less due protection from a bare majority taking their rights.

You cannot have freedom without property rights.  Rights to your thoughts, body, money, etc. can only legitimately be seized by the state to prevent action against the liberty of others (jailing a criminal, yelling fire in a theater, etc)  Now I am no dogmatist and a necessary evil of our society is taxation for things you get no direct benefit from but the line has been skewed so far towards leftward socialism that I believe the "evolutionary spirit" as Gordon Geckko called it, has been neutered.  What is so wrong with people rising or falling on their own merits???

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 16:00:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

taxation is not tyranny (0.00 / 0)

and if 67% in two houses to raise a tax is "protecting against the tyranny of the majority" then nearly every other government in the world other than california is tyrannical. these are textbook howard jarvis loony tunes talking points.

you're a dogmatist and very far outside the mainstream of california politics. you're delusional if you think people outside the 30% and cratering superminority rump of the GOP think this way.

---

by: wu ming @ Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 19:52:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RE (0.00 / 0)

We agree on one thing "nearly every other government... is tyrannical"  But upon close inspection the principals of large majorities need to pass laws is present in our own federal government as well.  Look how difficult it is to amend the constitution or break a filibuster.

Being that our discussion has devolved into "looney tunes" and "Dogmatist" accusations I'll leave it with this:

I fully believe in the primacy of the individual and believe that human civilization will over time leave behind Tyranny, Oligarchy, etc.  If that is not within the current "mainstream" of AC politics so be it.

The CA mainstream has at various times supported: suppressing the rights of colored people, women not being equal under law, etc.  Liberty (and yes economic liberty) has always won the battle for history.  You Progressives who posses the burning need to tell others how to live and what they may posses are on the wrong side of history just as much as the social conservatives.

And these are not talking points.  they are the thoughts of a free mind.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 20:10:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]