PDA

View Full Version : How long have Democrats controlled california?


StudioDison
05-13-2009, 11:36 AM
I need some info on this topic. Ive been in a battle with my best friend who thinks hes a liberal and I need more info to show him that in fact he is retarded.
Thanx.

sgtlmj
05-13-2009, 11:36 AM
Hold a mirror up to his face? :thumbsup:

Librarian
05-13-2009, 12:00 PM
Hold a mirror up to his face? :thumbsup:

Ha!

But it depends what you mean by 'control'.

In terms of voters, there is historical data at the Secretary of State's site (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_u.htm)

It shows that in 1934, 1.5 million Democrats voted, compared to 1.4 million Republicans (and 154K other). That's been the way it has been ever since. In 2008 it was 7.6 D, 5.4 R, and 4.1 Other.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Legislature) says Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970.

Sometimes with a Republican Governor, 'control' has been shared - obviously not currently.

7x57
05-13-2009, 12:02 PM
Sometimes with a Republican Governor, 'control' has been shared - obviously not currently.

We have a Republican governor? Who knew?

7x57

Glock22Fan
05-13-2009, 12:05 PM
In 2008 it was 7.6 D, 5.4 R, and 4.1 Other.

And all the people who voted "Other" in the last election claimed it would make no difference if they did vote Republican!

RomanDad
05-13-2009, 12:06 PM
Depends what you mean by "Controlled".

The State has had mostly Republican governors for the last 100 years. (15 to 4).

The State was traditionally carried by Republican Presidential Candidates up until 1992.

The State legislature has been dominated with few exceptions (the last time I believe was 1994) by Democrats for a long time.

rp55
05-13-2009, 12:21 PM
If you're trying to analyze it the better question is When did the Democrat takeover start?, because just like the "Reagan Revolution," it did not happen overnight. Which then begs the question how did it happen?

The architect of it was the legendary Phillip Burton a San Francisco politician and US Representative. The Democratic machine that controls San Francisco is known as the "Brown-Burton" Machine and he is that Burton. Like the vast majority of California liberals he was born in an Eastern state (Ohio).

The takeover started in the mid-70's. Burton saw the potential of computers and hired a programmer for one of the early computers and they used it to gerrymander an assembly district for his younger brother John Burton, who is now Chairman of the California Democratic Party. He mastered the art of using computers to optimize electoral districts for Democrats while the "Country Club" Republicans were out at the links playing golf. By the time they realized what had happened they were done for and they traded permanent minority status for safe seats.

Philip Burton also did a lot of damage at the National level. From his Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Burton) entry "In 1973, Burton allowed a bill to go to the floor without a "closed rule"- a stipulation that there could be no amendments proposed to it- for the first time since the 1920s. The ending of the closed rule created an infusion of federal lobbyists at the Capitol building; the lobbyists targeted members of Congress to add funding for lobbyists' favorite projects into bills. For this reason, David Frum wrote that Burton "created the modern Congress" more than anyone else.

Fortunately Philip Burton died (relatively) young of heart failure before he could do much more harm to the State and the Republic.

bohoki
05-13-2009, 12:24 PM
they are gerrymandered in tight judging how ther coudl be so many democrat congressionals there are in sac and how many republican governors we've had

M. D. Van Norman
05-13-2009, 2:29 PM
And all the people who voted “Other” in the last election claimed it would make no difference if they did vote Republican!

I believe that these numbers refer to the party affiliations of registered voters.

In 2008, less than two percent of the vote went to third-party Presidential candidates, compared to the 37 percent that went to the Republican and the 61 percent to the Democrat.

http://vote2008.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/59.htm

Don’t blame the “others” for the Republican Party’s failure to win elections.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 2:39 PM
I need some info on this topic. Ive been in a battle with my best friend who thinks hes a liberal and I need more info to show him that in fact he is retarded.
Thanx.

If he claims he is a liberal then he's already admitted he's retarded! LOL :rofl2:

Isn't that like asking a stupid person if they know they're stupid?

Pray for him, and when he finds himself standing in a FEMA food line while your family is sitting fat and happy and well protected in your own house maybe he will wake up.

Librarian
05-13-2009, 3:41 PM
I believe that these numbers refer to the party affiliations of registered voters.

In 2008, less than two percent of the vote went to third-party Presidential candidates, compared to the 37 percent that went to the Republican and the 61 percent to the Democrat.

http://vote2008.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/59.htm


The numbers I used were actual votes cast classified by the party of registration, again from SOS at the link.

stag1500
05-13-2009, 3:44 PM
I believe that these numbers refer to the party affiliations of registered voters.

In 2008, less than two percent of the vote went to third-party Presidential candidates, compared to the 37 percent that went to the Republican and the 61 percent to the Democrat.

http://vote2008.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/59.htm

Don’t blame the “others” for the Republican Party’s failure to win elections.

And dont' forget about all the people who didn't vote at all.

dfletcher
05-13-2009, 5:09 PM
I suppose there has been a certain ebb & flow of power over the years, but I'll throw out a date & say the Democratic Party has for the most part controlled California politics since 1958/1959 - Pat Brown succeded Goodie Knight & beat Bill Knowland for the Governorship, followed by Jesse Unruh becoming Speaker in '61 or so.

CCWFacts
05-13-2009, 6:00 PM
I get the feeling that the power base is this decades-long alliance between the Dems here and the various city / county / state employee unions. That alliance is the engine of their machine. They have steadily given the unions more money and power, and the unions have mobilized votes and funding for them. Unfortunately we are now seeing the price: bloated pension and healthcare commitment, and bloated staffing, have now wrecked this state's finances. Meanwhile our education system is among the worst in the US, a federal judge has had to take over management of the prison system, and the state is basically broke.

People are starting to see that we the taxpayers are now the ones who are being exploited (ok, I would choose a stronger word, maybe "bent over"). This crisis presents an opportunity for the Republicans to gain some power from the anger over the situation. Will they be able to harness it? We shall see.

sholling
05-13-2009, 8:05 PM
Bear in mind that the Democratic Party of today isn't the old Democratic Party (http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About_Us/Resources/Weekly_Magazine/New_Articles/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Democrat/an_open_letter_to_the_democrat.html). "Progressivism (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0205/p09s01-coop.html)" that they brag about now was a nasty concept that embraced government control of business, elitism, smiley faced fascism, and eugenics (http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html) that was all the rage amongst the cultural elites in both parties during the early part of the 20th century. The Republicans rejected it after Teddy Roosevelt but the Democrats still hang on to a lot of it. They just put a pretty face on it now. Government as mother, government as father, government as god. Government giveth and government taketh away and blessed be the government. Their ideal was much like Huxley's Brave New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World). The only change today is that they embrace a sneaky entry into the Brave New World and reject consumption - except for their elites.

7x57
05-13-2009, 8:22 PM
that was all the rage amongst the cultural elites in both parties during the early part of the 20th century.

The origin, I always claim, is far older. Twenty-four hundred years ago the progenitor of Western education told the elite that only they were qualified to make decisions for everyone else. The Academy, and I choose that word carefully, has never ever forgotten that Plato promised the scholars the crown of the world.

And they still believe it. Bright people are the most insecure about their talent, just as the prettiest girl is the most insecure about her appearance. But you can "be one of the smart ones," and it isn't hard--you simply have to agree with the consensus of (more or less) Ivy league professors.

There is a staggering amount of conformity among supposedly independent thinkers, and no where are the screws turned tighter than at the university. All it takes is to insinuate that if they don't agree, they're not *really* that bright.

It doesn't help that they go to the university at a very socially conscious age--it isn't an accident that we induct into the military at a similar age. In both cases, young people are acculturated into a new peer group.

I learned a lot in school, but not necessarily what I was supposed to.

7x57

Paladin
05-13-2009, 8:30 PM
Bear in mind that the Democratic Party of today isn't the old Democratic Party (http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About_Us/Resources/Weekly_Magazine/New_Articles/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Democrat/an_open_letter_to_the_democrat.html). "Progressivism (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0205/p09s01-coop.html)" that they brag about now was a nasty concept that embraced government control of business, elitism, smiley faced fascism, and eugenics (http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html) that was all the rage amongst the cultural elites in both parties during the early part of the 20th century. The Republicans rejected it after Teddy Roosevelt but the Democrats still hang on to a lot of it. They just put a pretty face on it now. Government as mother, government as father, government as god. Government giveth and government taketh away and blessed be the government. Their ideal was much like Huxley's Brave New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World). The only change today is that they embrace a sneaky entry into the Brave New World and reject consumption - except for their elites.
The symptoms of this dis-ease has not changed in decades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4&NR=1 :p :D

sholling
05-13-2009, 8:41 PM
The symptoms of this dis-ease has not changed in decades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4&NR=1 :p :D
I'm borrowing that.:thumbsup:

bluestaterebel
05-13-2009, 8:44 PM
If he claims he is a liberal then he's already admitted he's retarded! LOL :rofl2:

:hide: