PDA

View Full Version : General politics / voting patterns in CA


Librarian
03-09-2005, 12:50 PM
Returning to the theme of 'how did we get into this mess?"

Look at The Right Coast (http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/), topic Don't Blame Pete Wilson for Making California a Blue State (Part III).

Just a summary:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In the past couple of Presidential elections, California voters have voted this way:

Asians: 1996: 51%Dem/44%Rep, 2004: 64%Dem/35%Rep

Blacks: 1996: 83%Dem/8%Rep, 2004: 84%Dem/14%Rep

Hispanics: 1996: 70%Dem/22%Rep, 2004: 68% Dem/31% Rep

Non-Hispanic whites: 1996: 45%Dem/43%Rep, 2004: 47%Dem/52%Rep

(The '96 data is from CNN, the 2004 data is from the L.A. Times. Sorry I couldn't find a full set of California data for 2000.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Professor Heriot has a point, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a case of blaming anyone - she's careful to say <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sure, it's an oversimplification to look at voting behavior of individuals exclusively or even primarily in terms of their race or ethnicity. But when you are dealing with large numbers, the patterns are both unmistakable and difficult to change except over rather long periods of time, usually generations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Librarian
03-09-2005, 12:50 PM
Returning to the theme of 'how did we get into this mess?"

Look at The Right Coast (http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/), topic Don't Blame Pete Wilson for Making California a Blue State (Part III).

Just a summary:
In the past couple of Presidential elections, California voters have voted this way:

Asians: 1996: 51%Dem/44%Rep, 2004: 64%Dem/35%Rep

Blacks: 1996: 83%Dem/8%Rep, 2004: 84%Dem/14%Rep

Hispanics: 1996: 70%Dem/22%Rep, 2004: 68% Dem/31% Rep

Non-Hispanic whites: 1996: 45%Dem/43%Rep, 2004: 47%Dem/52%Rep

(The '96 data is from CNN, the 2004 data is from the L.A. Times. Sorry I couldn't find a full set of California data for 2000.) I think Professor Heriot has a point, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a case of blaming anyone - she's careful to say Sure, it's an oversimplification to look at voting behavior of individuals exclusively or even primarily in terms of their race or ethnicity. But when you are dealing with large numbers, the patterns are both unmistakable and difficult to change except over rather long periods of time, usually generations.

03-09-2005, 5:21 PM
I'm more than a bit skeptical of data like this, but it's beside the point in this example.
Really, what is the relevance of Pete Wilson being blamed for the Democratization of California? The argument seems out of place, as the premise itself is unfounded (at least to me). Or did I miss something, somewhere, sometime? Is Pete Wilson indeed somehow becoming the target of blame for making California 'blue'? This is honestly the first time I've heard this particular pseudo-theory. Reading the other bits of the blog that the link points towards, didn't help either. I've failed to contextualize any of this, but I don't feel it is my lack of understanding the situation, just that it seems a bit "far out" in the first place.

No flame intended, Librarian, but what is this all about?

03-09-2005, 5:24 PM
Further, anyway you slice it, the majority of the population in California (according to the charts above) is voting for Democratic candidates. That's not exactly news to me, again, no offense to the poster.

Librarian
03-10-2005, 8:35 PM
Sorry, I've been out of touch for a bit.

You're right; I didn't supply any context.

Here's the background: I keep seeing comments on other boards and other lists which resolve to 'you California people fell down and let those laws pass; if only you guys would do x, y, z you could take the state back'. We've had similar threads [ that is, about the voting patterns and what people can do, politically, not the Cali-bashing ] here - jnojr has stared a couple.

This article provides data that the problem is not ONLY gun owner indifference or ineffectiveness in the political process; in this particular context, the Prop 187 controversy, under Pete Wilson and promulgated by mostly Republicans, is sometimes cited as a reason that a large portion of the state's Hispanic population opposes Republicans, and therefore opposes politicians more likely -- with some exceptions! -- to vote against gun control laws. Heriot's article argues that that claim is not well supported.

But certainly part of the problem is effectiveness. I'm sure Joe won't mind if I repost this from the ca-firearms list: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> From: "Joseph" &lt;subdjoe@sonic.net&gt;
I first put this out a few years ago. Some back and forth on rec.guns made me dicide to post it here. Feel free to copy, change, and use this in your area.

GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND DO YOUR PART! TAKE AIM AT ANTI GUN LEGISLATION!

In California there are between 8,000,000 and 10,000,000 firearms
owners, yet we have some of the most draconian and Byzantine firearms
laws in the country. Why? Because most of us are content to sit and
complain about it but are unwilling to take half an hour a week to do
anything constructive about it. Most of us would rather stand around
at the range or in a gun shop and spend a couple of hours bsing about
the merits of .300 Magnum over the latest .270 super short ultra mag.

Can you find five minutes a day to support your civil rights?
Especially your right to own firearms? That is all it takes. If you
can't give that little amount of time, you deserve to have your guns
legislated away from you. Imagine if in your assembly district EVERY
gun owner called that assembly member once a week to complain about
restrictive firearms legislation. Say there are only 15,000 gun
owners in your district (and with 80 districts that only comes to 1.2
million, a far cry from being all the legal gun owners in the state)
and each one calls once a week and each call take 3 minutes of staff
time. That would come to 750 man-hours per WEEK just to listen to gun
owner complain about restrictive gun laws. That would mean that every
member of the assembly would need almost 19 full time staff members to
do nothing but pay attention to our calls. Don't you think that would
cause them to take notice of us? If you multiply that 750 man hours out
for the 80 districts, that comes to about 60,000 man hours PER WEEK to
do nothing but answer our calls.

Yes, you may belong to the NRA or Gun Owners of America, or the
California Rifle and Pistol Association, but so what? Do you think
that absolves you from taking personal responsibility for what
happens? YOU are responsible for protecting your rights. No one else
can do it for you.

There are five calls that you need to make each week – one assembly
member, one state senator, one member of the House of Representatives
and two member of the US Senate. If you call one a day it will only
take you about five minutes a day. That is all it would take, all of
us calling once a week to make our views known. For those of you in
Sonoma and Marin counties too damned lazy to open a phone book and
look up a few numbers, here is a start:
STATE ASSEMBLY
1St District – Patty Berg, (707) 576-2526, email –
assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov

6th District – Joe Nation, (707) 576-2631, email-
joe.nation@asm.ca.gov

7th District – Patricia Wiggins, (707) 546-4500, email –
assemblymember.wiggins@assembly.ca.gov

STATE SENATE
2nd District – Wesley Chesbro, (707) 576-2771, email -
senator.chesbro@sen.ca.gov
3rd District – Carol Migden (I need to update this one)

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st District – Mike Thompson, (707) 226-9898, web site –
www.house.gov/mthompson (http://www.house.gov/mthompson)
3rd District – Lynn Woolsey, (707) 542-7182, web site
–www.house.gov/~woolsey

US SENATE
Barbara Boxer, (415) 403-0100, web site – www.senate.gov/~boxer (http://www.senate.gov/~boxer)
Dianne Feinstein, (415) 224-3841, web site – www.senate.gov/~feinstein (http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein)

For those of you in other parts of California, go to www.ca.gov (http://www.ca.gov) and
you can easily find your state representatives. There are also links
there for your federal representatives.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chaingun
03-11-2005, 7:50 AM
Funny, don't ever recall meeting an Asian democRat. I always thought they leaned more Republican. They were the ones with the guns on their rooftops during the LA riots.

03-11-2005, 9:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chaingun:
Funny, don't ever recall meeting an Asian democRat. I always thought they leaned more Republican. They were the ones with the guns on their rooftops during the LA riots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the premise that certain races lean predominantly towards certain political parties is a spurious one in the first place. Secondly, I don't think that it's logical to equate gun-ownership to being Republican. Thirdly, those pictured during the riots probably represent a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the entire Asian population of the state.
All of those things would be an interesting study (race, guns, political party and how the three relate) but I don't think that there's sufficient data to say this is the case as it sits now.

Not a flame. Not making a "race" issue out of your post, Chaingun, just putting the stops back in to place on what I think is rather speculative.

03-11-2005, 9:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Librarian:
Here's the background: I keep seeing comments on other boards and other lists which resolve to 'you California people fell down and let those laws pass; if only you guys would do x, y, z you could take the state back'. We've had similar threads [ that is, about the voting patterns and what people can do, politically, not the Cali-bashing ] here - jnojr has stared a couple.

This article provides data that the problem is not ONLY gun owner indifference or ineffectiveness in the political process; in this particular context, the Prop 187 controversy, under Pete Wilson and promulgated by mostly Republicans, is sometimes cited as a reason that a large portion of the state's Hispanic population opposes Republicans, and therefore opposes politicians more likely -- with some exceptions! -- to vote against gun control laws. Heriot's article argues that that claim is not well supported.

But certainly part of the problem is effectiveness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that there's quite a few assumptions being made with the idea that prop 187 angered the Latino vote and that the repercussions are still being felt today. I find it unlikely that there exists a conscious effort for Latinos to just vote against the Republican candidates out of spite and for vengeance for the past. For one, I've read studies (although from sources that I don't find very reliable) that indicate that all the ***-kissing made to the "Latino community" (whatever that is) doesn't make a big bit of difference to the candidate doing the smooching as it relates to how they win those votes. I'll post a link to this if I can find it. Secondly, as you said, the likelihood of a Republican candidate being more sympathetic to the gun issue is probably greater than that of one from that "other" party, but really, California Republicans aren't known for their proactively pro-gun positions. Show me a good, modern example, and I'll recant that statement. Lastly, even with a predominantly Republican voting Latino population, I doubt California would be able to vote out all the bad guys. The numbers still don't make the majority if I'm not mistaken.

As for those who live outside the Golden State, the armchair gun-rights activists who always have valuable "advice" for us Californians, most (even those that fled from here) don't have even one iota of a clue as to the political nature of this state.
Then there are the ones who've never even seen the west coast...
http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



...and I like Joe's rant too, but it's been "ranted" before plenty of times. Never seems to permeate enough minds to ever change anything. Joe six-pack is content to be watching the game, well-fed and thinking about that vacation coming up.