PDA

View Full Version : Nunez: Registration Surge for Democrats Should Give Dems At Least Three New Assembly


DVSmith
02-13-2008, 10:16 AM
Speaking at the Sacramento Press Club yesterday, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez said Democrats should add three seats to their 48-32 majority in the California Assembly in November's elections.

Nunez made the prediction after new figures from the Secretary of State show a surge in Democratic registrations in all but two Assembly districts, including three held by incumbent Republicans who will be forced to leave office. They include the desert/Riverside area seat held by Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, the San Diego seat of Assemblywoman Shirley Horton, and the Contra Costa/Sacramento Delta seat held by Assemblyman Guy Houston.


The rest of the story:
http://www.camajorityreport.com/

bulgron
02-13-2008, 11:32 AM
Yes, California is pretty close to being a one-party state, and that won't be good for any of us, no matter which side we might be on in the gun debates. :mad:

hoffmang
02-13-2008, 12:06 PM
I wonder if that "surge" is actually just undecideds switching Dem so they could vote in the hotly contested primary on the Dem side a couple of weeks ago. It may not be much of an actual change.

-Gene

Glock22Fan
02-13-2008, 12:11 PM
I wonder how many of them are dead.

DVSmith
02-13-2008, 12:26 PM
I wonder if that "surge" is actually just undecideds switching Dem so they could vote in the hotly contested primary on the Dem side a couple of weeks ago. It may not be much of an actual change.

-Gene

I took it as actual registration from the report of registration. That would only include those that selected a preference, not Decline to state. I could be wrong though.

DVSmith
02-13-2008, 12:29 PM
I wonder how many of them are dead.

I know that is a popular old saw, but honestly, if anyone was truly concerned about the issue they could conduct an analysis of the voter roles and confirm or refute the claim. The voter roles are available for legitimate scholarly study. Want to fund a grant?

Zhukov
02-13-2008, 12:32 PM
I wonder if that "surge" is actually just undecideds switching Dem so they could vote in the hotly contested primary on the Dem side a couple of weeks ago. It may not be much of an actual change.

-Gene

If you were undecided/undeclared/non-partisan, whatever you wanna call it, you could still have voted for Dems without switching to that party. They asked me if I wanted the Dem ballot when I went to vote (I was non-partisan) but I decided I'd rather not taint myself by touching it :P

Glock22Fan
02-13-2008, 1:30 PM
I know that is a popular old saw, but honestly, if anyone was truly concerned about the issue they could conduct an analysis of the voter roles and confirm or refute the claim. The voter roles are available for legitimate scholarly study. Want to fund a grant?

Popular old saw or not, I've seen enough evidence in the past to believe that it is possible. Don't plan to spend any money on it myself; if you want to think that it is an urban legend, that's your choice. And, BTW, I think the word you were looking for is "rolls"

hoffmang
02-13-2008, 1:32 PM
I'm not being clear enough.

1. If on December 15, 2007 a voter realized he was registered DTS or Independent or whatever, one could change registration up until late January to actual Democratic party.

2. Actual Dems votes get counted differently than the Dem ballot non Dems get.

As such, people like my wife actually thought seriously about changing to Dem for this election and I know many did.

-Gene

Sutcliffe
02-13-2008, 2:30 PM
Is vote early and vote often. Sometimes I think we are headed that same direction.

Zhukov
02-13-2008, 2:43 PM
How do they get counted differently, just out of curiousity. I assumed during an open primary all of the votes were counted the same regardless of being a Dem or being Non-partisan and getting a Dem ballot...

I'm not being clear enough.

1. If on December 15, 2007 a voter realized he was registered DTS or Independent or whatever, one could change registration up until late January to actual Democratic party.

2. Actual Dems votes get counted differently than the Dem ballot non Dems get.

As such, people like my wife actually thought seriously about changing to Dem for this election and I know many did.

-Gene

ViPER395
02-13-2008, 2:50 PM
I'm not being clear enough.

1. If on December 15, 2007 a voter realized he was registered DTS or Independent or whatever, one could change registration up until late January to actual Democratic party.

2. Actual Dems votes get counted differently than the Dem ballot non Dems get.
As such, people like my wife actually thought seriously about changing to Dem for this election and I know many did.

-Gene

huh?

DVSmith
02-13-2008, 3:51 PM
Popular old saw or not, I've seen enough evidence in the past to believe that it is possible. Don't plan to spend any money on it myself; if you want to think that it is an urban legend, that's your choice. And, BTW, I think the word you were looking for is "rolls"

Rolls, exactly. Not paying attention while typing again. It is definitely possible and in fact I can guarantee that there are dead people on the ROLLS now. Primarily from people dying and no one notifies the registrar. If they are lucky some piece of mail will be returned marked deceased. Maybe a match against DOH records will pop them up. The most likely source of dead people nefariously ending up on the ROLLS is through paid registration drives. But more likely those people will use the phone book and not bother walking cemeteries. In any case, if you have credible evidence, feel free to share with your local DA. They will in fact investigate and prosecute. If not, enjoy your conspiracy theory anyway if it brings you comfort.

kermit315
02-13-2008, 5:07 PM
wonder how many of those changes are some of our fellow calgunners talking about going to the polls and finding out they had been marked as a democrat instead of a republican? wonder how many people that happened too?

chris
02-13-2008, 5:40 PM
it's a lose lose situation for us here, in occupied territory. just get used to it. we will never have a pro gun majority in this state.

Zhukov
02-13-2008, 6:54 PM
Eh, most of my friends are basically liberal democrats....who support gun rights. This is mainly due to discussions and debates with me over the issues. Most of them are truly shocked when they find out cops have no legal obligation to protect them.

A lot of them hold the stance that, while they personally don't want to a own a gun, they don't have a problem with me or others owning them.

If more and more people could convert their friends who may not be pro-gun currently to realizing that guns aren't evil and there is a significant reason to own them for protection we can at least lessen the gaps.

bulgron
02-13-2008, 8:39 PM
Eh, most of my friends are basically liberal democrats....who support gun rights.

Yeah, but I bet they don't vote for or against politicians based on gun rights issues. Until liberal democrats are willing to do that, we're pretty hosed in this state.

stator
02-14-2008, 12:45 PM
Actually, voter rolls are declining as the percentage of registered voters versus eligible voters. It is commoningly accepted that the Republican party has more defectors to independent or DTS registrations than the Democrats.

But here is the most interesting stat, counties with a Republican majority still outnumbers counties with Democrat majority. I believe it is something like the high 30's versus the low 20's with the Dems making small inroads.

So, it is wrong to say that California has turned into a Democratic state. The real reason why it feels this way is the gerrymandering by the state Democrats, or the PC term is redistricting. The state Republicans feel asleep at the wheel during redistricting that allowed the Democrats to screw up the district lines.

As a Republican party member, that one inaction by the Republicans back then still gets to me now.

BillCA
02-14-2008, 4:37 PM
I wonder how many of them are dead.
Hey, it worked for Jack Kennedy around Chicago and Boston in 1960. :D

What disturbs me is that California Republicans have essentially been neutered by the Democratic majority in this state for too many years. The GOP has nothing to lose by rattling the cage of the Dems over the fiscal mismanagement of the state, the pandering to special interests, the ever increasing decay of the infrastructure, decline of school funding and the ever expanding special programs and taxes that don't pay for them.

troyus
02-14-2008, 5:49 PM
I wonder if that "surge" is actually just undecideds switching Dem so they could vote in the hotly contested primary on the Dem side a couple of weeks ago. It may not be much of an actual change.

-Gene

Considering we have a republican Gov, I think you are very much correct. CA voters are issue voters not party voters, generally speaking.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 6:00 PM
This state is notoriously liberal and outside of SLO, Ventura, Riverside and the interior, which do not have populations to match the SF bay area, LA or Sacramento, there are not that many republicans let alone a majority anywhere. Even San Diego and the OC are now split.

This state follows the large city vs suburb/rural pattern found across the nation, much in the same way as Denver VS the rest of Colorado or Portland VS the rest of Oregon or Philadelphia VS the rest of PN or Sea-Tac VS the rest of Washington.

Besides, around half of California republicans would find little in common with Kansas or Wyoming Republicans. Much like conservatives in Canada would find the dinner conversation with their American counterparts getting akward after awhile.