Why do so many California voters keep voting for bad Democrat politicians?

[Sgt Raven]

^^^^^^^^
I'm not so sure of this. In the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Kamala was not well received even in California.
Anyone running against her in the primary has plenty of ammo from 2020 & 2024.

[Rickybillegas]

If it's not Kamela it will be another democrat. There are a number of them waiting in the wings. She's a complete dud and has the charisma of a potato.
She's generally unpopular and depends on the democrat run media to prop her up.
Can they prop her up enough and generate enough faux 'joy!' to get her elected? Maybe, maybe not. It will play out in the primaries.
It will take a giant cultural shift to change things.

[aklon]

Are they really? With all the electoral shenanigans we see in California, who can say for sure who voted for whom?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Liberal gal I know:
RFK Jr. is not handsome for TV and has a gruff voice, she would not vote for him.
Newsome looks great and sounds wonderful, she will vote for him.

WTF?

Remember the Nixon-Kennedy debates?

The very same question has been debated ever since... Scholarly Analysis of the Kennedy-Nixon Debates

...Along with the role of television, the desire for a candidate to look as good as they speak became more relevant. Nixon learned this the hard way during the first debate on September 26, 1960...

[Mauserguy]

Cowboy, you do realize, I hope, that the Confederacy, as well as the KKK were Democrat party institutions, don't you?
Mauserguy

[garand1945]

2.) Right now, and for good reason, "Republican" = "religious wing-nut claiming Christianity" to a lot of folks who aren't Conservative Christians. It doesn't matter if you think that's wrong, not if you want to convince non-Christian, non-Conservative voters not to vote for today's Democrats. If you do, they will tune you out the same way many Independents tuned out the rabid leftists in November. I would suggest that the Republican Party ditch the religious stuff from the platform, totally. Completely. If you want to practice Christianity or any other religion, or even none...fine! Great! That's true religious liberty. Currently, the Republicans are pushing Christianity, and it's turning a lot of people in California off.

Like it or not, this is a core demographic of the Republican party. It won't change just because you don't like it. Why should Christians not be able to reflect their faith in their political choices in a country that was founded on the moral principles of Christianity? Secular conservatives have to make peace with this.

[Cowboy T]

Like it or not, this is a core demographic of the Republican party. It won't change just because you don't like it. Why should Christians not be able to reflect their faith in their political choices in a country that was founded on the moral principles of Christianity? Secular conservatives have to make peace with this.

You're assuming that I "don't like it", which I never said. Quite the opposite; I actually pointed out that if people want to practice, say, Christianity, then great! Read it again.

Rather, what I said was that the Party should get rid of the religious stuff from their political platform, among other things, if they want to actually win more elections in California.

[Cowboy T]

I've been known to say something similar. It's one thing to call an apple tree an apple tree. It's something else to call an apple tree a stink bush because you don't like that particular type of apple. Logic rather than passion has always been the diametrically opposing forces inherent to the Republican/Democrat split in the electorate. Put another way, each has their own version of 'logic' (one deductive, one inductive) and the rules of logic dictate that you cannot 'logically' mix the two. Simply playing the game the way "they" do puts both sides at a disadvantage since neither is good at the other way of playing. What you have to do is promote an 'understanding' for the perspective of each and then focus on the common/shared elements.

I'm glad you finally came to this realization. I recall a spirited debate between us, some years ago, when I was promoting exactly this position about 2A advocacy and you were arguing rather strongly against my doing so. ;-)

That's a bit oversimplified. You can't reasonably demand that Republicans stop being Republicans by 'abandoning' a significant part of their voter base. What would be 'reasonable' in my opinion is the adoption of a more 'nuanced' platform rather than one which appeases the extremists on both sides. For instance, there are ways to talk about abortion rather than simply NONE vs. ALWAYS. If an 'intermediate' stance violates your sense of right and wrong, bear in mind that you are violating their sense of right and wrong. It's like the gun debate. We resent and fight all the limitations which are closing in on the point of denial of what we view as a Constitutional right. They resent our any time, any place, whatever we choose demands as being scornful of what they (in some cases, rightfully) perceive as rights.

Who said anything about abandoning a significant part of their voter base? Not I. I thought I was quite clear about people having the right to practice their religions freely, so long as you're not hurting someone else in your doing so. I'm not interested in "defending Christianity" or any other religion; rather, my interest is in getting fewer people to vote Democrat.

Nope. That's simply buying into how the Left has portrayed the Confederacy. In many respects, the Confederacy was much closer to the original concept than the U.S. was becoming, even at that point. A comparison of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the Confederate States demonstrates a very close alignment; with the differences being many of the things debated in 1776. Just because 'they' bought into a different side of the debate than eventually emerged and was later expanded upon didn't make them inherently 'evil.' That's without getting into the machinations going on in D.C. at the time and how it came across, particularly to those who believed strongly in a different balance point than the one which was evolving.

Again, this comes back to a more nuanced approach than simply saying "they were evil and should be abandoned as an historical footnote." Such is especially true in that many of the things the Confederacy would have agreed with are actually promulgated as 'mainstream' among Republicans today. It's even something we see on this site, whether many will admit it or not. The problem isn't one of concept, but one of degree. Remember, the Civil War wasn't necessarily fought exclusively over 'slavery.' It was fought over what level of Government controlled, to what degree, and how power was viewed/implemented at the expense of various regions for causes seen as 'greater' by other regions. In many respects, it's very similar to what's going on today. Thus, repudiating the Confederacy is and can easily be viewed as a repudiation of many things Republicans actually espouse, but to a more 'controlled' degree.

And that sort of defense of the Confederacy is what pushes a lot of people away from the Republicans, into the laps of the Democrats. It just ain't gonna work if Republicans want a chance of actually winning majorities in California. You've got to think strategy and what's going to go over well with voters, and that ain't it. To use your words below, they tend to start "tuning Republicans out". Gotta avoid that if you want to win.

I tend to start tuning out the speaker as soon as they infuse 'race' into any argument. It's not just "whites" who are scared to death to enter certain neighborhoods. What you're getting at are cultural differences, not necessarily racial ones. Likewise, it's not necessarily exclusively a 'White Republican' problem in that, in many instances, the minority populations immediately become 'hostile' to any presence outside their own race/ethnicity and, in some cases, hostile to anyone viewed as 'different,' even if the race is identical. In other words, viewing it along racial lines is a gross oversimplification and acting on that basis is more likely to exacerbate rather than rectify the problem.

Many White Republicans that I've met have felt the same way you do when I've pointed this out to them. But what I described was what I actually saw and heard. Hard to get around that. Again, you don't win if you don't show up.

My point with all the above? It's not about being more like "them" or demanding that they be more like "us." It's not about judging some historical event or movement from 200 years ago by today's standards. It's not about trying to ameliorate or negate our differences.

It's about what we share in common and finding a 'balance' which is perceived as 'maximizing' and not 'minimizing,' while allowing that some constraints are inevitable to make a society function.

Generally, I agree. And I believe that's what Republicans need to do better in California if they want to start winning and end this Democrat disaster. They have a pretty darn good chance to do so, especially right now. The current results aren't what you want, and frankly they aren't what I'd like to see, either, so it's time to change up.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm glad you finally came to this realization. I recall a spirited debate between us, some years ago, when I was promoting exactly this position about 2A advocacy and you were arguing rather strongly against my doing so. ;-)

Nice try. There's a difference between ideological opposition and calling people "neo-Nazis, insurrectionists, this, that and so on." In short, name-calling isn't 'advocacy.' Likewise, ideological opposition isn't necessarily based on 'pure logic.' I don't think you're going to find anywhere I've 'called people names' when debating ideology. What you will find are various places where I question their logic and particularly their premises, especially when those premises drift from 'logic' into 'beliefs held.'

Who said anything about abandoning a significant part of their voter base? Not I. I thought I was quite clear about people having the right to practice their religions freely, so long as you're not hurting someone else in your doing so. I'm not interested in "defending Christianity" or any other religion; rather, my interest is in getting fewer people to vote Democrat.

Fail. What you said is: "I would suggest that the Republican Party ditch the religious stuff from the platform, totally. Completely." As I said, you were 'oversimplifying' your argument. In 2024, the 7th promise made in the Republican Platform was: "DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS." In another section, you see...

We are the defenders of the First Amendment Right to Religious Liberty. It protects the Right not only to Worship according to the dictates of Conscience, but also to act in accordance with those Beliefs, not just in places of Worship, but in everyday life. Our ranks include men and women from every Faith and Tradition, and we respect the Right of every American to follow his or her deeply held Beliefs. To protect Religious Liberty, Republicans support a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.

It's just above the only time you see 'abortion' mentioned in the Platform (more on that in a minute). Where you see a 'promotion' (ahem) of Christianity is in a statement of intent to defend it from the very types of biases we've seen, at multiple levels, in today's society. You can't simply abandon it as a Christian or as a Constitutionalist. Likewise, allowing carte blanche for a number of religions while restricting Christianity isn't the type of Freedom of Religion you're pushing. In fact, no matter what religion, as with virtually everything else in society, some level of 'compromise' or 'accommodation' is necessary and it's not just about 'hurting people,' which itself is a vague or unusable phrasing in that 'hurting' can and is defined myriad ways. That's what the Founders were pushing; i.e., the 'compromise,' not 'uninhibited' freedom. Put another way, what they were against was something like the Government passing, for lack of a better term, "Sunday Laws" which would mandate everyone go to 'church' on Sunday.

But... But... But... What about abortion? You only find that in one place in the Platform as well... "We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments)." That gets spun into the Republican Party being anti-abortion instead of the Republican Party being anti-Late Term Abortion and Pro-Preventive options. While there are elements among the Party and Conservatives who take it to the extreme, that's not the Party's Platform.

Then you have this, from last year... Party identification among religious groups and religiously unaffiliated voters What you'll find is that it is a 'mix' as to which Party is identified with. However, the only groups where Democrats actually lead are with Black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and the 'unaffiliated.' (My suspicion is that involves more 'cultural' aspects than simply religious affiliation.) Otherwise, Republicans can legitimately claim 'majorities' among religious groups. Now, what did I say? That you can't reasonably demand the Republican Party not address ("abandon") significant portions of their base vis a vis their concerns, desires, etc. But, I also said they'd have to figure out how to do so in a more 'nuanced' way; i.e., not appeal to the extremists. Thus far, the 'nuance' is what you see quoted above.

And that sort of defense of the Confederacy is what pushes a lot of people away from the Republicans, into the laps of the Democrats. It just ain't gonna work if Republicans want a chance of actually winning majorities in California. You've got to think strategy and what's going to go over well with voters, and that ain't it. To use your words below, they tend to start "tuning Republicans out". Gotta avoid that if you want to win.

It's not a 'defense.' It's a recognition of historical fact. Once your 'strategy' starts with a denial of fact and panders to 'feelz,' you are abandoning what has been the strength of 'conservative' (logic, fact, etc.) arguments and begin engaging in 'arguments' regarding 'feelings.' It goes back to the 'whatever feels good, do it' era and, in many respects, that's a call for 'anarchy' rather than an 'organized society.' As has been discussed on numerous occasions on this site, attempting to govern by 'popularity' polls simply doesn't work. While politicians can't and don't completely ignore them and, often, pander to them, they most often do so in a way geared toward the politician's interest vis a vis their constituency, then toward their State's interest, then toward the National interest.

Wait... What was that? State interests come before National Interests? What was the primary difference between the Confederacy and the Union? That State interests took precedence? It's just a reality of how our System was established and actually speaks more toward the original, Constitutional debates. That's what you see in the Confederate Constitution; i.e., an adoption of a different side of those debates than was actually adopted by what became the Union. It's something we saw continued to be 'debated' among the States prior to the Civil War. In many respects, it's the very same things we're now seeing 'debated.' You want to avoid it. Worse. You want to denigrate recognition of it; i.e., 'abandon history in the interest of current agenda.' What was that we accuse the Left of doing again?

Many White Republicans that I've met have felt the same way you do when I've pointed this out to them. But what I described was what I actually saw and heard. Hard to get around that. Again, you don't win if you don't show up.

Everyone's personal experience is going to vary. However, generalizing that into "White Republicans are..." isn't particularly accurate or useful. It's putting it and arguing based on 'race' instead of 'culture.' The fallacy, as I pointed out, is that it's not simply about physical attributes such as skin color. Likewise, ethnicity, while encompassing more than physical attributes, tends to lean toward 'racial' aspects in that they share a common descent. Culture has a broader meaning. It doesn't 'focus' on race or descent. Instead, it speaks to shared norms, shared values, shared beliefs, shared values, shared goals, etc.

What you see isn't just 'White Republicans' being scared or hesitant? Why? Because the cultural traits aren't necessarily shared, particularly in their emphases. Heck. I'm even nervous to walk into some 'white' neighborhoods due to their prevailing culture. Likewise, we see divisions among Republicans based on MAGA vs. ... well... other, more 'traditional' aspects of the Republican Party and I'm not simply talking about RiNO's. You're seeing differences with other members (including me) in relation to your beliefs and sense of cultural norms and I don't even know what 'race' you are.

You don't win if you don't show up? What was that about Biden 'hiding' for most of the 2020 Election Season? What was that about Adam Schiff potentially not even truly residing in California? It appears Republicans aren't necessarily ubiquitously 'winning' even when they do show up. Is that directly related to 'race?' Only partially. Now, what did I actually say? That viewing it along racial lines is a gross oversimplification and acting on that basis is more likely to exacerbate rather than rectify the problem?

Generally, I agree. And I believe that's what Republicans need to do better in California if they want to start winning and end this Democrat disaster. They have a pretty darn good chance to do so, especially right now. The current results aren't what you want, and frankly they aren't what I'd like to see, either, so it's time to change up.

I presume what you 'generally agree' with is: It's about what we share in common and finding a 'balance' which is perceived as 'maximizing' and not 'minimizing,' while allowing that some constraints are inevitable to make a society function. The problem is that your argument isn't so much about 'maximizing' a society. It's about 'maximizing' individuality and, as we know, society, no matter what one, involves 'minimizing' individuality to some degree. In the context of what we're discussing, you're the one who has narrowed it to a subgroup of that society; i.e., "Republicans."

As with culture, 'society' has several definitions; but, the one most relevant to the discussion seems to be: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity. What you are, in effect and in fact, arguing is that the Republican Party needs to give up its traditional identity to win in California; e.g., become all things to all people without necessarily representing anything which they can later be held to specifically. What I'm arguing is that the focus should be on 'shared' beliefs and those things which go beyond that are left to 'persuasion.'

The problem? What are you using to persuade? Vague notions of individual freedoms or clearly identified standards? What was the definition of 'society' again? What was the definition of 'culture' again? What is the key? "Shared?" What are you trying to 'share,' vagary or something more clearly defined?

You see, where we are 'agreeing' is that Republicans aren't doing so well in California and that individual rights should be maximized. Where we're disagreeing is in the methods preferred in accomplishing the latter. Maximizing doesn't necessarily equate to 'maximum.' Instead, it's a measure of degree. Likewise, to 'maximize,' you can't focus on 'minimizing;' which is what you're actually touting; i.e., 'minimizing' what Republicans identify with so as to persuade others to join us. My problem is, what are you trying to persuade them to join?

What 'standard,' 'aim,' and/or 'conduct' are you asking be adhered to? Remember, even Bruce Lee's "No way as way" was promulgation of a "way" in certain respects. Are you saying that the Republican Party needs to adopt something more akin to your personal beliefs or are you indicating that it shouldn't represent much of anything in particular beyond "We aren't... them" or are you simply saying Republicans need to do something and 'whatever it takes' is the approach you think will work out best even if it means failing to define what the Party represents and, thus, what people are being asked to join/associate with?

[sigfan91]

For many liberals, politics has replaced religion. Like with religion, they are true believers. They don't let facts nor reality get in the way of their beliefs.

There’s a good reason for that. South Park did an episode on this. They need to believe in something. They trust “the science” so they couldn’t believe in a religion. In turn, they transform government into a religion.

Ever noticed communists like to keep their “saints” around long after they were dead? Lenin and Mao were both preserved after they died. They are like relics for Catholics, a very religious practice even though communism is famous for being “atheist.”

[Capybara]

There’s a good reason for that. South Park did an episode on this. They need to believe in something. They trust “the science” so they couldn’t believe in a religion. In turn, they transform government into a religion.

Ever noticed communists like to keep their “saints” around long after they were dead? Lenin and Mao were both preserved after they died. They are like relics for Catholics, a very religious practice even though communism is famous for being “atheist.”

100%. Commies = Statists. Statists = Fascists, under the guise of Progressivism.

That's why all of the Statists, during Covid, were encouraging the Government to open Nazi-like camps for the unvaccinated. It's also why Leftists absolutely refuse to take any accountability and ever admit that they effed up on anything with their vote. Deep down, they know that the Gavin Newsom/Nancy Pelosi/Chuck Schumer/Adam Schiff they voted for and elected is a scumbag, degenerate, criminal and a horrible human being. But they keep re-electing them because to admit that they made the ultimate stupid, uninformed and moronic choice would mean admitting that their religion is fundamentally wrong. it would also mean admitting that they are stupid, uninformed and make the worst possible choices a human can make, their egos could never support that so they blindly soldier on in their fanatic religion of Statism and Progressivism. They aren't kidding when it's said that Liberalism is a mental condition. The self delusion is so strong that I'm convinced that most would sacrifice family members rather than admit they were wrong.

It's why I really admire hardcore DemonRats who red pill themselves and see the light and switch sides. It's very rare that someone who has that mindset has an epiphany, takes off the blinders and sees the insanity for what it is. And those people should be praised and admired because the religious fervor of that Leftist KoolAid is pretty hard to snap out of. You don't have to walk in lock step with Trump, MAGA, Republicans to see the insanity of the Left and fight it.

[riderr]

Short answer - money. Democrats offer a variety of benefits, so an average lazy Joe can enjoy kicking a can all day. Republicans want people earn the money.