Bush eyes the 'Big Enchilada'

[tommyilromano]

The prospect of winning California in 2008 has Republicans drooling, writes Philip James

Friday November 12, 2004

Bush Sr called it the "Big Enchilada" - the giant, rolled tortilla shaped state on America's left coast that carries a whopping 54 electoral college votes. He was the last Republican president to win California - a state that has gone essentially uncontested in every election since 1988.
This year it stopped Bush Jr from recording an out of sight landslide victory over John Kerry. But Kerry's margin of victory in what both parties have considered safe Democratic territory for well over a decade was uncomfortably thin.

While Clinton and Gore took the state by double digits in their attempts at the presidency, Kerry beat Bush by only nine points, and strategists from both parties are thinking the unthinkable as they plan for 2008: Is the "Big Enchilada" back in play?

The unavoidable answer is yes and it should have Democrats worried, for if California slips back into the Republican column, it would likely thrust the Democratic party back into a wilderness that would make Britain's third placed Liberal Democrats look relevant.

Just two years ago, California Democrats were celebrating a landmark achievement. In the 2002 election they swept all the state-wide elective offices, such as secretary of state. It was the first time the Democrats had achieved such a lockout in more than a century.

This turned out to be the apogee of Democratic power in the Golden State. Three months later, Gray Davis, the governor, was ousted in an unprecedented recall election, and Republicans are on the ascendant.

Voting patterns have been steadily moving California back to the midwest in recent years - a trend that is likely to continue. Democrats can rely on Los Angeles county and the San Francisco Bay area, but these concentrations are now surrounded by Republican territory.

What is more, population growth in counties that voted for Bush - spanning the vast reclaimed desert land of the inner part of the state - is projected to outpace growth in Democratic counties by more than a million people by 2008.

The same cultural conservatism that is reshaping America is also alive and well in California. Sixties-era liberalism may still radiate from the Haight Ashbury district in San Francisco to the Bay area, but today's California is much more a capital for the Christian right than for the progressive left.

In many ways the state has become ground zero for the culture war that is redefining US politics. The Massachusetts supreme court may have launched the row over gay marriage, but it was San Francisco's Democratic mayor, Gary Newsom, who turned it into a cause célèbre.

The flamboyant images of same sex couples getting hitched on the steps of city hall in the gay capital of America galvanised Republicans locally and nationally far more than Democrats.

The reactionary proposal banning gay marriage was a white hot issue in many states, amping up turn-out for Bush, but it was not on the ballot in California - a fact that helped keep the state in the Democratic column this time.

It stayed off the ballot there because California's secretary of state (the state's top election official), who can ease the path of ballot initiatives or throw up hurdles in their way, is a Democrat and he kept it off.

The lesson from California is that state-wide office holders - not just governors but also the unglamourous, but important, secretaries of state in each state - can have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of federal elections.

Of the 11 states that passed initiatives banning gay marriage, all but three (Oklahoma, Oregon and Michigan) have Republican governors and one of those, Michigan, has a Republican secretary of state.

The bottom line is this: state-wide offices matter and they matter more to a party in opposition, particularly one that has been effectively shut out of the three big houses in Washington.

You can bet that Republicans will mount a big push to win as many such offices as possible in California in 2006. Schwarzenegger will likely coast to a second term, but a lot of Republican dollars will be spent to unseat Kevin Shelley as secretary of state.

If they succeed, do not be surprised to find an anti-gay-marriage initiative on the ballot in California in 2008. Republicans would love to keep this wedge issue alive to help to flip the biggest electoral prize in US politics over to their column.

· Philip James is a former Democratic party strategist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1349785,00.html

If the democrats lose control there its over for them.

[Don Seer]

something i've wondered.. does america have a significant third party?

in the UK we have (listed by my perceived size)  'New Labour' / Conservsatives / Liberal Democrats

the "Lib dems" are a way behind the other 2.. but the gap is closing.. the conservatives have slipped..

Labour used to be left wing, but revamped and swung into centre.. they made the right wing conservatives look old and out of date.. and all these years later they still do.. the lib dems are a bit wet but they're good peoples 

[M Dogg™]

Living in California, I can say that a Republican winning California in the next 4 years is impossible. They forgot to mention that since 1994, California has been straight Democrat for many reasons. Before that, we were Reagan Country, since Reagan was governor in the late 1960's. California was the first state to cut property taxes, cut school funding and do many things. Grey Davis was our first Democrat governor is 16 years. We alway were Republicans, Orange Country countered LA, and the rest of the state followed. Now, it may look like all them inland countries are red, but they are a very light pink. In the 60's-early 90's, those countries were bright red. In fact, they are getting lighter, I should know, I live in a light pink county that was bright pink before. Now in terms of presidental elections, it really depends on the people. This county voted a slight edge for Bush, but in every other office, it voted Democrat, and kept the same Congressmen in office. That was a pattern among California. Now honestly, Bush was choicen with California in mind, because we've been so "liberal" since 1994. California history, in 1994, Republican governor Pete Wilson ran for re-election knowing two things, California was in it's worst situation ever so Wilson, knowing that Mexicans don't vote, ran on Prop 187 that basically placed blame on illegal immigrants for Cali's problems. In 1996, all the Republicans that ran off of 187, and most of them dissed the Mexican flag, were voted out, and in there place where Democrats. Though most of these new voters, the Mexicans, are not hardline liberals, they vote Democrats with 187 in mind. Now Bush is very popular with Latino voters. I read it in 1999, when they were still thinking of who's going to run, conservatives said Bush, because he can get Latinos to vote for him to counter 187. Bush still lose Cali, but it was closer, but in the end, after Bush, who is going to run. I don't see Latinos flacking to support any other Republican.

[Ant]

I agree.  Cali isn't going republican.  The only reason the gap closed this year is a) latinos like Bush because he pretends to be religious b) terrorism c) a natural tendency for voters to side with the incumbent president during war time.

If you look at the margin Bush won by its not very impressive when you consider the fact that he once had a 80-90% approval rating, and considering that the US has never voted a president out during war time.  He barely managed to squeak through.  In 2008 Cali will swing back to democrats, and other states will become more powerfully blue.  Especially as bad news continues to come in about Bush messing shit up.

LIke, apparently no one found it interesting, but CIA resignations are popping up left and right.  2 very high ranking offcials resigned on Friday, both becoming vocally critical of the Bush Administration.  All the economic analyses show that his economic policies will continue to fuck us.  And so on.... Eventually the country will swing back to blue.

I've said before, Bush;s approval ratings have been steadily moving down down down, the problem was, there wasn't a big enough time span for them to move down to the point where he lost the election. He got free support because of 9-11, and its slowly been eroding, w/o 9-11 and the War on Terror, Bush never woulda made it thourgh 2004. 

[Acgrundy]

republicans will never get cali.

[tommyilromano]

something i've wondered.. does america have a significant third party?

in the UK we have (listed by my perceived size)  'New Labour' / Conservsatives / Liberal Democrats

the "Lib dems" are a way behind the other 2.. but the gap is closing.. the conservatives have slipped..

Labour used to be left wing, but revamped and swung into centre.. they made the right wing conservatives look old and out of date.. and all these years later they still do.. the lib dems are a bit wet but they're good peoples 

No, the U.S. does not.

[M Dogg™]

something i've wondered.. does america have a significant third party?

in the UK we have (listed by my perceived size)  'New Labour' / Conservsatives / Liberal Democrats

the "Lib dems" are a way behind the other 2.. but the gap is closing.. the conservatives have slipped..

Labour used to be left wing, but revamped and swung into centre.. they made the right wing conservatives look old and out of date.. and all these years later they still do.. the lib dems are a bit wet but they're good peoples 

No, the U.S. does not.

I don't think so either. I think real liberals need to take back our party. All a 3rd party will do is split the liberal vote, we seen what happened in 2000 when the Greens took a fraction of the liberal vote. We need real liberals to lead our so called liberal party. We also need to show that infact we are a religious party too. I mean, most of Jesus teachings are liberal so we need to promote that too for Bible Country. Just my opinion though. We need real liberals, and learn to promote our party.

[*Jamal*]

Bush can eye deeeez nuts... Republicans ain't getting Cali unless bigots, trailer trash, and Mormons unify to become the majority in the state...

[tommyilromano]

I don't know the situation in Cali 1st hand... Shit, I don't really know the situation in the US since I have been stationed in Turkey for a while but I just thought it was an interesting article especially since the article isn't coming from Fox News or any right wing news source. It came from the fucking Guardian and it was written by a democratic strategist so thats why I posted the article. I think it carries more weight because of this fact and I also think the democrats are in trouble. The reality is the Democrats have been losing seats for a while now and all I hear from anyone is its just a trend or its because its a war time President. People can say what they want but the democrats are in real trouble and if they lose more seats in 06 they will be on life support. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I lean to the right but Socially and economically there are a number of issues I agree with the democrats on.

[Suffice]

The Republicans aren't gettin cali in 2008 for sure. Californians are mad that Bush won, and they'll vote the same exact way in the next elections. For most people right now, Bush = all Republicans.

[M Dogg™]

I don't know the situation in Cali 1st hand... Shit, I don't really know the situation in the US since I have been stationed in Turkey for a while but I just thought it was an interesting article especially since the article isn't coming from Fox News or any right wing news source. It came from the fucking Guardian and it was written by a democratic strategist so thats why I posted the article. I think it carries more weight because of this fact and I also think the democrats are in trouble. The reality is the Democrats have been losing seats for a while now and all I hear from anyone is its just a trend or its because its a war time President. People can say what they want but the democrats are in real trouble and if they lose more seats in 06 they will be on life support. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I lean to the right but Socially and economically there are a number of issues I agree with the democrats on.

I was wondering why that article sounded like a rally cry. See, Democrats know that Cali is not a lock. Right now, if you look at the map, the areas that voted heavily Democrat are heavily populated Latino areas. But areas like were I live, which is also majority Latino, well they were split and the whites were majority Bush, so our area was a light pink instead of the usual blue we sported last election, or the usual crimson red we sported during the Reagon years. This is because Bush is very popular with Latino voters. Now in the costal areas you also have more liberals, and ex-hippies. But don't let that fool you, the big joke is that many hippies came to California, got rich and turned Republican. California is not a lock to stay Democrat. After all, we have had decades of Republican rule, governor wise and voting for people like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. We we called Reagan Country for 20 years. Our new found left wing slant came with the Republicans blaming illegal immigrants for our troubles, which pissed off the Latinos here who at onetime didn't even vote. We had majority Latinos in many areas, and no one in those areas came out to vote. In 1996, they voted alright, and kicked out all the Republicans but one. In 1998 they elected Grey Davis, a nice man, but really in the mold of Jimmy Carter. He marched with Caser Chavez for farmers rights, he did all kinds of peace oriented things, and his first few years of governor where great as California experienced a bomb to the dotcom industry. But once that market started falling, so did Cali and when Enron people got busted, most our energy comes from Enron, so we had black outs, and a man who's approval rating went from 68% fell to record lows, and then he was kicked out of office by the Terminator, many Democrats got worried. After all, in California, we have a majority of Democrats in both houses, and all of our elected officals are Democrats. Many half empty Democrats felt this is the end of the line, they thought that the Terminators popularity would lead to the Dems getting kicked out in favor of Arnold friendly Republicans. Well, it hasn't happened yet, I doubt it will. In fact, voters voted against some Arnold bills, like taxing Native Americans casinos. I asked around, and people just felt we have taken too much from Native to tax them... lol. So the people of California have an independent mind, which scares the party in charge. That means a certain party can't control the peoples' mind, but that's California. We are liberals, not strong liberals, but liberals. Many are angry Bush won, including some people that voted for him... lol. I'm for reals. And other than Bush, more Latinos here don't see another Republican they can support. They hate Cheney, Gulieni isn't exactly popular here with his militaristic police ideals, and McCain might do something damage here but I doubt he'll get nominated. People here love Obama as they trip out on a black man for president... lol... and they love the Terminator, they just don't have to agree with him. So we'll see what happens.