California in play!
...at least, during the GOP primaries.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'd say sorry for setting you off like that, except that it'd be, you know, a lie and all.
Anyway, things are going to be a little bit different in California's GOP primaries this year:
GOP hunts for delegates in California
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 59 minutes ago
[snip]
California Republicans have instituted new rules for awarding delegates to their 2008 national nominating convention, prompting their party's White House hopefuls to pursue a counterintuitive strategy of seeking GOP votes in Democratic strongholds like Waters' district.
[snip]
The payoff — three convention delegates per district — is the same the candidates would receive if they prevail in heavily Republican districts, but the cost and energy needed to compete in the Democratic districts is much less than a more widespread media campaign.
[snip]
In the past, the California GOP awarded convention delegates on a winner-take-all basis. The candidate getting the most votes statewide got all the state's delegates.
Read on.
This looks like - at least from an outsider's point of view - something that could shake up Californian politics quite a bit. As noted above, the old system would assign delegates based on who won statewide; as a practical matter, this meant that in the very GOP-light districts it didn't particularly matter who you and your neighbors voted for. If the delegate was for your guy, it was pretty much by accident.
Under this new system... well, while I don't think that it's going to affect the final delegate total all that much (the campaigns appear to be well aware of this change, and are shaping tactics to match) it will have some effect on the way the GOP treats California. Right now we treat CA as a potential spoiler state for Presidential elections: our opponents are not quite certain that they can simply ignore the GOP there, and losing CA's electoral votes would be a disaster for them, so we can bleed Democratic coffers white every four years making them play defense.
All of this is fun, no question about it - but CA is a State that we could win*. Will reminding beleaguered Republicans in San Francisco and Los Angeles that the Party actually does care about their opinion on who should be President make that happen? Not a chance. Is it a good first step in a campaign to rebuild the Party in those districts? Yes, actually, it is.
Should be interesting to see: now if we can just get CA's EVs apportioned by district winners, too. Tell you what, Democrats: I'll endorse doing TX and FL if you stop logrolling CA. Any takers? No? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Moe Lane
*No State is beyond the reach of either Party. The Democrats could take Texas or Georgia. The Republicans could win Massachusetts or Illinois. We've/they've done it in the past; we/they can do it again.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Thompson's 12th Commandment — Comments (5) »
California in play! 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I just can't come around to support dividing CA's electoral votes up by congresssional district. Leave it alone I say. But if you must, find some other way besides the congressional districts. The Dems will just find more ways (and one more reason) to gerrymander the GOP out of congressional races, if they also help decide the presidential race.
You can only gerrymander the *size* of the advantage away. You can't gerrymander away the fact inland California is pretty well Republican.
I highly doubt there's any possible way they could gerrymander a way where splitting the state by EVs isn't a substantial gain for us.
And besides, there's no way this isn't a gain for Californians which is the most important thing for Californians to decide. As things stand, no President will ever campaign here again. It's just too expensive to reach our media markets, and other states will always be more dollars-to-EV effective.
If we split by district, competing here at least becomes PRACTICAL. Our state would probably become electorally like three or four mid-sized states, two or three of them suretys, and one or two of them a swing state.
Because remember: when you gerrymander for a max number of states that are in your majority, you are creating fewer safe seats and more potential swing states. Ask Nick Lampson if that can benefit the opposition.
But we still won't get to the root of the problem: Republican Party is turning into a suburban/rural party while Democrats are given free reign in urban centers. Maybe there's nothing we can do about this trend.
That aside, I think anything to get Republican Presidents to stump in CA is a good thing.
Compare CA to TX. Recently as '76, TX went for the Democrat & CA went for the Republican. '80-88, both states were in the Republican column. A growing Mexican population has permanently changed the state that once produced Nixon & Reagan. But the Mexican immigrant population hasn't kept TX a Democrat stronghold.
At the risk of oversimplifying, it appears that the main difference is that the Bush family fought for their "home turf" in TX. Would love to see another Presidential candidate fight for CA.
If California has open primaries, this might not be as bad for Rudy as you might think. Moderates that might see Hillary's coronation as inevitable could end up voting in the GOP primary instead.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
We had fully open primaries in 1996 and 2000 (I think) but this was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Now we have an odd hybrid. If you're registered with a party, you vote in that party's primary. If you're unaffiliated, you can vote in any party's primary that accepts unaffiliated voters. Right now, neither the Republicans nor the Dems do so (most of the third parties do).
So, there won't be any independents (or cross-overs) affecting either of the big primaries.
He's already got winner-take-district helping him in Florida, but I have to think he was counting winner-take-all in California as a great shot for him.
Without even getting a big bonus some states get for going Republican in 2004 (we do get 1 bonus for having the mother of all RiNOs in Arnie though), California's pledged delegates represent 170 of the ~1200 it takes to win.
Not that I'm saying I think his strategy is bad, but I am saying it just got a little harder. Just like the Democrats have it harder if they had to fight for every one of California's EVs.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters