Month: June 2003

According to the Secretary of State’s Report of Registration, California voters are a diverse bunch: 44.4% are registered Democrats, 35.2% are Republicans, 4.4% belong to third parties, and 14.4% are “Decline to State” or independent voters. Democrats lead in 26 counties, and Republicans in 35.

The trends, since the February 10, 2001 Report of Registration:

the percentage of total registration in the state has decreased from 72.2% to 70.3%

registration in the qualified political parties has decreased from 84.7% to 83.5%

registration in the Democratic party decreased from 45.6% to 44.4%

registration in the Republican party increased from 34.8% to 35.2%

the number of voters who have declined to state has increased from 14.4% to 15.3%

Bear these figures in mind when you read my colleague Grant, who says:

First, republicans only make up roughly 20% of California’s residence. Of course, that number improves if we only count the likely voters. That means that roughly half of California democrats would need to vote for President Bush if he were to win the state. That is the primary reason I don’t think he will win California.

Not quite right, is it?

Now what things affect election results, beyond party registration? At least three major factors: 1) turnout; 2) crossovers; and 3) coattails. I think all of these favor George W. Bush in California.

Democrats are unlikely to nominate a candidate who really gets their party faithful all fired-up to go out and vote, because they don’t have one among the largely shapeless and nameless bunch in the running. Would you get out of bed 30 minutes early to vote for Bob Graham, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt? Neither would most Democrats. Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton seem to get people more excited, but it’s not clear any of them has a genuine shot at winning the nomination, although Dean has Kerry worried. So barring Hillary!, Dems will have low turnout in 2004.

Crossovers, meaning voters defecting from their party and voting for the other guy, favor Bush for a couple of reasons. Disaffected Reeps tend to bolt when the candidate isn’t fanatical enough about abortion or religion, but nobody’s going to dump Bush for Kerry or Dean on that basis. Disaffected Dems bolt from candidates who’re too soft on crime, too namby-pamby on national defense, and too generous with the welfare checks. And voters of all parties, especially women, bolt to re-elect an incumbent. George H. W. Bush got more California women in 1992 than Clinton did, for example. So crossovers favor the President.

Which brings us to coattails, meaning voters to come out to vote the Party ticket because they’re psyched-up by somebody else on the ballot. This doesn’t happen in California with Legislative or Congressional races, because the districts are so Gerrymandered that the November results are always a foregone conclusion; the primary is where the action is. The Governor’s race may get some people excited, except that the recall, if successful, will tend to make it simply a re-election of whoever takes Davis’ place in the corner office.

And the wild card is the Decline-to-State voter, the fastest growing segment of the voting population that makes a difference (third parties are actually growing faster, but they self-marginalize and therefore aren’t interesting). Since neither of the major parties has a majority of registered voters, they both live and die by the Independent vote, at the end of the day, and right now, that’s in Bush’s favor.

So I wouldn’t write off the state of California just yet, Republicans.

Cam Barrett, a guy who’s been blogging almost as long as I’ve been, has started a group blog for 2004 Election News, Opinion and Commentary. It’s called “WatchBlog” and he’s still taking applications from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who’d like to contribute. See Cam’s blog for details.

Jill Stewart says Al Checchi has a plan for relieving the California fiscal crisis:

With Democrats refusing to bite the bullet, Checchi suggests, “I am not so sure California wouldn’t be better off if a trustee took it over and ran it instead of this governor and this Legislature.”

I hope he enters the recall election.

Instead of passing a budget, the California Legislature spent their last day in session before the weekend break debating a Father’s Day resolution written so as to offend fathers.

Christine Kehoe, the San Diego lesbian who ran for the Assembly after losing two bids for the Congress, wrote a resolution singling out several groups of people for praise – gay fathers, adoptive fathers, grandfathers who father grandchildren, and unwed fathers – but failed to recognize the good, old-fashioned man who marries the mother of his children before they’re born and stays married to her as long as she’s willing. The resolution was so contentious that only one Republican could bring himself to vote for it:

The final vote on HR 32 was 41-22, with 17 abstentions. All but one Republican — Keith Richman of Northridge — voted against the resolution, which was introduced by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, one of four openly gay Assembly members.

Critics complained that HR 32 did not specifically single out “traditional fathers” — using the term “biological” fathers instead — and that the resolution went too far by citing categories of non-traditional fathers.

Now what do you suppose would happen if the next time the Legislature wanted to honor mothers or gays, the Republicans wrote a resolution honoring those who smoke crack, turn tricks, serve time in prison, rape or abuse children, just in the name of being “inclusive?”

This kind of legislative trolling is among the main reasons I hate California Democrats, even though I was a Democrat for 30 years. Some things are not meant to be political, and the Father’s Day Resolution is one of them.