Why do Repugs talk about carrying CA more than NY?

[mot78]

Both are safe blue states, yet Repugs orgasm over the thought of carring CA, and they did this even in 2000. Is it because CA used to be a Repug stronghold as recently as the early '90s, unlike NY? Or is it because it has the most electoral votes? I don't know why some still consider CA to be a battleground states when they NY, which has the second most EVs, and is the 2nd or 3rd largest state.

[Maat]

1. Funny you should say that.

We are getting no Bush ads. Correct me, fellow Californians if I'm wrong.

[Piperay]

3. That's correct

I haven't seen a single one. :-)

[Webster Green]

4. We're getting plenty of ads for the war chimp in the Bay Area..

I prefer the MoveOn ads myself.

[demosincebirth]

11. I've only...

seen a few here. Also,
we are unique, here in the SJ-SF-Oak area...no repugs hold Federal or State office, so we don't have to see or hear them. Such a great area to live in!

[still_one]

7. you are correct

the only bush ads you see are on the cnn, cnbc, msnbc etc. which are cable/satellite feeds

[knight_of_the_star]

18. Ditto down here in SD North County

They're blowing smoke.

[Piperay]

2. I think it is because

their beloved Ronnie Raygun was Governor here and they just can't accept that CA no longer is theirs. Also, anymore 'trends' start in CA and then move to the rest of the country, so they want to crack into CA in hopes that their brand of facism will spread to the rest of the country. JMO

[lastknowngood]

5. They have a Gov in charge in Cal and he will direct a purge of

the democratic roles just before the election. Cal is going red deal with.

[mobuto]

6. Um, no

Both California and New York have Republican Governors, and neither California nor New York will come even remotely close to voting for Bush.

Cut the fatalist bullcrap.

[beyurslf]

10. And KS has Dem Gov and will certainly vote for Bush

Gov's don't carry the state for their party.

[lancdem]

8. Bush's approval rating in California is 38 percent

He has zilch chance of winning there.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ButterflyBlood]

23. so then you also think MA, HI, RI, VT, MD and NY will go to * as well?

since they also have Republican governors?

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Bush did better in CA than in NY last time

He got 42% in CA and 35% in NY. Plus CA went for the GOP as recently as 1988, but NY hasn't since 1984.

[mot78]

12. That's because there are still more reich wingers in CA than NY

We just have Staten Island and upstate (around Adirondacks specifically) while CA has Orange County, and they have people like Savage, RimJob/FR, and John Birch Society.

[mot78]

13. BTW, didn't Dukakis only lose there by a narrow margain in 1988?

I think CA was already treading Dem in the late '80s.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Yes. he lost by about 3.5%

[mot78]

16. Figures

CA was already a swing state in the late '80s, even with Dukakis. It was probably Willie Horton that hurt him there, since, though I may be wrong, the national concern over being tough on crime was mainly expressed by Californians.

[elperromagico]

17. Because NY's about as likely to go Republican as MA.

Compare the averages for the last four Presidential elections:

NY:
Average D Vote: 55.26%
Average R Vote: 36.81%

CA:
Average D Vote: 49.53%
Average R Vote: 40.9%

In choosing between the two, historically speaking, California is simply regarded as more "winnable" than NY.

[DaveSZ]

19. I agree

They are pissed that their idiot boy Raygun's state is so liberal now!

:P

[mot78]

20. At least we don't orgasm over the South like that

[AGD4y2357y]

21. Typically

I would pass this off as delusional repub extremist talk. They always believe they have more support than they do. (see all the talk about how the Iraqis would be showering us with roses for example) I think they have about as much chance of taking CA/NY as we do of taking AL/TX.

That said, god help us if they take CA and/or NY. It could very well cost us the election.

I think we should pull out all the stops. Take no chances. Campaign in CA/NY so long as it is not to an extent that it limits campaigning in battle ground states.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. You mean it WILL cost us the election if we loose NY or CA...

If states like that go Republican, it won't be just a regional thing, Bush will have already won by a landslide.

[ButterflyBlood]

24. New York is more unwinnable

California is to us what Indiana is to them, while New York is much closer to Idaho.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. California is to us what Texas is to them

Texas is trending slightly blue because of Bush's horrible job in office and Cali is trending slightly red because of governator.

[shivaji]

26. The answer is simple really.......it is because they

want kerry to spend $$ in CA.

That means Kerry will have that much less ib the real
battle ground states. It is machivellian Rove at work.

Our correct strategy should be to spend Zero, Zilch,
Nada $$ in CA.

[ChrisNYC]

27. For what it's worth

The NY Repubs run away from W. Bloomberg recently skitted away rather than having his photo taken on stage with W at an event. Meanwhile, Arnold (Who I must say I like as much as I could like any Republican -- at least I could work with him and don't think he's insane) is an active supporter of W. I assume Pataki will endorse W, but that's lukewarm at best. While I have never voted for them, NY Republicans are a brand of the GOP I could live with. (Socially liberal, at least). Meanwhile, the mainstream southern GOP seems to be well represented in California. I think most Republicans would rather lose an election with a Tom Delay type than win with George Pataki. (And I dislike Pataki and voted against him).

[drumwolf]

28. You pretty much answered your own question.

I think it's both of those reasons combined, personally -- the fact that California has the most electoral votes AND the fact that it only recently became a Dem stronghold.

I'm a former New Yorker now living in the Bay Area, and I actually see more of a wingnut presence in California than I did in New York. Sure, you've got a lot of far-left radicals in SF and Berkeley, but you also have a substantial number of middle-class suburban families who are solidly Republican too. On the other hand, in NY, there may not be so many extreme-left types, but most of the rank-and-file voters here -- the ones who raise kids in the suburbs, the soccer moms -- are at least somewhat liberal and even the Republicans here are pretty socially tolerant.

I might point out that one major reason California turned Democrat in the first place was because of the GOP's anti-immigration platform in the mid-'90s which caused shitloads of Hispanics -- many of whom were apolitical before then -- to come out of the woodwork who became Dems. And Hispanics as a group aren't incredibly socially liberal. Many of them only turned Democrat because the GOP came across as the party that wanted to deport their asses back to Mexico.

It's unlikely right now that * will win California, but it's not by any stretch impossible.

[genius]

29. After Shelley drafted a bill to put Bush on our ballot, the legislature

minus two people unanimously voted to make an exception to California law for the "Republican nominee."