Is California's liberalness over-estimated? (San Diego, San Francisco: live in, shops, bars)

[spicymeatball]

Originally Posted by GoldCountry80

California is the strangest state politically. Theres pockets where liberals would absolutely not like and do a whole lot better in South FL. Sacramento area is more conservative than Tampa Bay area I'd go so far to say. San Fran is liberal, areas outside of there are conservative also..California is like a big mish mash that only equates purple in the end. No clear cut direction overall like the Pac NW has.

Actually the Pacific Northwest is just about as "purple" as California. It's only Portland, Seattle and a few college towns that are bleeding blue - the rest of the region is quite conservative and certain areas are very religious.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by EricS39

Ok whatever

Why is Liberal a dirty word though?
Despite politics where would you rather go on a holiday?
Surfing in the pacific, strolling artsy shops, tasting fine wines, chilling in amazing weather in a transgender paradise?

Or instead go to a Conservative town with big corporate banks, no life after 5pm, police speed traps, and people who live in 50 acre homes with shotguns...and where it's a fine for singing the cuz I'm Happy song in public
Then ask me why I'm a social liberal

"Liberal" is not a particularly "dirty word" to me. "Partisan ideologies" are close, however. Ideological thinking is lazy thinking.

Originally Posted by spicymeatball

Actually the Pacific Northwest is just about as "purple" as California. It's only Portland, Seattle and a few college towns that are bleeding blue - the rest of the region is quite conservative and certain areas are very religious.

Again, those are the population centers that account for the vast majority of the states' citizens. That's how you measure / define a state politically.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

"Liberal" is not a particularly "dirty word" to me. "Partisan ideologies" are close, however. Ideological thinking is lazy thinking.

Again, those are the population centers that account for the vast majority of the states' citizens. That's how you measure / define a state politically.

Funny this should have to be explained but this is certainly true. Western WA, carries the state politically and unlike in CA's urban areas where the conservatives are at least known and have a small voice at least, this does not exist in Washington. there are few debates between the right and the left, just between the left and far left.

[EricS39]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Funny this should have to be explained but this is certainly true. Western WA, carries the state politically and unlike in CA's urban areas where the conservatives are at least known and have a small voice at least, this does not exist in Washington. there are few debates between the right and the left, just between the left and far left.

And in Oklahoma there are debates just between the right and the far right except the moderate right uses the D label

i.e. Democrat Oklahoman: same sex public affection shouldn't lead to a prison sentence but gay marriage should be illegal ...this is Democrat

Republican is gay activity to be punishable

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Is a state primarily defined by its physical geography - or by its population? Particularly when speaking politically.

Good point....

Unless one defines what they are talking about it is senseless.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Also, California is home to some of the "richest" liberals which is something that shouldn't be ignored. Rich libs aren't exactly the same as their poorer brothers in arms. They are often a lot more "moderate" on certain issues such as gay marriage, gay rights, low income housing, and affirmative action.

The biggest example would be the Mayoral run-off between Willie Brown and Tom Ammiano in SF 15 years ago. Willie Brown simply beat out Tom Ammiano because he was slightly less gay. "Two dad's" class room education is okay to rich libs as long as it's not taught to their children.

I believe this is what NewtoCA was getting at on page two.

The ratio of have's / have not's ,,,, is a factor on the California oddity. IMO not a singular defining factor but none the less a factor..

-----

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I believe this is what NewtoCA was getting at on page two.

The ratio of have's / have not's ,,,, is a factor on the California oddity. IMO not a singular defining factor but none the less a factor..

-----

It's an important point to understand about liberal rule in California IMO, and I agree it's not the "single defining" factor, but it's a huge one for the state's politics. The real battle line isn't liberal vs conservative (a lot of people in this forum tend to break it down that way but that's a total misunderstanding of the political divide here in CA).

As I've said in the politics threads in other California sub-forums, rich liberals and conservatives eat dinner together, their kids go to the same schools, and they give each other high fives while playing golf. Rich liberals believe in carrying concealed weapons on them, most of the CCW permits granted in liberal counties (San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, etc) have exceedingly gone to the wealthy libs. But they'll fight tooth and nail to keep weapons out of the hands of poor libs, and they'll use human tragedy, CNN, and Piers Morgan to push that agenda, while carrying loaded weapons on their person 24/7.

Rich liberals would fight tooth and nail before they allowed poor libs to have low income housing in their neighborhoods. Just look at the low income housing fight in SF. But they wouldn't blink an eye if a rich conservative bought a mansion in Belvedere or Seacliff. In fact they would send them a wine and cheese gift basket.

[Tlaneloli]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Nothing to figure, it is quite simple. The decline of California, and every other blue state, can be directly attributed to the spread and failure of Neo-Marxism, ie, "progressivism" that has infected the entire nation.


No such thing anymore, they are obsolete, the label is now an oxymoron. The ones that were left have either died or switched parties. Perhaps you might still find a few holdouts in the Deep South, but even there, most of them switched to the GOP.

Man this site needs a laughing smiley for posts like this, and I mean the ROFL type one

[Tlaneloli]

Originally Posted by mbell75

Not even close. CA takes the cake and rather easily. You think you would ever see any one of those states passing a law making it ok for transgender boys to use girls lockers and bathrooms? No chance in hell, and thats only one example.

Wouldn't transgender boys be people whose gender is male but sex isn't? I think you're speaking of transgender girls.

[BlackShoe]

How liberal is California? It would seem that we only have one state beat when considering just how free or not free we are. Before the leftists protest that this study is right wing bias, it should be noted that it is from a Libertarian think tank.
Freedom in the 50 States 2013 | California Overall Freedom | Mercatus Center