U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR LA MAYOR?
Antonio Villaraigosa 14 30.43%
Walter Moore 23 50.00%
Other 9 19.57%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2009, 11:50 AM
 
Location: 90291
23 posts, read 33,092 times
Reputation: 18

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by happ View Post
The practicality of a Republican mayor in Los Angeles is laughable. Moore would have no allies ex 1 supporter on 15-seat city council a fish totally out of water. Agree that Moore is basically OK but better suited to cities like Anaheim\ San Luis Obispo\ Modesto

This commentary in today's paper points out how difficult California has become for Republicans: Only one Republican [Bono-Palm Springs] voted for Obama's stimulus package yet all GOP congress people from CAL put "pork" into their districts.

As the GOP stands firm, California is changing direction - Los Angeles Times
Moore ran as an independent. His republican leanings are fiscally rooted. Socially he leans further left. The last successful (IMO) mayor of Los Angeles, was a republican. Remember Riordan? I didn't vote for him, but I think he did just fine. Took a lot of criticism for completing the first part of the mass transit system. As a matter of fact, I think he was criticized by the GOP last fall for supporting Obama.

Further I think Moore had more political savvy than you give credit for. He managed to qualify for matching funds with his grass roots campaign. The council would have had to give some cred to a guy who made it to office on a mandate of the people.

Finally, Moore is out of politics, and the main thing that happened was that Villaraigosa knows he's probably stuck with being mayor because the people do not want him as governor. His arrogance almost put him in a run off with a guy nobody knew.

As to shifts in political demographics -- 30 years ago Cal was a GOP state. Now it's Democratic. The thing about shifts is they aren't permanent. I'm a registered Democrat, but I don't let the party think for me. I'll vote for whoever I think is the right man/woman, and I think the majority of the state will do the same when they get fed up with the sleaze.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2009, 11:54 AM
 
Location: los angeles
5,031 posts, read 11,056,046 times
Reputation: 1477
Quote:
majoun Some of Moore's stances which came across as anti-Latino would deeply limit the areas of L.A. County in which he could run. I have no evidence that Moore's personally prejudiced - I think he's more out to lunch than prejudiced per se- but certainly many of his diehard supporters are. He'd be limited to running in the "white bastions" like Malibu, Santa Monica, El Segundo, the South Bay Beach Cities, and Palos Verdes. (The other west side independent cities would be "too diverse" for him, even including Beverly Hills.) Considering the inept nature of Santa Monica's notorious "old boys' network" and popular discontent with it, he MIGHT have a chance there. The electorate in the South Bay cities seems rather content with their leadership and probably wouldn't want to choose an outsider.

Actually Santa Monica\ El Segundo\ Malibu are liberal strongholds where Green candidates do well. I think Hermosa Beach has a gay Asian Republican mayor & Torrance\ Palos Verdes have GOP numbers.

According to voting patterns the most conservative areas of Los Angeles "north of Malibu" tend to vote Republican in local elections but Democratic in state\ national elections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,959,819 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme View Post
Moore ran as an independent. His republican leanings are fiscally rooted. Socially he leans further left. The last successful (IMO) mayor of Los Angeles, was a republican. Remember Riordan? I didn't vote for him, but I think he did just fine. Took a lot of criticism for completing the first part of the mass transit system. As a matter of fact, I think he was criticized by the GOP last fall for supporting Obama.

Further I think Moore had more political savvy than you give credit for. He managed to qualify for matching funds with his grass roots campaign. The council would have had to give some cred to a guy who made it to office on a mandate of the people.

Finally, Moore is out of politics, and the main thing that happened was that Villaraigosa knows he's probably stuck with being mayor because the people do not want him as governor. His arrogance almost put him in a run off with a guy nobody knew.

As to shifts in political demographics -- 30 years ago Cal was a GOP state.
CA was a swing state 30 years ago. It hasn't been a GOP state since the mid 1950s. The legislature's been Dem for 48 of the last 50 years. As for the results in presidential elections, it helped the California GOP that there was a Californian on every GOP ticket as either president or VP from 1948 until 1984 with the only exceptions being 1964 and 1976. Also, the composition of the parties in those years in CA was quite different than today. Far more moderates of both parties as well as the presence of conservative Dems (e.g. Sam Yorty) and truly liberal Republicans (e.g. Al Bell, Pete McCloskey)

Quote:
Now it's Democratic. The thing about shifts is they aren't permanent. I'm a registered Democrat, but I don't let the party think for me. I'll vote for whoever I think is the right man/woman, and I think the majority of the state will do the same when they get fed up with the sleaze.
Good attitude to have. People should vote for the best candidate regardless of party. However Moore was not a viable option. There's a reason why the only statewide GOP elected officials are Arnold and Poizner. Part of the problem is that the type of GOP (largely Bay Area) moderates who used to dominate CA politics largely moved into the DLC wing of the Dems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,959,819 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ View Post


Actually Santa Monica\ El Segundo\ Malibu are liberal strongholds where Green candidates do well. I think Hermosa Beach has a gay Asian Republican mayor & Torrance\ Palos Verdes have GOP numbers.

According to voting patterns the most conservative areas of Los Angeles "north of Malibu" tend to vote Republican in local elections but Democratic in state\ national elections.
So, that leaves Palos Verdes, or, as the L.A. Weekly called it, the "Costa Reagan", as the other "white bastions" are too liberal for Moore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:18 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,031 posts, read 11,056,046 times
Reputation: 1477
I agree that the GOP was quite different many years ago & people like Diana Feinstein are more like the old GOP [fiscal conservative\ not religious\ libertarian\ pro-corporations-free trade]. I saw the movie "Milk" yesterday and was surprised that even Reagan was pro-gay rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,959,819 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ View Post
I agree that the GOP was quite different many years ago & people like Diana Feinstein are more like the old GOP [fiscal conservative\ not religious\ libertarian\ pro-corporations-free trade]. I saw the movie "Milk" yesterday and was surprised that even Reagan was pro-gay rights.
Reagan did have some gay friends, like Rock Hudson (who was a major donor to the GOP and was even approached by the CA GOP to run for office). Being in the business he was in, he was bound to come in contact with gays. While some actors in his era were extremely homophobic (e.g. Clark Gable), most had to have at least some tolerance for their gay or bi peers just out of necessary working relationships. Reagan's inaction on AIDS prior to Hudson's death was more class/snobbery oriented than actually homophobic - i.e. he separated gays in his circle from "those people". He only noticed AIDS once it became clear that the disease did not spare wealthy white middle aged Republican men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:42 PM
 
Location: 90291
23 posts, read 33,092 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
CA was a swing state 30 years ago. It hasn't been a GOP state since the mid 1950s. The legislature's been Dem for 48 of the last 50 years. As for the results in presidential elections, it helped the California GOP that there was a Californian on every GOP ticket as either president or VP from 1948 until 1984 with the only exceptions being 1964 and 1976. Also, the composition of the parties in those years in CA was quite different than today. Far more moderates of both parties as well as the presence of conservative Dems (e.g. Sam Yorty) and truly liberal Republicans (e.g. Al Bell, Pete McCloskey)



Good attitude to have. People should vote for the best candidate regardless of party. However Moore was not a viable option. There's a reason why the only statewide GOP elected officials are Arnold and Poizner. Part of the problem is that the type of GOP (largely Bay Area) moderates who used to dominate CA politics largely moved into the DLC wing of the Dems.
I'm not talking about California's history as a swing state for national elections. I'm talking about the executive, and legislative offices, which were mostly republican till the mid seventies. I was here, voting in opposition, and it was tough statewise. Even after Brown was elected, we had Deukmejian, and Wilson. Gray Davis got kicked and was replace with Schwarzenegger who has not done any better at the job than his predecessor -- and isn't really a republican anyway.

I get that the demographics are changing, and we are in solid Democratic territory now. That's something a dem could only wish for through the Deukmejian/Wilson days. But when it comes down to it, Democrats can be just as morally bankrupt as Republicans. Now I see, what I didn't see before; we need a strong two party system to keep each other honest.

Voting for Moore or any other candidate for mayor was a good thing. Because Villaraigosa didn't think he had to acknowledge anyone, or debate. At his campaign party on election night the tally board read "Villaraigosa" with the tally number, and "Others" with a tally number. As the evening went on, they turned off the "Others" because they didn't want to look at the group totals: 44%! Not good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:50 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,409 posts, read 11,070,242 times
Reputation: 2244
people do watch LA. particularly when it comes to certain topics.
especially here on these boards.
we get flooded with people who just hate LA.
or certain representatives/representations of LA.
it is not absurd to think that people, who arent from LACity, but support moores stance on immigraiton for example, would follow this race.
trust, the looney tunes in the immig forum follow what happens in LA and any politician who takes a hard line stance against illegal immigration. moore was a hero on that forum because of his jamals law.
there is cross polination on these forums.

and even if the people who skewed this poll werent from the east or midwest, they very well may be from the LA area, but not residents of LA proper.

trust me, people watch LA and use these forums to give their opinion on us, knowing they cant really do it where it counts... in this case, the polls.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme View Post
Well, in my brief time on CD my appraisal would be that there are a bunch of immature non-thinkers who are too shallow to really read other's post unless they agree with each other. They also like to repeat the same questions over and over disregarding any answers a commenter posts.

It is actually amazing that Moore got 26% of the vote when only 15% of the registered voters showed up. Add his percentages in with the "other" and 45% voted against Tony V. And of ALL the registered voters 8% actually voted for him. His main issue Measure B, the solar initiative is failing, and his buddy Weiss is being forced into a runoff. Villaraigosa's goal was 60%, which would give him a good springboard into running for governor next year. He might have a win, but it's not a great vote of confidence.

Further, it is ridiculous to think that most people who posted here were from the East or Midwest. Who the hell would care about an election that most people in L.A. didn't care about. But maybe if you post it a couple more times it will be true. Doh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:51 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,409 posts, read 11,070,242 times
Reputation: 2244
what a tired, sad juvenile response!

happ, dont let the troll drag you under her bridge.
let her stay byngin herself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Phingerbyngur View Post
I do not think you read my post correctly. Perhaps your ESL teacher can help you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,959,819 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme View Post
I'm not talking about California's history as a swing state for national elections. I'm talking about the executive, and legislative offices, which were mostly republican till the mid seventies.
The Legislature was majority Dem from 1958 to 1994. The other statewide offices were really split between both parties.

Quote:
I was here, voting in opposition, and it was tough statewise. Even after Brown was elected, we had Deukmejian
Deukmejian only barely won in 1982 due to Armenians throughout the state voting for one of their own and Northern Californians' historical reluctance to vote for an L.A. mayor. Wilson's margin of victory in 1990 against Feinstein was also very small. As for 1994 - Wilson ran against a very weak Dem candidate in a good Republican year which saw the GOP take back the Legislature for two years.


Quote:
Gray Davis got kicked and was replace with Schwarzenegger who has not done any better at the job than his predecessor -- and isn't really a republican anyway.
If you look at CA governors back when CA was UNQUESTIONABLY GOP territory, Arnold's very much in that tradition.

Quote:
I get that the demographics are changing, and we are in solid Democratic territory now. That's something a dem could only wish for through the Deukmejian/Wilson days. But when it comes down to it, Democrats can be just as morally bankrupt as Republicans. Now I see, what I didn't see before; we need a strong two party system to keep each other honest.
I'll agree, and that was one good thing about the CA of 1958-1990. That was the only time in CA's history that CA really was a two party state.

Quote:
Voting for Moore or any other candidate for mayor was a good thing. Because Villaraigosa didn't think he had to acknowledge anyone, or debate. At his campaign party on election night the tally board read "Villaraigosa" with the tally number, and "Others" with a tally number. As the evening went on, they turned off the "Others" because they didn't want to look at the group totals: 44%! Not good.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have voted for candidates other than Tony- they just should've given the other candidates besides Tony and Moore a look. As said earlier in the thread, if Tony had debated Moore than Moore would have probably gotten even fewer votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top