Will CA Voters Be The Oddballs? (unemployment, schools, taxes)

[CAVA1990]

California used to be pretty moderate to liberal even when it was majority white. When Reagan was governor the legislature was majority Democratic. Before that it was considered very progressive producing political figures like Hiram Johnson, Earl Warren, Jesse Unruh, and Pat Brown. Republican Senators like George Murphy, Tom Kuchel, and Bill Knowland were quite moderate. Nixon was a flaming leftie compared to today's Republicans. It was always much more Dewey than Taft and the ascendancy of the right wing is a relatively recent aberration (I blame post war Midwestern transplants), not in keeping with tradition. I'd say the state's just returned to its roots while the Republican party has gone way off the reservation at its own peril.

[sfosyd]

You are absolutely dreaming about a Romney/Ryan landslide.

The election will be close but Intrade is showing a 63% percentage chance of an Obama win and a 58% chance of Obama winning more than 280 electoral votes.

As an Obama supporter, those are odds I like and are backed up by actual dollars on intrade.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

You are forgetting there are more people of color in California 60% plus, than just the blacks. The whites only make up less than 39% of all California residents. This is down from 88%+ 50 years ago. Actually for the past 10 years, more white people have moved from the state than into it, rapidly reducing the white population, and the people of color have been moving into the state in big numbers. The white middle and upper class have been moving their companies, money and jobs out of the state, being replaced with much poorer people. That is the big reason, that California city and state tax receipts have been declining in double digit figures.

Obama is expected to get 95% of the black vote. But the big numbers near the same as the white population is the Hispanic vote that delivers 75% to 80% of the vote to the Democrats. Combined those two groups alone outnumber the white population in California.

Obama will get between 20% to 25% of the white vote.

With these demographics there is no way that the Republicans can win California.

Black was mentioned specifically so I was responding to that. This racial factor is a display of the lack of intelligence by some. New England is very democratic and one of the whitest regions in the country. Ignoring such a glaringly obvious fact is what can happen when one watches fox news.

[oldtrader]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldtrader
It is numerically impossible for a Republican to win the presidency delegates in California. California is now 40% or less white only the 48th lowest white percentage in the U.S. With almost as many Hispanic population plus Black population both of which are almost 100 Democrat voting locks, there is no way a Republican can win.

Your answer: Stupid post! Like there aren't white Democrats. The black population in CA isn't large enough to make that big of a difference.

And then your reply

Black was mentioned specifically so I was responding to that. This racial factor is a display of the lack of intelligence by some. New England is very democratic and one of the whitest regions in the country. Ignoring such a glaringly obvious fact is what can happen when one watches fox news.

But Hispanic was stated before Black population. I said both combined not just black. This is a problem in these political based threads, people are only partly reading what is written, and are jumping to conclusions that fit their own beliefs. They are not interested in facts, or the truth, only what fits their own ideologies. I have been registered as an independent for 40 years, and have always believed the man/woman running is more important than which party they belong to. Too many only vote for the big D or R in front of their name at the polls, to heck with what they really stand for or how much integrity they have.

What would solve a big problem in Washington, would make everyone have to run for the offices this year, and do it on a non partisan basis, without any party affiliation or support. Vote for the right person, not the party they belong to. This would cut out a lot of the gridlock in congress, and the fighting of congress with the president and his agenda what ever it is.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

What would solve a big problem in Washington, would make everyone have to run for the offices this year, and do it on a non partisan basis, without any party affiliation or support. Vote for the right person, not the party they belong to. This would cut out a lot of the gridlock in congress, and the fighting of congress with the president and his agenda what ever it is.

That's unrealistic. One thing people should be pushing for is an electoral college where each vote reflects the outcome of each House district rather the entire state. The states are free to do that under the constitution.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Quote:



And then your reply



But Hispanic was stated before Black population. I said both combined not just black. This is a problem in these political based threads, people are only partly reading what is written, and are jumping to conclusions that fit their own beliefs. They are not interested in facts, or the truth, only what fits their own ideologies. I have been registered as an independent for 40 years, and have always believed the man/woman running is more important than which party they belong to. Too many only vote for the big D or R in front of their name at the polls, to heck with what they really stand for or how much integrity they have.

What would solve a big problem in Washington, would make everyone have to run for the offices this year, and do it on a non partisan basis, without any party affiliation or support. Vote for the right person, not the party they belong to. This would cut out a lot of the gridlock in congress, and the fighting of congress with the president and his agenda what ever it is.

You just did the same thing. I noticed your Hispanic comment but ignored it because despite what you might believe, there are more of them that vote Republican than blacks. You failed to respond how a mainly white area like New England votes democratic when apparently whites vote for the GOP.

[kgbnsf]

Originally Posted by native56

I'm going out on a limb to now call this election a LANDSLIDE for Romney-Ryan. What nerve you say. How can he do that? My prediction is based on three things:

1. The polls. The leftist media pollsters have been using polls to influence the election. They have been messing with the polling samples to give the election to BO. But this close to the election they have got to be more honest. Notice how the race has suddenly tightened? And now Romney is ahead in several polls. Nothing has changed except the polls can no longer lie (as much).

2. Momentum: Clearly on the side of Romney. Ever since the first debate BO has been playing catch up. Romney is pulling away.

3. Obama's campaign: It has shriveled to nothing. His big issues now are the "binder", Romnesia, and Big Bird. Meanwhile Republicans are hammering BO on the embassy mess. And justifiably so.

The wild card is that BO still has the power of the presidency. He can bomb some poor peasants in the Libyan dessert (or another aspirin factory) and call it vengeance for the ambassador killing. Wouldn't put any treachery beyond him.

So what about California? BO took Wisconsin by 14 points in 2008. Today Romney and Obama are tied in Wisconsin. Could the vote in CA get close?

You're view of reality is a bit out there. What color is the sky in your world?
So what is a "LANDSLIDE" victory? By 1%, 5%, 10, 20 % margins?

[native56]

53/46 would make me happy. Along with a 60+ margin in the electoral college and I'll call it a landslide.

Saw Argo again tonight. At the end of the movie the audience applauded. Why? Because the movie makes people feel good about being Americans. Obama does not do that. Romney does. Landslide for Romney.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by native56

53/46 would make me happy. Along with a 60+ margin in the electoral college and I'll call it a landslide.

Saw Argo again tonight. At the end of the movie the audience applauded. Why? Because the movie makes people feel good about being Americans. Obama does not do that. Romney does. Landslide for Romney.

One thing you probably don't realize is there are big Senate races in two key states, VA and OH where the Democrats are very likely to win by healthy margins. These will probably result in Obama wins there and overall. Again, the electoral college math just doesn't work for Republicans.

[native56]

Must disagree. I think we are looking at a Reagan-Carter blowout. Not becasue Romney is a Reagan, but because Obama is so much worse than Carter.

Little more than a week left. One of us will be eating crow,