Recent California Registration Trends: Good News for Democrats, Bad News for G.O.P. in Districts Drawn by the Legislature

and how many illegals?????

What a contrast to the next door article by Mr. Russo using the same source material!

You both mention how it is a greater republican loss ("Bad News") in your titles/subheaders. The percentages you both mention are true to the source material.

But if my math is correct, the net republican loss when compared to the democrats loss is a mere 7,684 more registered voters. The population of a few square blocks in LA perhaps? That is the relative change in the two parties registered voters in the hugely democratic/liberal state of California.

The news here IS those other parties or the "decline to state" folks numbers increasing. They are not happy with EITHER major political party. Most likely, they are the newer/younger voters too just entering the voter rolls. (Perhaps "Rock the Vote" isn't really working and considering their lyrics of late...)

But I still must take Cavala here to task:

Cavala quote: "Because the Republicans are an "ideological" party, it's adherents are far less likely to defect than Democratic registrants".

Notice Republican "adherents" compared to Democratic "registrants". If republicans are "ideological", what are democrats?

Or how would Cavala explain his point when considering Clinton vs Bush (the elder) vs Perot in the early 1990's? Republican "ideological-adherents" voted for Perot over Bush. Democrats in lock-step voted the party line and Clinton won.

Cavala quote: "Because Republicans are demographically homogeneous and economically "better off" on the education/economics scale, they turn out are (at) higher rates than do Democrats".

Because Republicans are better educated and garner higher wages as a result they can get themselves to the polls better than Democrats who by inferance are poorer/not as smart/educated? ("Smartness" is reflected in education, no?). Is that what Bill is saying? Are all those various demographics that allegedly make up exclusively the Democratic (not any Republican?)voters too stupid to get to the polls? Doesn't everyone want to be better educated, hence "smarter", make higher wages/more money and would then by extention therefore vote exclusively Republican using Cavala's "logic"?

Point here is Cavala revels in separating folks demographically. Race and economics are his tools for his view of who should be in power politically. Don't we ALL want to be educated and OK financially? If you are, you want to keep what you have, wouldn't you? If you are not, don't you aspire for that? If so, why would you begrudge those who have "made it"?

Take another look: Cavala has "worked" for many democratic politicians, including Speaker Nunez from LA. The same Speaker who using campaign cash goes on overseas trips to France and drops over $4000 on a bottle of wine and just bought a $1.2 million dollar home in Sacramento. Does that sound "working class", heck or even "middle class" to you?

No wonder Nunez supports the Feb 08 Proposition 93 to stay in power longer than EXISTING VOTER APPROVED TERM LIMITS. Folks like Cavala will tell you first and often this will keep politicians in power LESS (14 to 12 years, true) BUT won't tell you unless pressed perhaps that those IN POWER TODAY get an EXTRA TERM out of the deal! (He would likely have to sell his $1.2 million dollar home in SAC if he can't actually live in it via the "term limits" initiative next year. The housing market today would make that a major hit in his pocketbook...)

Demograpically, very well paid entertainers, celebrities, movie stars, rock stars, college administrators and professors, lawyers, are ALL MOSTLY DEMOCRATS and at their pay scales are not "working class" or "poor" Yet they are very DEMOGRAPHICALLY HOMOGENEOUS wouldn't you say? The "vice" Cavala ties to Republicans here...

Cavala quote: "..., I elected an Assemblyman...". Bill, exactly WHO did you "elect"? This person would perhaps think that THEY got themself elected. Perhaps you assisted...

I respectfully ask again: Just which politicians have you worked for on elections and are doing so for now? You should be both proud and up front about that! Let us know so we can measure them with you on their staff accordingly...

Summary: Cavala remains a propagandist. He inflates/distorts whatever necessary to achieve his political goals. Politics? Fine. But what is the belief system in use here? Who will be "in charge" in Bill's world? He does (jokingly?) say a single party system, Democrat only, would be superior to the current two party system. At the risk of being labeled a "Red Baiter" or some such, as I mentioned before, that was tried in 1917-1990's USSR and 1930-40's Germany or in China today. There the "workers" or "common man" were said to be in charge but the "elites" actually were. And, you didn't mess with the elites...

Only sorta sorry for the rant I did here. Wouldn't type it unless I felt it, just like Mr. Cavala's motivation to write I guess.

Bill, at least I read your article. There was only one other blog response here at this writing...

"See" you in a few days.

great and wonderful rant Jay---this man has leaned so far left for so long he doesn't know what upright is....this is the propaganda that Californians are exposed to, the local media possess the same inherent liberal bias....

Republicans are going to take a bath in 2008--this will be like the 1980 election. Democratic program should be repeal of tax giveaways to rich which have lead to a new gilded age and use the excess to fund health care, education and housing for the submerged 15/16ths of the population (including, thanks to the aristocratic ways of the current president, all of the middle class--only the upper middle class (professionals and managers) can afford a middle class lifesytle. Way to go Reps! You've dug yourselves a grave now lie down and die.

publius,

You are hiding behind a false name! You don't use your real name blogging here! You can't do that unless your points should be therefore considered invalid!

Actually, I think it is fine you don't. Many bloggers use screen names. The power and validity of your point or views is what matters.

Of course, I have been lambasted for not "declaring" (whatever that means) who I am on this website. Since I am lambasted and you are not for the same exact thing, I must assume there is descrimination being exercised here based soley upon me not agreeing with folks such as yourself and the majority of article writers here.

Where is the fairness? The TOLERANCE??

But I digress...

To your points, who exactly are the 15/16ths of the population who are "submerged". That will be a very large number will it not? What is their defining criteria? Is Fabien Nunez and Don Perata part of that "submerged" population? Maybe I AM TOO as I make much less than those two...

Education is the LARGEST part of the state budget. Yet our kids scores could be a heck of a lot better. Are some college administrators & professors like Cavala when at Berkeley being paid too much? If they unilaterally take a pay cut and show leadership that way, I will follow their lead.

I like the concept of a flat tax. How about you? Lets level out/spread out the tax burden as much as possible with an across the board flat tax. Everyone then paying taxes will more likely then ensure tax dollars are spent wisely.

What is wrong with being a professional or manager? Are there none of those amoungst the ranks of democrats?

How is Bush's "aristocratic ways" in the White House any different from Clinton's?

Do you really want all the "reps" to lay down and die? Are you, like Cavala, a one party type too? Up for a redistrobution of wealth and on whose terms? If all the reps are dead, the there are only dems left. Who will you then tax to pay for all your education, healthcare and housing needs you believe are needed? Will the remaining dems divide into class distinctions within themselves: the entertainers, media elite, celebrities, college types, etc., the elite all over again? Telling everyone else (again) how to behave, etc? We have that already! And nobody has to die to get there!

publius, you usually do much better than this sort of angry rant.

I'll look back in a few days. Take care.

To your points, who exactly are the 15/16ths of the population who are "submerged". That will be a very large number will it not? What is their defining criteria? Is Fabien Nunez and Don Perata part of that "submerged" population? Maybe I AM TOO as I make much less than those two...

Perata and Nunez are doing well but they are exceptions that prove the rule--one was a teacher and the other a labor organizer and didn't get much. Submerged means simply that--these are the people who make this country run and under Reagan/Bush tax policies their incomes have been stagnant for a quarter-century. Now health care, college and housing are killing them, so that most Americans haven't seen a real pay raise (and by most I mean the 15/16ths who are "submerged") in this decade and may not for the rest of their life. The savings rate has gone negative (not seen since the Depression) as people drew down equity in their houses to pay day-to-day bills.

There's nothing wrong with being a professional or manager but most people cannot be that. Republicans like to say that they want everyone to be rich but this is of course impossible--being rich means you are able to employee labor to work for you and if everyone is rich than there would be no labor for pay.
This is a typical type of Republican comment and now MRI and PET imaging studies are showing there are two types of people--Republicans and Democrats. Democrats have brain scans which do not exult hierarchy and Republicans do. I would suggest a massive government program of neurosurgery to alter the brain structures of Republicans--after all, the Enlightenment was over three centuries ago. I don't know if we can survive until Republicans evolve to, among other things, view reality realistically rather than through idealogical blinders. Thus why I suggest neurosurgery--at worst we'll get a few more lobotomized Reps but they would probably be less damaging to the body politic that way.

Publius, regardless of what happens nationally, Republicans in California are well-protected by the 2001 incumbent-protection gerrymander (which you so ardently defend).

Just as in 2006, California's incumbent-protection gerrymander will strictly limit the potential gains by the Democrats in the Assembly, State Senate and Congress, regardless of any national Democratic 'surge.'

Zogby: Half Would Never Vote for Hillary for President

Saturday, October 20, 2007 8:43 PM

While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton—59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18-29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?

%

Clinton (D)

50%

Kucinich (D)

49%

Gravel (D)

47%

Paul (D)

47%

Brownback (R)

47%

Tancredo (R)

46%

McCain (R)

45%

Hunter (R)

44%

Giuliani (R)

43%

Romney (R)

42%

Edwards (D)

42%

Thompson (R)

41%

Dodd (D)

41%

Biden (D)

40%

Obama (D)

37%

Huckabee (R)

35%

Richardson (D)

34%

Not sure

4%

At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed.

The Zogby Interactive poll, conducted Oct. 11-15, 2007, included 9,718 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.0 percentage point.

In a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in March, 46% said they would never vote for Clinton. In that survey, she finished in second place, behind Republican Newt Gingrich, a divisive figure who has since announced he would not seek the presidency and was not included in this new online survey. In that earlier poll, 54% said they would never vote for Gingrich. This recent survey included only the 17 candidates who were at that time running for President in one of the major parties. Former Vice President Al Gore, who like Gingrich was also included in the earlier Zogby survey of who would never win voters’ support for the White House, was excluded from this latest survey because of his insistence that he has no interest in a run for the presidency.

Interest in a Gore candidacy has been rekindled after he recently won the Nobel Prize for peace in connection with his work on the issue of global climate change.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who announced Friday he would end his campaign, was included in the poll. He might have sensed the nationwide opposition to his campaign, as 47% said they would never vote for him for President. The survey showed he was tied as the third most objectionable candidate, behind Clinton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (49%). Tied with Brownback was Democrat Michael Gravel, a former Alaska senator, and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.

Opposition to Clinton among Democratic and Republican women revealed mirror opposite attitudes, the Zogby Interactive survey showed. While 83% of Republican women said they would never vote for her, just 17% said they could possibly cast a ballot for her. Among Democratic women, just 17% said they would never vote for Hillary, while 83% said they could.

Democratic women appear smitten by former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois—just 11% said they could never vote for them for President. Republican women, on the other hand, find former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney most attractive—just 14% said they would never vote for him. Tied for a close second was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who were found to be objectionable by just 15% of Republican women.

1. Democrats are a constitutency party. The "with whom" they associate being primary, the "for what" they stand for being secondary and derivitive.

2. The fact that Republicans, as a whole, are both better educated and enjoy more money, has been a fact since the 30's. The fact that these demograhic attributes are associated with higher voting rates has been documented for the last 60 years by social science. (The reason has nothing to do with values, but that the less education, the less money. The less money, the less disposable time for things that don't supply housing or put food on the table (like voting).

3. The leap from fact (Republicans, as a group, are more well off than Democrats) to value (the wealthy should rule, hence all who want wealth should be Republicans)is fallacious.

Cavala continues to be a piece of work...

Do you REALLY think folks who are poor cannot take the time to vote? There is mail/absentee voting and of course relatively short lines at polling locations (more folks are NOT voting than ever before...).

Motivation to vote is based on what do you want to see in government, including "benefits" if you are so inclined. I would vote to get government benefits if my life or that of my family depended on it! Your argument theyt do not vote as they are poor/uneducated is both lame and very condecending...

...probably as you and other "rich" democratic/liberals do see yourselves as the "elite" who will do the thinking for them. Name one "rich" republican leader in state or federal government elected positions and I will match you with with a democrat, or multiple examples. Of course I could also match the single republican with multiple liberal entertainers, media types, etc., who are not only wealthy but have influence beyond those of mere "wealty republicans".

Therefore, don't well off or rich democrats in fact rule right now?

Why, as lasonya points out do older folks reject the Hillary/liberal view? Perhaps because they earned and saved their whole lives that they don't want to see it swept away and "given" to folks who didn't earn it?

How do you explain the older a liberal/democrat gets (excepting the straight cool aid drinkers of course), the more conservative they become? Perhaps it is not only their entire life work they want to protect but also that their age and life experiences changes their perspectives thusly?

Cavala and other liberals: Please provide YOUR definitions of Socialism and Communisum. I do NOT want to label you falsly and be accused as a "red baiter". I'm serious here, give me your definitions so they can be disregarded or applied as applicable.

The workers/masses/downtrodden for years have been the platform for elitists to take charge and actually betray those they say they are "taking care of". Taking care of said folks is merely their platform to power.

publius,

After a careful rereading of your last blog entry here, I can only assume you are nuts.

"Brain scans", or MRI's that "prove" republicans are somehow "not right" and that democrats are. You sound very much like how Nazi's went about proving that they were in fact the master race and that "scientifically" others are not.

Yours words: Two types of people; Republicans or Democrats. It should be insulting to most folks to be primarily identified by a political party type of ANY NAME. That fact that you do so Sir, speaks volumes.

What do you mean most people cannot be professionals or managers? Are some people too stupid to you? Genetically incapable? Race or ethnicity limited? Labor, is an HONORABLE position. Getting a fair wage for fair work is a GOOD thing. Many managers or professionals actually start somewhere in the labor section learning the ropes from the bottom up which positions them better to more efficiently manage the business at large.

If your beef is with the "silver spoon" crowd, I'm with you. Most of them are liberals (entertainers, media types, politicians, college professors, you know, the LIBERAL HIERARCHY) who never really worked as labor yet try to speak as if they were OR represent them. Didn't Karl Marx and Vladimir Illyich Ulanov do the same thing? Look how that worked out.

Labor can be well paid. Unions contribute to that. I ,for example, have experience with BOTH. To be any "richer" I would fly in private jets and have 3 houses, things I don't really need, and be just like Al Gore. Only I wouldn't try to make you feel guilty about living the good life as I board my private jet off to tell more folks how THEY are screwing up the world with their excessive lifestyles causing global warming, etc...

If you are a democrat, where is your TOLERANCE for others not like yourself? Isn't that what "democrats" over republicans are supposed to be "superior" about?

Or, are you actually Bill Cavala's other blog name? Quite often, you are the ONLY ONE who chimes in blogging on his articles here. You both share so many similar prejudices...

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)