Governor Feinstein and a pro-Latino CAGOP

In 1990, Diane Feinstein narrowly lost the California Gubernatorial race to Pete Wilson. Both were supporters of proposition 184 which barred the provision of public services to undocumented migrants and was widely seen as a racist attack on the latino community of the state.

Pete Wilson thought he'd ride the issue of illegal immigration to the White House, but instead he pretty much killed the CAGOP in the eyes of the rapidly growing hispanic and latino community.

What if Feinstein had won the 1990 elected and, due to her support for prop-184, caused Latinos in Calfornia to swing to the GOP?
 
What if Feinstein had won the 1990 elected and, due to her support for prop-184, caused Latinos in Calfornia to swing to the GOP?

I suspect that the forces pushing the GOP in California and elsewhere toward a Latino-unfriendly immigration stance were a lot larger than just one election. Even with a pro-184 Democrat as governor, the Dems are still going to be seen by Latinos as the lesser of two evils.
 
It depends - at this point, Latinos were up for grabs, and there were great successes winning them to the GOP in Florida and Texas. Toss in California, and you have a possible shift in GOP policy to make the Hispanic Community one of the party's support groups.
 
I suspect that the forces pushing the GOP in California and elsewhere toward a Latino-unfriendly immigration stance were a lot larger than just one election. Even with a pro-184 Democrat as governor, the Dems are still going to be seen by Latinos as the lesser of two evils.
Well it depends. As you see the defeat of your Dornan types, the CA GOP may end up more like the Texas GOP which gets very good numbers from Latino groups. But you're right that Wilson's influence is overstated and there will be larger trends at work here. But at the very least, the CA GOP can be more isolated from the national party and continue to win elections like the New England GOPs IOTL.
 
I suspect that the forces pushing the GOP in California and elsewhere toward a Latino-unfriendly immigration stance were a lot larger than just one election. Even with a pro-184 Democrat as governor, the Dems are still going to be seen by Latinos as the lesser of two evils.
Though pre-Wilson, it was not as bad, the thing is that CA Latinos are not like Texas Latinos. They tend to ve more urban, more linked to historically unionized industries (remember Cesar Chavez was, among many things, a trade unionist) - all factors that would make California Latinos Democratic-leaning, though more of the "Oakland" wing than the "San Francisco" wing.

A de-Wilsonized Republican Party might have better luck and maybe pick up more seats, but the change would ve to turn a staunchly Democratic demo OTL into merely Democratic leaners.

The problem with applying the dynamics of Texas Republicans to California, in short, is that Texas Republicans finds it easier to woo Latinos because they don't have as strong a history of union activism. Maybe a good POD is CA somehow going Right-to-Work, though that is hard due to the fact that would be opposed by a lot of Anglos too.
 
Though pre-Wilson, it was not as bad, the thing is that CA Latinos are not like Texas Latinos. They tend to ve more urban, more linked to historically unionized industries (remember Cesar Chavez was, among many things, a trade unionist) - all factors that would make California Latinos Democratic-leaning, though more of the "Oakland" wing than the "San Francisco" wing.

A de-Wilsonized Republican Party might have better luck and maybe pick up more seats, but the change would ve to turn a staunchly Democratic demo OTL into merely Democratic leaners.

The problem with applying the dynamics of Texas Republicans to California, in short, is that Texas Republicans finds it easier to woo Latinos because they don't have as strong a history of union activism. Maybe a good POD is CA somehow going Right-to-Work, though that is hard due to the fact that would be opposed by a lot of Anglos too.

New Mexico is a pretty good model for what this could look like.

California would still be a blue state presidential races (*maybe* it could be competitive until like 2004 when Oregon and New Mexico were still battleground states but I doubt it), but the GOP could still be competitive on the state level. The NM GOP has managed to pretty consistently control one chamber of the legislature at all times since the 1980s, and they have the governorship about as often as they don't. What the butterflies would be I could not say. An interesting one is if Darrell Issa could manage to maneuver himself into position for a Presidential run.
 
Even as the OP, I'm not sure California's GOP would do as well as Texas's with Latinos. Texas Republicans fare well with Latinos partially due to better outreach/less hostility (and yes it is a big part) but also do to more Texas Latinos being folks who've been there since Texan independence and due to there being a great many Texan Latino evangelicals.

The point about California latinos being more urbanized and unionized is a big one I didn't think about.

Still, a 10-15 point improvement with Latinos by the CAGOP (and I guess an associated 5-10 point improvement with white Californians who are pro-immigration) would be a game-changer at the state level.

CAGOP is odd based on folks I have spoken to. It's supposedly very split between folks who are very Populist and very libertarian (think Pete Wilson vs Neel Kashkari, or Carly Fiorina vs Tom Campbell). CAGOP might end up as a centrist-libertarian/liberaltarian party like the MAGOP.
 
Top