Keep California in the GOP fold

With a POD that cant go back further than 1960, Keep California in the Republican Party's pocket, but here's the challenge, you must be able to do so without changing the Republican Party drastically, The GOP still has to be the Party of Fiscal Conservatism and Traditional Values.
 
With a POD that cant go back further than 1960, Keep California in the Republican Party's pocket, but here's the challenge, you must be able to do so without changing the Republican Party drastically, The GOP still has to be the Party of Fiscal Conservatism and Traditional Values.

For starters the GOP isn't the party of fiscal conservatism (Bush?) or traditional values (whose?).

I assume you mean the modern GOP—i.e. business conservatives, a few drowned out libertarians and actual fiscal conservatives, discredited but still vocal neo-conservatives (in the foreign policy sense), and social conservatives.

Since that's a fairly modern assemblage of ideological groupings, your question is already nonsense as the GOP radically changed from—say—1960 to 1980.


However, let's see…. Perhaps if the Republican Party embraces Hispanics and immigration reform then odds are California might still vote GOP despite being out of tune with the 2009-era Republican Party.
 
With a POD that cant go back further than 1960, Keep California in the Republican Party's pocket, but here's the challenge, you must be able to do so without changing the Republican Party drastically, The GOP still has to be the Party of Fiscal Conservatism and Traditional Values.

There's a huge difference between Eisenhower/Nixon and Reagan/Bush. The Republican party has already changed. Simplistically (and this is a rather simplistic explanation which leaves out certain details), both parties around the early post-WW2 eras were simply Keynesian or Keynesian-esq, Social Liberal dominated parties with different interests and views on issues but from a similar sort of vantage in the base ideology. And both parties, however, had factions. In the GOP, you had the Conservatives (who were at constant odds with the Progressives and often the moderates too), the moderates (your sort of Gerald Ford faction and arguably Nixon faction, though his policies in the Presidency would be more Progressive) and the Progressives (the Nelson Rockefeller faction). In the Democratic party, you had the Liberals (the Northern Democrats and Democrats abroad) and Dixiecrats (southern social Conservatives who would, in spite of many of their regional ideologies, follow the Northern Democrats on a lot of things in the Senate and Presidency). What shook up the positions was Civil Rights. The Democrats supported it and it was their President that signed bills supporting it, causing many of the Dixiecrats to leave and join the GOP (as a matter of fact, these people now make up perhaps most of the base of the GOP). However, while this affected the voter base, it didn't necessarily change the Presidential candidates and party ideologies, though it lent to the beginning of that process. What would revolutionize the electorate wholly is Reagan. With Reagan, you signaled the deaths of the major factions. The GOP went wholly Conservative or Right of Centre, and the Democrats wholly Liberal or Left of Centre.
 
However, let's see…. Perhaps if the Republican Party embraces Hispanics and immigration reform then odds are California might still vote GOP despite being out of tune with the 2009-era Republican Party.

Yeah. IIRC, Hispanics used to be a pro-GOP bunch. It was primarily immigration issues that pushed them into the Dem camp. So if you have GOP taking a much more pro-Hispanic, pro-immigration camp, the GOP is going to maintain a much broader base of support in Cali. Maybe not enough to be in "the Republican Party's pocket," but it could certainly become a swing state. Especially if Republican immigration support leads to easier immigration, and thus a much higher population of (legal) Hispanic immigrants in Cali.
 
Here are some PODs that could help move things along the way:

* 1994- Prevent Proposition #184 "Three Strikes, You're Out" served to alienate many African-Americans from the GOP with its talk of mandatory sentencing...

* 1992- Have President George H.W. Bush speak harshly against police brutality and corruption, especially during the Rodney King case, and prior to the L.A. Riots....

* 1994- Proposition #187- Denial of Public Services to Immigrants served to alienate many Chicano/Latino residents, along with many Asian-Pacific Islander (API) residents to the Republican Party, especially in regards to Pete Wilson...

* 1998- Chinese-American State Treasurer Matt Fong is angered by the State Republican Party, when he is asked by several members, "Do your loyalties lie with China or with the United States??"
 
Yeah. IIRC, Hispanics used to be a pro-GOP bunch. It was primarily immigration issues that pushed them into the Dem camp. So if you have GOP taking a much more pro-Hispanic, pro-immigration camp, the GOP is going to maintain a much broader base of support in Cali. Maybe not enough to be in "the Republican Party's pocket," but it could certainly become a swing state. Especially if Republican immigration support leads to easier immigration, and thus a much higher population of (legal) Hispanic immigrants in Cali.

Actually Hispanics were a "toss-up" until the recession recently-look at how much support Bush got from Hispanics back in '04.
 
Actually Hispanics were a "toss-up" until the recession recently-look at how much support Bush got from Hispanics back in '04.

You're young. Things from the 90s might seem distant to you, since I'm sure you don't remember much of anything from that distant past. But it's relatively recent. The trend in the 90s was a decreasing Hispanic vote for the GOP, until 2000, when Bush received very little support from them. He made some ground with them, so he got a bit more support in 2004; this was not reflected in 2008.

If you go back before that, however, Hispanics are a traditionally Republican group. And that's what my POD is. Republicans never lose the Hispanic vote, or even see declining support amongst Hispanics. Instead, they increase that support. That gives a huge boost in California elections, which are actually closer than you might think (not as close as Virginia or Pennsylvania, but it's much more of a swing state than DC, Hawai'i, or even New York).
 
Actually Hispanics were a "toss-up" until the recession recently-look at how much support Bush got from Hispanics back in '04.

If Dubya's party had continued the trendline of 35% in presidential election 2000 to 44% in 2004, then yes, they would have become a toss-up electorate.

Instead they're becoming the new Jews.
 
um, would turning California into a major bible belt state post 1960 be ASB? cuz that's about the only way I can see the state of california being in the "pocket of the GOP" in todays political atmosphere.
 
um, would turning California into a major bible belt state post 1960 be ASB? cuz that's about the only way I can see the state of california being in the "pocket of the GOP" in todays political atmosphere.

Well, as said before, you could have a GOP that is more moderate on immigration on the state level - Do that and you make support from socially-conservative Hispanics more likely.

Biggest possible POD would be to not pass Prop 187. Would it have guarranteed that Hispanics would go Republican? No. But it would have meant that the Hispanic vote would be split, which while it would not guarranteed GOP victory, would have made it more likely.

Another option would be to increase the acceleration of the suburbs and exurbs in SoCal - transplants tended to be Republican voters until the mid-to-late years of our decade, and SoCal's suburbanites still tend to reliably vote Republican. More of them = more Republican votes.

Either way, it's a pity. California's diverse enough that you could get any party approximating the center to win, provided you didn't piss swing voters.
 
If Dubya's party had continued the trendline of 35% in presidential election 2000 to 44% in 2004, then yes, they would have become a toss-up electorate.

Instead they're becoming the new Jews.

I highly doubt the second part of your post. It was only because of the recession and the highly magnetic personality of Barack Obama that helped give him the majority of the Hispanic votes. Once Obamamania dies down I expect at least a mild recovery in the Hispanic Republican vote unless Tom Tancredo is nominated in 2012.
 
....The trend in the 90s was a decreasing Hispanic vote for the GOP, until 2000, when Bush received very little support from them. He made some ground with them, so he got a bit more support in 2004; this was not reflected in 2008.

If you go back before that, however, Hispanics are a traditionally Republican group....

Uh, Latinos (Hispanic is an outsider govt imposed term we don't like) have been traditionally Democratic since the Great Depression.

Look up Viva Kennedy-Viva Johnson Clubs. JFK couldn't have become pres without Mexican votes.

The only Latino group to vote GOP are Cubans.

Even during the 90s, the GOP never got more than @1/3 of Latino votes overall. Immigrant bashing that began with Prop 187 guaranteed the proportion would drop.
 
Top