mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
drifting left
California Doubles Down on Blue

While most of the country moved right over the past four years, California has been marching to the beat of a different drummer. President Obama carried the Golden State by 23 points in 2012, but Hillary Clinton expanded the Democratic margin to a whopping 30 points, or more than four million votes.

As Team Clinton learned the hard way, running up gigantic partisan supermajorities in blue states doesn’t help you win the White House. But it does help you consolidate control of statehouses. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Democrat Josh Newman has defeated Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar) to win the race for the 29th Senate District, giving Democrats in the Legislature a two-thirds majority in both houses.

The Associated Press called the race Monday evening for Newman, who had been steadily gaining ground as provisional and absentee ballots were counted over the last three weeks. […]

With a supermajority, a political party can raise taxes, place measures on the statewide ballot, enact laws immediately with an “urgency” clause and override a governor’s veto.

California Governor Jerry Brown, viewed as a liberal utopian when he came on to the state political scene in the 1970s, has now become one of the more pragmatic voices in Sacramento, pushing for pension reform and vetoing some of the Democratic legislature’s more aggressive left-wing initiatives in areas like school choice and gun control. But now legislative Democrats will have a sufficient majority to override Brown’s vetoes for the remainder of his term, which ends in 2018. After that, there is a chance that he will be replaced by a more ideological figure.

Despite its thriving technology sector, the Golden State has a host of serious problems, including a pension deficit exceeding a trillion dollars, poor-quality public schools, and the highest poverty rate in the country. The state’s 39 million residents are best-served by having two competitive parties offering serious solutions. So even as the GOP revels in its impressive gains in other blue strongholds over the past four years, rebuilding a party that can compete in California should remain a top priority for Republicans.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • JR

    Why??? Wait until the inevitable crash first.

  • f1b0nacc1

    They have made their decision, now let them have the joy of it.

  • Andrew Allison

    Let me see if I have this right: four million of Hillary’s two million popular vote majority came from California. Another 1.5 million came from New York State. Doesn’t that mean that she lost the rest of the country by well over 3.5 million votes?

    • Fat_Man

      That is why the Founding Fathers so wisely devised the Electoral College. Small states did not want to be put in the position of having the presidency solely within the gift of a couple of big states.

      • Andrew Allison

        Yup. CA alone was responsible for the fact that Hillary won the popular vote. Care to lay odds on the chances of doing away with the Electoral College LOL Those “Democrats” seeking a Constitutional Convention to do so should be careful what they wish for: I rather doubt that the other 49 States would be too keen on having the Socialist Republic of California elect the President.

    • Disappeared4x

      Both CA and NY had statewide Senate contests in 2016, which would increase voter turnout. What I have not seen is any analysis

  • Beauceron

    With any luck, the DOJ will begin investigating voter fraud– particularly in the form on non-citizens voting.

    Most of us can only hope that California makes good on the threat to secede from the union. That would be the best scenario for us. I suspect, however, it’s just the usual Lefty drama queen behavior, like all the actors who threaten to move to Canada everytime it looks like a Republican might win and then never do. Please leave, California. Please.

    • f1b0nacc1

      California increasingly reminds me of Scotland with better weather. In Britain, Labour has always been in terror that Scotland would leave, since that would consign them (Labour) to a permanent minority in Parliment. Should CA secede (not remotely likely, but still fun to consider), the Democrats would be finished as a national party.

      Fun fact, roughly 1/3 of the Democrat’s House seats come from CA, NY, and MA.

      • Andrew Allison

        You overlook the fact that the Conservatives would lose eight more seats than Labour [grin](http://www.parliament.scot/msps/12450.aspx) But not to worry, Corbyn will take care of ensuring long-term minority status in Parliament for Labour.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Your link was broken…grin…

          Regarding the Conservatives and Scotland, surely you recognize that the May elections were a fairly temporary phenomenon, the result of an unusually incompetent Labour and a ‘fall to earth’ of the SNP. Since the SNP votes with Labour on most (if not all) issues, Labour already depends upon the SNP to form a national government in any event. If you remove the SNP (which is what would happen if Scotland seceded), you would remove SNP seats as well as the Labour seats, which together far, far outnumber those that the Tories hold. Even if you assume that the Tories would retain their 32 current seats indefinitely (a dubious assumption at best), the SNP/Labour total is closer to 87, so removing Scotland from the roles would be a net loss of 55 ideologically aligned seats from Labour’s totals in Parliment.

          • Andrew Allison

            You are correct, darn it!

          • f1b0nacc1

            Miracles happen….even I cannot be wrong all the time, no matter how hard I try.

      • Beauceron

        I think it’s an interesting analogy.
        But I don’t think that if CA left the Dems would be finished. The Republicans are on a good run, but the demographics are what the demographics are– and they heavily favor the Dems in future. It is almost impossible for a Republican to win national office in the US right now, which is part of what makes Trump’s win almost a miracle. I still think he is our last Republican president. That might change if CA leaves because then the Republicans would become competitive again.
        That’s a pretty strong reason for a non-Californian to support California secession. For me, the bigger reason would be to get all those Hollywood style lefties– and the millions of illegals that make CA their home– out of the country for once and all.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Let me point out that if you remove CA from the electoral count, Trump would have been very close to, if not over, a plurality in the election as it stands, the Dems wouldn’t even be close in the House, and would be further underwater in the Senate. That was with Trump, a terrible candidate by any measure. So the notion that the GOP has no future hope at the national level seems like a very weak assertion at best. Granted, the idea of a permanently ascendant GOP (the sort of triumphalist nonsense I hear from others) is just as bad, but a great deal of what we see in the years going forward is dependent upon what the GOP and the Dems do to respond to what has happened.

          • Andrew Allison

            And, it should be noted, the Dems are absolutely clueless about what happened.

          • Beauceron

            I don’t think that’s true. I don’t believe they are THAT stupid and out of touch.
            I think they believe– with very good reason– that time is on their side and soon enough they will be simply unbeatable. If you’ve noticed, they have doubled down on their identity politics platform instead of backing off it. They may nominate Keith Ellison to lead the House for god’s sake. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are now leading voices in the Senate. They are doing that not because they’re dumb, but because they believe they tipping point has arrived.
            The Donald and his little gang of deplorables spit in the punch bowl this year and ruined the party. No matter how much you dislike Trump, you have to be impressed that he and the working class whites were able to muster and win against the odds. But the wave is rising, and it will overtake and swallow them.

          • f1b0nacc1

            You might be right here, but I wonder. Yes, the Dems could believe that their moment has arrived, but another possibility is that they are trapped in their own version of the Cultural Revolution, imprisoned by latter-day Red Guards who will take quick action against those revisionists who challenge the true faith. Listening to the Bernie Bros talking about Hillary’s insufficient devotion to a socialist makeover for America, or the BLM thugs and their charming determination to kill police (as well as those on the Left who don’t embrace their policy nostrums), I get the impression that the Mattress Girls and Pajama Boys (and their mothers, the Hillary Harpies) are increasingly shocked at what they have unleashed.

            It might be (as you say) all calculated and chosen….it might simply be out of control…..we will see soon enough…

          • wri

            You are right that the demographic wave presently is moving in the Democrat’s direction. This encourages the Democrats to continue their policy of indentify politics. But I think this policy may turn against them in the years ahead. First, identify politics is very divisive — it encourages each group to focus on grievance, resentment and envy. This has already produced a backlash in the recent election, where whites demonstrated their resentment, not only because they are treated as second class citizens, but because they are denigrated as “racial oppressors.” I suspect some minorities will grow tired of living in the increasingly divisive society defined by Democrat’s identity politics. Asian Americans will be the first to go. The Democrats seek their support as a “minority’, but then pursue government policies that treat Asians the same as disfavored “whites.” I don’t think Asians inherently think of themselves as a needy minority. I believe the culture of hispanics also is inherently incompatible with Democrat values — in religion, family values, government power. I don’t think they are really comfortable in a party that wants them to accept government dependency in exchange for their votes. If and when immigration becomes a less charged issue, hispanics will start moving away from the Democrat party. In short, I think the siren call of identify politics will lose its appeal over coming years and people will vote more from an individual than group standpoint. And when that happens I think most of them will vote against government control over our economic and cultural lives.

          • Andrew Allison

            Don’t be too sure. Twenty-nine percent of Latinos were willing to admit that they voted for Trump. I suspect that the real number was better than 40%. Latinos may have figured out what Blacks seem unable to do, namely that Democrats don’t really give a damn about them other than their vote.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Jim_L points out (below) that the static demographic analysis also tends to ignore the fact that Latinos tend to move ‘rightward’ as they assimilate (we have seen this with other ‘tribes’ as well), so the GOP can in fact avoid the demographic trap by helping assimilation along. Avoid letting the Democrats restock their plantations with fresh faces, and we can turn this process against them…

          • Andrew Allison

            I don’t think it’s a demographic analysis (which would show the rightward shift), but paranoia on the right and wishful thinking on the left.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Of course they are…if they actually realized it (and accepted the truth of it), they would have no choice but to change, and the aren’t going to do that!

            One reason why I enjoy reading the Goat’s rants so much is that he provides a comforting look at the state of mind of the true believers. With minds like that, we always have reason for hope!

          • Andrew Allison

            I had the misfortune of being a Thanksgiving dinner guest of one such (the well-educated and otherwise worldly CEO of a highly successful company). When he started out on Trump, I felt compelled to point out the manifest crookedness of Hillary, to which he responded to a, now former, friend, “You’ve been brainwashed by the right wing propaganda!” In the interest of civility, I restrained myself from pointing out that, factually, the boot was on the other foot.

          • f1b0nacc1

            One of the advantages of living in the Midwest is that there is less of that sort of thing, but still…far too much to be happy about. On Monday night I had to deal with one of the mothers moaning about how ‘the election was stolen’ (she lives in KS, for God’s sake!) and how she was about to send a rather large amount of $$$ to Jill Stein’s recount effort. Suppressing the urge to laugh at this silly woman in front of her son, I smiled, and let it go….later her son asked me ‘what is wrong with my mother?’….

          • Andrew Allison

            There’s hope for the younger generation after all!

          • Jim__L

            They’re assuming that “fake news” is the only way that anyone could decide that Hillary Clinton was more of a danger to the US than DJT.

            Anything to avoid trying to connect with the Middle America that their university professors do so much to teach them to despise…

          • Beauceron

            I am basing my opinion on a few things.

            1) Obama’s wins were not close. He got 365 electoral votes in 2008– 60 more than Trump just got.

            2) If Trump was a weak candidate, Hillary– an insider’s insider who, if we lived in a more just society, would have been under indictment– was even weaker. Had they run Sanders– an actual hammer & sickle style socialist– the Dems might have won.

            3) Remember that Dems start the presidential race with a staggering number of electoral votes already sewn up (see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/18/can-a-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016-or-ever.html

            ). Although Trump was able to turn over the apple cart, it was figured, with good reason, that Hillary was starting the race with 246 electoral votes in the bag. That is 91% of the votes need to get to 270. All Dems start the race with the overwhelming majority of the electoral votes they need– they just need to break through a few more states.

            4) States are turning from red to purple and from purple to blue. Many once reliable red states are now toss ups. There are no states turning from blue to red on a consistent basis. As the population changes, those states will turn blue forever, just like California did after Reagan amnestied all the illegals. Once Texas goes blue– and it will– then the Republicans won’t win. Period.

            The future belongs to the Left, I am sad to say. They didn’t win the argument. They didn’t govern better or help more people. They just changed the demographics so that they favor them. Sneaky, nasty, immoral– and brilliant.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Lets start from the beginning:

            1) The electoral college, due to it’s winner take all nature (which I entirely support, though I do note it) tends to magnify the actual size of the victory. Obama had a large electoral majority, but it was mostly made up of fairly narrow wins. In a similar fashion, Trumps margin (rather substantial, but nowhere near as large as Obama’s) is far larger in the EC than it would be otherwise.

            2) HRC, while an appalling candidate was probably the best that the Dems had on the table this time. Now this isn’t an accident, as HRC went out of her way to ‘clear the table’ before running. I don’t agree with you at all regarding Saunders….he did well in primaries, but primaries tend to reward unhinged activists, and their products often run into serious problems in the general election. Perhaps this would have been an exception, but given that generic ‘establishment Republicans’ actually outperformed Trump overall, I don’t think that Saunders would have done much better with that crowd. This was a bad election for Democrats, plain and simple, and while I won’t defend HRC (in a better world she would have been sold to Chinese organ donors for parts decades ago), there were much bigger problems than just her own incompetence

            3) Ah yes….the famous ‘blue wall’….didn’t work out this time, did it? The Dems have some inherent advantages, but the truth of the matter is that Trump demonstrated that this is not set in stone. The ‘blue wall’ is more an artifact of the Dems winning two wildly popular presidencies (Billy Jeff and Barry O) with a moderately acceptable GOP president in between. Now run those numbers back with 1980 as the starting date, and none of the blue wall looks nearly as formidable.

            4) Some states certainly are going from Red to Blue, but over what timeframe? If you look at 1990 – present, yes, you are absolutely right, but if you go from 1960-present, the numbers are more muddied. The ‘solid south’ used to refer to the Democrats lock on the South….that is certainly not the case today, nor is it likely to change anytime soon. We just saw several states (NC comes immediately to mind) that was thought to be a new capture for Blue go Red, and VA came VERY close to doing so as well (so did MN, I might add) You are peddling a brand of demographic determnism here that even the originator (John Judis) doesn’t defend anymore. I don’t doubt that there is a danger of this happening, but it isn’t inevitable any more than Reagan ushering in a permanent GOP presidential lock (that didn’t happen). Note that the Dems have been eviscerated at the state and local level over the last 20 years, and that trend shows no signs of reversing itself. Unless you believe that there is some sort of dynamic that has people voting Republican for all races except for the presidency (which goes Dem), you have a hard time explaining such anomalous behavior.

            Your concerns are not unreasonable or easily dismissed, just unproven and perhaps a bit overwrought. Certainly we have serious problems and the long-term prospects require us to work harder than ever to defend against the rise of the Goats. With that in mind, I am still cautiously optimistic. We have been spared many catastrophes in the past, but I believe that Bismark was right “God loves drunks, fools, and the United States of America”

          • Beauceron

            I hope they may be overwrought.
            Here’s my real issue– it’s not just the numbers. It’s those numbers in combination with the rising identity politics of the Left that have set me on edge and made me so pessimistic.
            If we were a nation striving towards– not even necessarily succeeding, but at least trying– a society where race or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation mattered little, I would be far less concerned about waves of tens of millions of new Americans arriving on our shores. But we are no longer even attempting to be that kind of country. There isn’t even any pretense any longer. It’s completely off the table. When a large portion of our society– not fringe groups, but groups headquartered on our most prestigious universities and professors at those universities, mainstream well respected press outlets, even elected public officials start insisting that all whites are irredeemably racist– they’re just born that way, like some sort of original sin– it is time to seriously try and take a measure of where we are at.
            And then you couple THAT with the Left denouncing anyone who dares speak out against them as racist neo-Nazis, insisting that many opposition sites are “fake news,” well, I start to get downright alarmed.
            BTW, did you read “The Flight 93 Election” (and its follow up) article?

          • f1b0nacc1

            I think that you overstate the influence of those pushing the ‘white privilege’ line of discourse. Certainly they have influence, but outside of their little walled communities, their influence is more smoke than fire. The Left has been pushing identity politics 24/7 for a VERY long time, and they have turned up the intensity to 11 over the last 8 years. The result? They have lost ground on every level of government from local to federal, and in the last election a candidate vilified by the media, the Democrats, and many in *HIS OWN PARTY* as a racist/sexist/etc. actually increased his percentage of the vote among the very identity groups best targeted by the Left. None of this suggests that there is nothing to be concerned about, and I don’t dispute that your depiction of the very grim situation on campuses and elsewhere is worthy of our response. I just don’t see it as an inevitable force of destruction that we must surrender to.

            The Goats of this world aren’t winning….

        • Jim__L

          Why are you assuming that minorities will never mainstream and start to vote Republican in greater numbers? The data shows that they will in fact do so. The data shows that Trump did better than Romney in that way.

          Don’t despair. Countervailing trends are your friend. =)

          • f1b0nacc1

            One thing Trump did that I was impressed by (and this is a VERY short list – grin) was his Gettsyburg speech, directed at Blacks. Aside being well-written and even reasonably well-delivered (shocking enough right there!), it was aimed at giving Blacks another way forward if they wished it….appealing to the notion that the plantation was not the only option available to them.

            If the GOP can do more of this, they will gain support. Slowly at first, to be sure, but in time the shrill calls of racism, etc. will look increasingly empty and foolish. We are, after all, one people…when we convince our cousins across the aisle of this, we will all benefit.

          • Beauceron

            I agree that reaching out to the black community was smart. But even with that effort, what percentage of the black vote did Trump get again? Oh, yeah– a whopping 8% Better than Romney. Bush actually got 11% once.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Better than 3-5%, right? This after a virtually non-stop campaign to demonize him as the second coming of Hitler by virtually all of the great and good. That really isn’t all that bad.

            One speech isn’t enough, and we need to see some substance to go with the fine words. BUT! Those words offer a real basis for putting together policy, for creating a counter-offensive to recapture the loyalties of our fellow citizens. There is nothing lost in trying…

          • Beauceron

            Well, yeah. 8% is better than 5%.

            But if your looking at macro trends and what they will portend for the future, it is no comfort at all.

            As to this:

            “Those words offer a real basis for putting together policy, for creating a counter-offensive to recapture the loyalties of our fellow citizens. There is nothing lost in trying…”
            I find it just pollyannaish. There is no evidence whatsoever– and plenty of contradictory evidence, that African americans or latinos will ever go for the Republican style libertarianism of small government. They want the opposite.
            You sound a lot like the GOP establishment, which I think has been lying to themselves for decades about their future prospects in an America that has been transformed by the Left.
            The black community and latino community are easy to get– you just agree to give their groups lots and lots of special privileges and rights. That of course will then kill their chances with whites, because those special rights and privileges always come at their expense.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Blacks used to be Republicans, and can be again. Latin Americans used to be Republicans (some still are….have a look at Cubans in Florida), and can be again. I categorically reject the Rovian crap that suggests that open and endless immigration (to placate these groups….an insulting sort of pandering unworthy of us) is the answer, and I assure you that the GOPe would find me almost as unwelcome as the Left would. We do not need to ‘buy off’ these tribes, a policy that won’t work much longer in any event, as the resources to do it are drying up rather quickly.

            We can offer a better approach, and let the winners (and there are always winners) in these communities take advantage of it. There is little doubt that there are lots of losers who prefer the lure of the lotus-eaters, I am no fool about that, but until and unless we offer better, that is the only game in town and it will consume the winners as well as the losers. I am not a pollyanna, in fact I am as deeply cynical a person as you can find, but when you offer someone a way to benefit themselves, they will at the very least look into it.

            I work in IT, having migrated to it after leaving academe and a good deal of government consulting. My field is filled with people that a generation ago were candidates for the next wave of lefty recruitment, and who instead built businesses and fortunes for themselves. I have watched the fortunes of those who embraced academe (where you see worker abuse that would shame most agricultural producers) and suckle at the government teat, and it is clear enough where the future lies. It is by no means an inevitability, but there is a future if we choose to embrace it. If we simply surrender to the Left’s diktats, then we are finished, but we can (and often do) fight back. Obamacare was meant to be the next great step to enslaving another generation of Americans, and introducing them to the joys of socialism. It has instead been instrumental in setting back the left’s agenda for a generation. none of this is preordained, and it can be resisted.

          • Beauceron

            Well, we seem to have reached an impasse (and a bit of a repetitive loop).
            I’m glad you see in the tens of millions of New Americans a rich field of conservatives in the making. All available evidence points to the very opposite conclusion, but of course, as you point out, anything is possible. I do hope you are right that identity politics wanes– again, all evidence to the contrary.
            Either way, you were polite and respectful in disagreement, for which I am grateful.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Reasonable people can disagree, and like you I hope that I am right as well. None of this is certain, of course….

            Let me leave you with a pseudo-literary reference. Years ago (MANY years!) I was reading the original *M*A*S*H series of novels, written by a rather conservative individual (who, as I remember was appalled by what was done to his work by Hollywood). In one of them, Hawkeye and Trapper were growing sick and tired of the smug self-righteousness of one of the other doctors, a young fellow just starting out. They arranged (via some fake telegrams) to convince the young doctor that he had inherited a significant fortune, and was now quite well-off. Suddenly, the doctor became quite conservative, shedding his previous lefty outlook. I am sure that you get the point….

            My point is that if (and yes it is a BIG ‘if’) we can open up opportunities for our fellow citizens (and lets never forget, that they are our fellow citizens), many of them will indeed grow up and see the light. There is a reason that the Dems find it convenient to keep minorities poor and ignorant, it keeps them subservient and happy on their plantation. We are better than this, and can offer them better. No, it won’t make all of them conservatives (nor should it), but it will do the trick for more than enough.

            In the meantime, smile my friend….Hillary lost and is even now breaking crockery and abusing Bill. We can at least enjoy that….

          • Beauceron

            I assume that because that has pretty much always been the case. Can you show me of an instance in US politics where minorities have voted majority conservative.
            The whole GOP line “But they’re natural conservatives” strikes me as a dangerous fantasy. It’s absurd.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Actually until the New Deal, blacks were considered a strongly Republican voting bloc. FDR was brilliant in terms of his ability to assemble a coalition (note that he had lots of help from foolish members of the GOP who did nothing to challenge him), and of course after that, the die was cast.

            Hispanics were not considered strongly Democratic voters until the 70s and 80s, particularly outside of California. Until the 80s, even within the Democratic party, hispanics were seen as strongly conservative voters, as were blacks.

            I agree with you that the Rovian ‘Hispanics are naturally conservative voters’ is silly, but the other half of that statement (which Jim_L made) that as they assimilate they become conservative, is absolutely correct. Consider what we have already seen with Cuban voters, Haitian voters, and Indian (Asian, not North American) voters, the last group actually voted fairly strongly for Trump.

            Lets see what we can do to encourage assimilation and discourage identity politics…it isn’t inevitable.

          • Beauceron

            “Actually until the New Deal, blacks were considered a strongly Republican voting bloc.”

            Don’t do that. The Dems and Republicans where very different parties then and it tells us little about the present or future to examine it.

            “as they assimilate they become conservative, is absolutely correct”
            That is simply not born out by the facts. If it were true, we’d see a slow but steady increase in Republican Latino voters commensurate with the massive influx of latinos over the past 4 decades. We do not see that. In the ’80s the Democratic advantage amongst Latino voters was in the +20s. Now we’re really happy if it is in the +40s as Trump just got. The Democratic advantage is increasing, not falling as would be the case if you theory is true. Even if we manage to move the vote to the 80s and the Dems get “only” a +20 advantage in Latino voters, I think the Left will take that and smile.

            In any case, “assimilation” is now considered a racist word, and you need to stop using it in polite conversation. It’s a microagression and reveals your white privilege. I’m OK with it, but talk like that can get you in quite a bit of trouble these days, so be careful.

          • Jim__L

            Who do you count as a minority — Irish? Italians? White southerners?

            That’s the thing about these racial or ethnic “identity” categories. They can’t be pinned down.

            Having a different skin color doesn’t prevent one from noticing that the way the world actually works is more amenable to conservative solutions than to the Democrats’ ideological utopianism.

            So cheer up, and have some faith. The Democrats just *lost*, for heaven’s sake. =)

          • Beauceron

            “Who do you count as a minority — Irish? Italians? White southerners?”

            Seriously? That seems an actually valid question to you?

            “Having a different skin color doesn’t prevent one from noticing that the way the world actually works is more amenable to conservative solutions than to the Democrats’ ideological utopianism.”

            No ideally, no. But when one party promises to treat you equally and another promises to make sure you get preferences in education and jobs, and reinforces your own sense that society and your fellow citizens have wronged you and therefor owes you, what side do you think most people will pick?

            “The Democrats just *lost*, for heaven’s sake. =)”

            Indeed, and Republicans are the lesser evil– although I am no Republican. In any case, much of what I am worried about is social and cultural, not political– and the damage done under the Bush administration was no less than the damage done under Obama or Clinton, so having a Republican president makes little difference. Politics is downstream of culture as they say, and all of this is happening far upstream of the election.

            “So cheer up, and have some faith.”
            I know, I know. You’d think I was a dour, humorless lad from my posts, when in fact I am rather breezily cheerful. Nevertheless, I confess, as I watch the future culture unfold on our campuses (and that is where it begins and then filters out to the rest of the country) I confess to a growing sense of dread. If I look at what’s happening there– and that’s the best canary in the coal mine that we have, even if it’s not entirely reliable– it is going to be a rather ugly, divisive place, devoid of all reason.

        • ——————————

          “The Republicans are on a good run, but the demographics are what the demographics are– and they heavily favor the Dems in future. It is almost impossible for a Republican to win national office in the US right now, which is part of what makes Trump’s win almost a miracle. I still think he is our last Republican president.”

          Do you really think a political party as large and sophisticated as the Republican party is static? Or permanently myopic? Do you not think they can not change focus as political parties have always done over time?…maybe become a more populist party and win elections that way? Do you think identity politics is the perfect solution to win elections forever?….

          • Beauceron

            Your asking about possibilities.
            I suppose anything is possible. It is not probable, however.

          • ——————————

            “I suppose anything is possible. It is not probable, however.”

            That’s what just about everyone, including so called ‘experts’, said about Trump’s election….

  • Fat_Man

    “Newman, who had been steadily gaining ground as provisional and absentee ballots were counted over the last three weeks.”

    That has a way of happening to Democrat Candidates.

  • Boritz

    “rebuilding a party that can compete in California should remain a top priority for Republicans.”

    Maybe that will redeem the effort GWB and company put into nation building. It seems like a waste and a failure in retrospect but maybe those skills and experience can be put to good use after all.

  • Fat_Man

    “rebuilding a party that can compete in California should remain a top priority for Republicans.”

    It would be far cheaper, and more productive to figure out ways to disadvantage California. Like adjusting the tax code to mulct Hollywood and Silicon Valley. We could tax oil imports heavily.

    Stuff like that.

    • Andrew Allison

      Unnecessary. The State is already a dead man walking. Public pensions (20% of the budget of the largest city, 28% of the third largest, and rising fast) alone will cause an across-the-board collapse of government services following the next recession, if not sooner. The GOP should just give the Dems their head, and then hand them their heads [grin]

      • Fat_Man

        I had a better idea. A focused campaign to deport all of the illegal aliens who are maids, gardeners, and nannies in Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

        • seattleoutcast

          How about a federal law that says absolutely no bailouts to states for public pensions?

          • f1b0nacc1

            I prefer a very explicit, carefully worded amendment to that effect. Prevent the courts (as much as is possible) from interpreting it….

          • Fat_Man

            Leftists belive words have no meaning. There is no way of wording anything that can stop them.

          • f1b0nacc1

            I don’t disagree, but lets make it hard for them. Short of judges who explicitly reject black letter law for their own preferences (and once again, I acknowledge that there are going to be some), this will at least make the current games difficult. Since the ‘senior’ court positions tend to be harder to flip, a well-worded amendment will at the very worst throw sand in their gears.

          • Fat_Man

            You are a born romantic.

          • f1b0nacc1

            As a former girlfriend once told me….”You are a hapless romantic”….

          • solstice

            Pretty soon you’ll be falling in love with solar panels.

          • f1b0nacc1

            I prefer the real thing to fantasy

          • Fat_Man

            Congress has to appropriate the money for any bailout. If they aren’t of a mind to bailout, they don’t need a law, and if they want to bailout they could amend any any law preventing it.

          • Andrew Allison

            Unfortunately, the supposedly worst-off state (KY) is home to the Senate majority leader. Be afraid, be very afraid. We should hope that a Blue state with a big problem (NJ, IL and PA come to mind) will implode first and set the precedent.

        • Jim__L

          You don’t need a focused campaign, the drain is already open. Lots of brand-new “Help Wanted” signs are going up all over Silicon Valley fast food restaurants, and the faces behind the counters are changing fast.

          I’m really curious about the next set of Workforce Participation numbers.

    • Blackbeard

      One of the smartest things Trump could do is revise the tax code to cap deductions for property taxes and state and local income taxes. The cap would be set so that the vast majority would not be effected but high tax/high housing cost states, such as California and New York, would be hit hard. The revenue gained could be used to reduce payroll taxes. This would be very hard for the Democrats to oppose and still claim to care about inequality.

      • Fat_Man

        That is in place via the alternative minimum tax. It has a substantial cost to residents of high tax states, and they whine about it quite a bit.

        Good thought though.

        • CapitalHawk

          You are correct, the AMT functions to do that already. Which is why we should raise the marginal rates of the AMT. Because the rich aren’t paying their fair share, you know.

      • f1b0nacc1

        One particularly useful point about that is if it is adjusted a bit (the AMT that Fat_Man identifies below is indeed designed with this in mind) is that it attacks the foot soldiers of the political class, who have just enough money to be hit hard by such taxes, but not enough to simply shrug them off..

      • Andrew Allison

        Deflating the tires of the limousine liberals — I like it!

      • Jim__L

        First thing we do: get rid of “privilege lanes” — lanes where you can drive in a lower-congestion lane because you bought the kind of car the fashionable Lefties wanted you to buy.

        • CapitalHawk

          To be replaced with “Lexus lanes” aka Toll lanes.

    • LarryD

      Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) has advocated repealing the Hollywood tax cuts for years http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324880504578298080119811240

    • Fat_Man

      Kill all “renewable energy” subsidies.

    • Jose Carlos Moreno

      Hey, no fair, 1. We’re Americans too 2. Silicon Valley is a huge american asset that has and continues to advance this nation technologically 3. If CA falls the nation falls 4. There aren’t only liberals here and I don’t want to be collateral damage

      • Fat_Man

        1. You are Americans? Not any more. Mostly you hate Americans. We understand that.

        2. Silicon Valley has not advanced technology in this millennium. Google is an advertising agency. Apple is a Chinese company. The valley is making its money on “apps” to entertain teenagers. The essence of the Valley is Theranos — a stock fraud.

        3. If CA falls, the rest of American can rise again. CA has inflicted us with leftism and environmentalism, both of which are destroying America.

        4.1. Liberals may not be 100% of California yet. But, more than 4.1 million of Hillary’s 2.5 million popular vote surplus came from California, and her margin there was a higher percentage than it was in any other state. (The parasites of DC were unanimously in favor of the witch, but DC is not yet, PTL, a state).

        4.2 If you don’t want to be collateral damage, leave. You are not a plant, you have feet, not roots.

        • CapitalHawk

          OK, but before we cut Cali loose, we need to build a fence/wall along the border, otherwise they will flood us as they realize how messed up it is.

          • Fat_Man

            Of course.

      • Jim__L

        Silicon Valley is an asset, but here a lot of people in prestige industries make the common mistake of thinking that just because they’re very smart people and there are a lot of them in one place, all of their ideas — even the bat***t crazy ones — are pure gold. (Berkeley suffers from the same delusion.)

        I’m extremely happy that the rest of the country brought them up short, with the 2016 election. I’m hoping they learn some humility, and respect for points of view other than their own — including historical points of view, their staggering willful ignorance of which will come back to haunt them.

  • Josephbleau

    Unfortunately, from states to pouty actors, they only want to leave the US if you want them to stay.

  • Stephen

    Californians might be better served, but America would not. Just as Venezuela’s socialist inspired self-immolation is the necessary (though it shouldn’t be) predicate to any grudging reflection on the left of the abject failure of Castro-ism, so too a fine bonfire of catastrophe is prerequisite for even the smallest concession, much less reflection, by those on the port side. So, let it burn.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Sadly the Left is rather slow on the uptake. The immolation of Venezuela hasn’t encouraged anyone on the left to reflect on their own mistakes (or for that matter even admit that they were mistaken), and you only need to look at our resident twits here to see that they are pretty much immune to the lessons of reality. To paraphrase Eric Segal, ‘Being a lefty means never having to say that you’re sorry’

  • Jose Carlos Moreno

    Everytime I think liberals are full of hate, I read the comment section on conservative papers (or look at trump rallies) and get a harsh reminder that both sides are tied in this aspect.

    • Jose Carlos Moreno

      In terms of comment sections, why is it so hard to find civility?

      • Jim__L

        People are lazy, more than hateful. The word “hate” is vastly overused, in our current discourse.

        If you have to make an effort to be around people you disagree with, you don’t tend to make that effort. So, if you have to make an effort to be around people, they tend to be people you like and agree with.

        If you don’t have to deal with people face-to-face, you’re less likely to make an effort to be polite.

        The only place you get exposed to ideas you don’t like is a place you don’t have to make much effort to get to, where efforts to get along are intermittent at best.

        Some people even manage to cloister themselves in their own online bubble, which is a feat of apathy perhaps unique in history. I’m hoping that sites like TAI keep on going — WRM’s thoughtful criticism (an occasional polemic) about the Obama administration made (makes) it a great place to get a welcome breadth of news.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service