A question about California's political history (Los Angeles, San Francisco: appointed, rental, low crime)

[MBlevins]

From the 1960s-1980s, would California have been considered a red state or blue state?

When looking at the political party control of the state legislature through the 1960s and onward it seems that Democrats controlled it but, during presidential elections, the electoral votes usually went to Republican candidates by wide margins.

During the 1988 US presidential election, Bush Sr. only won CA by nearly 4% as opposed to Reagan who won CA in 1984 by double digits:

[url=http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1988&off=0&f=1]1988 Presidential General Election Results[/url]

Then, after the 1992 US presidential election, California seemed to have become a permanent blue state.

Why was there such a dramatic political shift even though the Democrats controlled the state legislature for decades while the electoral votes went to Republicans for decades?

Was it due to the influx of liberal out-of-staters, a growing minority population, a growing urban population, etc.?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by MBlevins

From the 1960s-1980s, would California have been considered a red state or blue state?

Purple with a red tint.

When looking at the political party control of the state legislature through the 1960s and onward it seems that Democrats controlled it but, during presidential elections, the electoral votes usually went to Republican candidates by wide margins.

It did help that the GOP had a Californian as either president or VP on every ticket from 1948-84 with the exceptions of 1964 and 1976.

In 1964 LBJ won California (although he had a landslide across the country, and even won normally red Riverside County). In 1976 Ford won California by the tiniest of margins.

During the 1988 US presidential election, Bush Sr. only won CA by nearly 4% as opposed to Reagan who won CA in 1984 by double digits:

1988 Presidential General Election Results

No Californian on the ballot.

Then, after the 1992 US presidential election, California seemed to have become a permanent blue state.

Why was there such a dramatic political shift even though the Democrats controlled the state legislature for decades while the electoral votes went to Republicans for decades?

Was it due to the influx of liberal out-of-staters, a growing minority population, a growing urban population, etc.?

Those were factors - also the GOP moving increasingly rightward and not nominating Californians. Deukmejian had no desire to run for president or VP ; iirc his ambition beyond being governor was being on the US Supreme Court (although he never got appointed). Wilson tried in '96 and flopped miserably.

Now, if different candidates had won the primaries of the major parties - would things have been different?

In some cases, yes. In others, maybe.

[CAVA1990]

Also, lots more hispanics who tend to vote Democratic. As another poster said, the Republicans have become more of a Southern party that just doesn't fit with mainstream CA values.

[californio sur]

Republicans changed and no longer appeal to Californians. Reagan would not even be elected by Republicans today because he was too liberal. The "Party of the South" Bible-belt mentality is so contrary to normal people that the GOP has become the permanent minority party in California. Unless they come to their senses Republicans will never see any gains in states where educated people prevail.

[majoun]

This thread inspired me to look at a map of the results of California's voting in the 1948 presidential election. Despite then-Gov. Warren being Dewey's VP, Truman won California by the barest of margins in a very tight election year.

That political map of California in 1948 was radically different from today - just as the state's radically different from today. The only "blue" counties back then that are still reliably "blue" counties today are Los Angeles, Alameda, Humboldt, Napa, and Solano counties. Ventura and Sacramento were "blue" in 1948 and today are "purple". Otherwise, the Central Valley and inland north all went for Truman. Meanwhile, not only did the rest of the southern counties go "red" (in the 21st century sense of the term, not the 1948 sense of the term) - but the Bay Area (except for Alameda and Solano counties) was "red" and so were all the other coastal counties of the state except those mentioned.

I suspect that many of those voters in rural California who voted for Truman in 1948 had come from states in which the Democratic Party was the only major party, like Texas and Oklahoma.

I also looked at a map of California in the 1960 presidential election - Nixon, despite being a Californian, beat Kennedy by the smallest of margins. Said map looks somewhat like the 1948 map, except Nixon did better in the southern Central Valley than Dewey did in 1948, and Kennedy won San Francisco and almost every county north of Marin. JFK also won in L.A. and Ventura Counties ; Alameda, Napa, and Solano Counties, Sacramento County, and most of the Central Valley.

It really was a very different state back in the mid 20th century.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Back in the 1960's people were willing to work, were not looking for the state unions to save them, didn't need a handout, and were family oriented. People studied history and new about what was happening in the world. We didn't want socialistic medicine to permeate the state. Remember that Spocialism and Communism were our enemies back then. For the most part we had Conservative idealism in the state. Even those that voted as Democrats had more conservative thoughts than todays Democrats.


Liberal values are where we want the state involved in our life from the cradle to the grave. Socialism is something that many desire. We want the government to give us everything and don't seem to care how it gets paid for. Let others worry about that, as long as we get what we want now. Give us public transportation, rental assistance, low crime low cost housing, let us smoke pot but keep us from those that smoke ciggarettes. Make sure we all have a job but keep the evil employers out of our state. Give us an education but don't charge us to get that degree we seek for. Please keep the oil drilling out of our state but don't make us pay more for gasoline.

[CAVA1990]

Even in the 60s, San Francisco had a Republican mayor, George Christopher, who ran for governor against Reagan in '66. There were two wings to the party back then, the Goldwaterites behind Reagan, and the Nixon/Rockefeller folks who supported Christopher. As I recall back then, the Inland Empire Republicans were more moderate than those in Orange County, the bastion of the Right.

[Highnlite]

Liberal values are where we want the state involved in our life from the cradle to the grave.

A canard of the right.

A Liberal value is freedom, you know, the kind that created and kept this country free. Liberal, from the latin, liber which means free.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Back in the 1960's people were willing to work, were not looking for the state unions to save them, didn't need a handout, and were family oriented. People studied history and new about what was happening in the world. We didn't want socialistic medicine to permeate the state. Remember that Spocialism and Communism were our enemies back then. For the most part we had Conservative idealism in the state. Even those that voted as Democrats had more conservative thoughts than todays Democrats..

You must have lived through a different 60s than I did (if you were even alive then). During my 60s labor unions were much stronger than they are today and were loaded with all those "hard-working" Greatest Generation folks who came back from the War, then went to school on the G.I. Bill mostly at state colleges and universities, bought homes through the FHA and VA government loan programs in suburbs made possible by the government funded interstate highway system and intra-state water project. Many went on to jobs in the government funded aerospace industry or for other government contractors. Oh, and in my 60s they passed Medicare and the Civil Rights Act, two of the most intrusive government initiatives ever devised. Believe me, Californians at the time, including most Republicans, were fully on board if not at the forefront of all of this government largesse. California was built by big government. Perhaps you were somewhere else then?

[Curmudgeon]

As Winston Churchill may or may not have ever said or paraphrased, "If you're not a Liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a Conservative when you're older, you have no brain." If it's to be believed then California either has a maturity deficit or is brain dead.

I think the real reasons for the shift are too numerous and complex to be encapsulated in a single phrase, glib dismissal or definitions and pronouncements from on high. Economics, changes in social values and trends, demographics, birth rates, industrial gains and losses, educational access and levels immigration, employment gains and losses must all be taken into account.

In general, with an emphasis on "general," urban cores are primarily Democratic and surrounding and rural areas are more Republican. I think that people in urban cores are more dependent upon and utilize more public services than do those in more far-flung areas who may be more self-sufficient out of necessity. But perhaps a counter-argument could be educational achievements and income levels. In California, the bulk of the population, meaning eligible voters, are found in Los Angeles and the Bay Area and those are predominantly liberal, politically. The Central Valley and NorCal are more rural and tend to be conservative.

Also not to be discounted are shifts in the principal political parties. Each has become more of what used to be stereotypical descriptions, moving to the outer fringes and most radical of their philosophies and increasingly away from not just one another but the preferences of many voters. This almost complete polarization and partisanship has also had an effect on the people and I think that will have a significant impact on voting trends in the future.