Home | About | Donate

 The Republican Party Just Crashed and Burned in California


 The Republican Party Just Crashed and Burned in California

John Nichols

Fifty years ago, California was a reasonably Republican state—with a Republican named Reagan on his way to being elected governor, two Republican senators representing the state in Washington, and the pieces in place to back the GOP nominees in the next six presidential elections. Republicans did not always win California, but they had the upper hand.


Having two people from the same party run for a congressional seat much really confuse people in most other countries like Canada. Outside the US, elections are about ideology and getting a party in power, not individuals and the cult of celebrity.


" Republicans did not always win California, but they had the upper hand. From 1952 to 1988, only one Democratic presidential candidate won the state—and that was Lyndon Johnson, in the Democratic landslide year of 1964."

Wrong! Kennedy won California in 1960. As it happened, when the California total came in, it made the disputed result in Illinois moot.


Spot on, the "election" is about the face of power, and only that.


Why is Nichols not extolling the virtues or the failing of the MSM in the democratic victory?
He is a part of it.

The minute the tide swings the other way because of the involvement of money he will say just enough to get on the board.
the influence of money in determining the candidates may not be immediately visible, but it also may have reached a plateau in how bad the republican candidates are in California. Isn't that a story for you Mr. NIchols?


The Republican Party and "conservatives" have proven that their policies of the last 40 years have been bad for Americans in general, but very good to a select few. There's no way a political movement can be sustained with negatives consequences to a majority of people.

Conservatism and the Republican party have failed Americans.


Its hard for me to label today's Democratic Party OR GOP as "conservative" since neither party embraces what were defined as conservative principles prior to Goldwater's 1964 campaign. Corporate control of government, not conservatism has failed Americans.

I am surprised the GOP couldn't find a celebrity who wanted to run for Boxer's US Senate seat, seeing how celebrities have been instrumental is expanding and maintaining corporate control.


The GOP is not alone in crashing. Even in "victory" the Democratic Party has shown itself to be totally corrupt, out of touch and without legitimacy.

Beyond the Punch and Judy puppet spectacle of phony politics, we need to keep organizing and focus on exposing and removing the puppet masters -- the Deep State and CIA,


I understand that a Blanket Primary is also referred to as a Jungle Primary, the later term, it seems to me, is a more appropriate moniker. When parties become meaningless, as they now are,politics is a free for all, a king of the hill match. If money corrupts party politics, imagine what the possibilities for perfidy are with parties out of the equation, open season in open primaries--bring on ugly.


Nichols misleads, the distinction between 'D' and 'R' is negligible. The Democrats have migrated so far to the right that to extol the party as anything other than a gathering of corporate sycophants is idiocy. Hell, consider the latest incarnation of Governor Moonbeam, a case in point---though we give him credit, he did manage to fight the good fight for many years. Guess he tired of living on the margins and instead morphed into his ol' man.


John Nichols is at his worst when he tries to get his readers to believe that the Demopublicans are not beholding to the ruling class as much as the Republicrats. Pretty soon CommonDreams is going to have to decide whether to keep letting him post his pro-corporate electoral political writings.

I'm watching Bernie's Calif. speech, after reading both the NYTimes and The Guardian: the deal is, with the internet we can see the real thing, and the unreal bias and distortions in both those corporate outlets is clear to all to see. Watch that speech and then read John Nichols's apologies for Hillary Clinton -- oh, they're coming, that's something you can take to the GoldmanSachs bank.


Since the Democratic Party quit representing what used to be its voting base and became the mouthpiece for the moneyed elite, the Republican Party really doesn't have a roll any more except to help make the sheeple think there is something important going on when they vote.


i think you mistake the source of the problem.

"The problem" is not the ugliness of the two members of the US duopoly, or those two parties' degeneration and corruption. We don't need "better parties," we need to get the state entirely out of the business of political party nominations. And the admittedly stupid "top two candidates" primary is not much worse or different from the "top two parties" primary system that has been the norm.

In a simple, sane, electoral system, ALL parties and candidates would have ballot access by meeting the basic qualifications: citizenship, residency, age, and a minimum number of petition signatures gathered based on a modest percentage of the electorate.

Then in this simple, sane electoral system: ALL candidates that qualify, appear on a single ballot; there is a short, maybe two-month campaign season; all voters vote their actual preference (with no risk of "wasted vote" or lure of the "lesser evil"); and the election is over that single ballot. (With rank choice voting, score voting, or approval voting, the "lesser evil" and "wasted vote" are eliminated, along with the need for multiple campaigns and votes to elect the winner.)

You are entirely correct about the role of money.


You make some good points. Where I live in Illinois, candidates from both major parties run away from their own labels. (Quite frankly, in my small community, I no longer live in Chicago, they, the "major" parties, are the only parties fielding candidates.)Yard signs and signs on utility poles etc. have a name and the office sought and that's it. My only point is that people should run under some party or political agenda, if not, it's a personality contest. Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley led the movement to make local elections nonpartisan in Chicago, making it easier for corporate people to slip in through the back door, incognito.


Probably takes a "sheeple" to know one... hence people who can't differentiate between roll (like roll of the dice) and role (as in playing a part). The mark of sheer genius.... on view every day in these comment threads typically by posters who chastise their peers and call them sheeple.


The Blues have CA, the Reds TX...shrug....


Actually, Feinstein can do an excellent impersonation of a conservative Republican as well ...


In all honesty, the Republicans didn't seriously try to get this seat. I didn't recognize a single Republican candidate running for the seat. When the Republicans really want to try for a seat in CA, they at least field a big name. The names this time were pretty obscure. I think the Republicans here are saving their powder for use after the next catastrophe, which will likely come soon enough ...


Ya, the Mighty Wurlitzer plays on. White/grey/black propaganda, creating of fake political and advocacy groups, and the fomenting of schisms, we are as much a target as any other country's political process that "we" are manipulating all over the world. Just be aware that when these forms of manipulation begin to fail, the paramilitaries are brought out.


That's an interesting point. In CA the slate for Senate was so large and filled with unknowns, that the only two people to rise to the top were recognizable names - neither of whom I found worth voting for. Your point as some relation to that of @Yunzer:

Having two people from the same party run for a congressional seat much really confuse people in most other countries like Canada. Outside the US, elections are about ideology and getting a party in power, not individuals and the cult of celebrity.

So I'm not clear on this yet, but I'm not sure about @webwalk's point that elections should focus on individuals. That may seem an attractive position when the only parties we have are very corrupt and when they have found ways to keep out other contenders, but I'm not sure it contributes clarity to who and what we're voting for.