How come we never have had a Democratic President from California?

[TrueAmerican]

Is it because of this pathetic primary system where tiny states like Iowa and NH have power.

But how does that explain Nixon and Reagan?

[Zynx]

1. We have never really produced fine national candidates from there.

It's odd, but in states where a party is totally dominant, sub-par candidates are produced.

[SahaleArm]

2. Yep survival of the unfittest

Who was the last great 'national' Democrat from California? Could you imagine Davis running for the presidency? Ack.

[5thGenDemocrat]

5. It's a matter of time, I suppose

We never had a President born west of the Mississippi River until Hoover. I'd never though about what Zynx mentions above, but that might have something to do with it, too.
John
Michigan's only President was Gerald Ford, and he was born in Omaha. Thomas Dewey (R - 1944, 1948) ran from New York, but he was actually born in Owosso, MI -- about 40 miles from here.

[Catch22Dem]

9. Owosso...interesting

We have an Owasso, Okla. (spelled with an "a")

[bubba_fett]

3. I know

And that's where all liberals come from!!!

:D

[pistoff democrat]

4. IMHO

it is because we need North and South California. You see, both your repuke examples came from population heavy South California and they won't let the state be split because they want the water from North California. :think:

Could this mean that something in the water makes one more liberal, as they are in North California? :shrug:


:silly:


:kick:

[Hope4]

7. no, the water goes south

Maybe it is the water from Vegas. LOL!

I live in both hawaii and calif. Hawaii is much better.

[Hope4]

6. Regean was a dem

Brown sr was to old when he left office. His son to controversial. Gray Davis was horrible and how we ever let him rise to the top, I do not know. Worked with Jerry when he was gov and Gray was his cofs and he could not hold a candle to Jerry.

It surprise me with all the movie stars that could move up that it has not happen.

[QC]

8. California was not predominantly Democratic until fairly recently.

[Doctor Pedantic]

10. In Case You Haven't Noticed...

We're strange in California. We vote pretty consistently for Democrats for president, but overall California has many very conservative areas.

I grew up in the Central Valley -- "Grapes of Wrath" country. It was extremely conservative/backwards/stifling....but I digress.

The Central Valley is very conservative. Everything to the south and east of Los Angeles (Orange County, San Diego County, the Imperial Valley)is very conservative. And many parts of Los Angeles County (Glendale, Pasadena) are conservative as well.

That leaves us just LA and San Francisco, as well as the granola folks from north of San Francisco on up to the Oregon border.

Voting Democratic here seems mostly a function of the fact that the largest urban areas are much more liberal than most of the state. As areas like the Central Valley continue to increase in population, it's likely that this will become a much less likely breeding ground for Democratic presidents.

[Cleita]

11. I don't think the party promotes Democrats from the west.

I mean we have have many outstanding Democrats right now from California, but no one even mentions them. My favorite, of course, is Senator Barbara Boxer who in my opinion would make an outstanding first woman president. I think Senator Boxer is more experienced and her resume far more impressive than Senatory Hillary Clinton's yet she is seldom mentioned as a candidate.

[carpetbagger]

12. California...

California's had only a short period of time to produce presidents, probably only since the end of World War II (and here I'm thinking of the necessity of 20th century communications and transportation in making a west coast candidate viable). That's less than a third of the age of the republic. In the last 60 years, the electorate has been divided about evenly over time. So the number of governors and senators, who have made up the bulk of postwar presidents, is limited. California's turned in her share of candidates, but Cranston got beat, Brown was too damn strange, and Davis, well, I guess his odds have gone down significantly since his days a few years ago as one of the frontrunners for this year.

Why Nixon and Reagan? Nixon, IMO, was a random roll of the dice. Reagan was also one of the idiots who created the "culture wars" during his McCarthyist years, and in his case California was the home of the industry that gave him prominence, much in the way that the industrial interests gave rise to folks from the northeast and Ohio, or currently how Texas is giving rise to a closely knit string of high government officials from the oil business. (BTW, when you see the state's GOP implode in two years, keep the oil vs. agriculture theme in mind).

[maxanne]

13. more small state bashing

<<<Is it because of this pathetic primary system where tiny states like Iowa and NH have power.>>>

Heaven forbid anyone should pay attention to unimportant states like NH. I sure hope you're from a big meaningful state, TrueAmerican.


Big important states have given us such great presidents as George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. A legacy to be proud of.