Is California Liberal?

[Londo_Jowo]

I grew up a redneck piss off.

I'm probably more a redneck than you'll ever be but I outgrew it.

JKing106?

 

[shadow9d9]

CA is middle/right, which is democrat. If they went Republican, they'd be far right(off the cliff).

 

[JManInPhoenix]

A fiscally conservative and socially liberal candidate would win in CA by a ton. unfortunately this type of candidate seems to not exist.

"This" candidate would probably win in the US by a ton, but as you said, they don't seem to exist.

 

[fskimospy]

"This" candidate would probably win in the US by a ton, but as you said, they don't seem to exist.

That's the thing though, it really wouldn't. It's not like people don't run on those platforms all the time, including people in the major parties. It turns out that they actually aren't that popular when it comes to the ballot box as the two are much more heavily intertwined than most people realize.

Do you mean socially liberal in terms of guaranteeing everyone a right to equal education? That costs a lot of money. Do you mean socially liberal in ensuring that everyone has access to health care? Lots of money again.

This reminds me a lot of people who claim to be independent voters. When the chips are down, independents are few and far between.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

That's the thing though, it really wouldn't. It's not like people don't run on those platforms all the time, including people in the major parties. It turns out that they actually aren't that popular when it comes to the ballot box as the two are much more heavily intertwined than most people realize.

Do you mean socially liberal in terms of guaranteeing everyone a right to equal education? That costs a lot of money. Do you mean socially liberal in ensuring that everyone has access to health care? Lots of money again.

This reminds me a lot of people who claim to be independent voters. When the chips are down, independents are few and far between.

I would put Chris Christie in this category. Yes, yes, I know - he is too liberal for the right and too conservative for the left. I suspect IF he could make it through the republican primaries, he would win the general election.

By election time, "bridgegate" will probably have 0 effect; the same as Benghazi will have for Hillary... (anyone that cares about bridgegate or benghazi isnt going to vote them anyway).

 

[fskimospy]

I would put Chris Christie in this category. Yes, yes, I know - he is too liberal for the right and too conservative for the left. I suspect IF he could make it through the republican primaries, he would win the general election.

By election time, "bridgegate" will probably have 0 effect; the same as Benghazi will have for Hillary... (anyone that cares about bridgegate or benghazi isnt going to vote them anyway).

I think it largely depends on what the outcome of the 'bridgegate' investigation says. If it was really just his underlings running around acting stupid he's probably fine. If he had something to do with it, he's toast.

I think Chris Christie would be a formidable general election opponent, but I sincerely doubt if he won he would win by a 'ton'.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

I think it largely depends on what the outcome of the 'bridgegate' investigation says. If it was really just his underlings running around acting stupid he's probably fine. If he had something to do with it, he's toast.

I think Chris Christie would be a formidable general election opponent, but I sincerely doubt if he won he would win by a 'ton'.

I personally doubt he would make it through the republican primaries (but thats just IMO...)

 

[fskimospy]

I personally doubt he would make it through the republican primaries (but thats just IMO...)

I think that anything resembling the Chris Christie that we think would do well in the general election is unlikely to make it through the republican primaries.

I do think that the 'fiscal conservative social liberal' idea is overblown though. People 1.) tend not to vote on issues and 2.) are generally unaware of the level of overlap between economic and social issues.

 

[Baasha]

Tim Draper:

His face:

 

[zinfamous]

A fiscally conservative and socially liberal candidate would win in CA by a ton. unfortunately this type of candidate seems to not exist.

:thumbsup:

 

[Baasha]

A fiscally conservative and socially liberal candidate would win in CA by a ton. unfortunately this type of candidate seems to not exist.

Try again: Ro Khanna

He was attacked by Mike Honda who is a left-wing nutter.

 

[michal1980]

CA is middle/right, which is democrat. If they went Republican, they'd be far right(off the cliff).

no just no.

 

[First]

A fiscally conservative and socially liberal candidate would win in CA by a ton. unfortunately this type of candidate seems to not exist.

Mostly because fiscal conversativism is relativistic bullshit; as soon as you cut American's social program benefits (Medicare, SS), fiscal convervativism flies out the farking window.

 

[zinfamous]

Mostly because fiscal conversativism is relativistic bullshit; as soon as you cut American's social program benefits (Medicare, SS), fiscal convervativism flies out the farking window.

I think that is just part of fiscal conservatism--I think this is what you are actually saying?

what a self-described fiscal conservative says in public compared to what they would do in policy, is generally different. No one will cut Medicare/SS.

Consider that the majority voting block for conservatives are the ones benefiting the most from these services.

 

[First]

I think that is just part of fiscal conservatism--I think this is what you are actually saying?

what a self-described fiscal conservative says in public compared to what they would do in policy, is generally different. No one will cut Medicare/SS.

Consider that the majority voting block for conservatives are the ones benefiting the most from these services.

Well, I'll say this; there's no way you can call yourself a fiscal conservative if you aren't willing to cut either entitlement program. There's just no way you can be one with a straight face, and that's the only acceptable definition among a wide swath of far right politicians. Though the vast majority of Americans and a good deal of Repubs support not cutting entitlements unless it's a combination of tax increases and cuts.

 

[zinfamous]

Well, I'll say this; there's no way you can call yourself a fiscal conservative if you aren't willing to cut either entitlement program. There's just no way you can be one with a straight face, and that's the only acceptable definition among a wide swath of far right politicians. Though the vast majority of Americans and a good deal of Repubs support not cutting entitlements unless it's a combination of tax increases and cuts.

I don't know--that sounds more libertarian to me, but what do I know?

I tend to think that fiscal conservatism is more about efficiency in spending, rather than setting fire to and salting the earth of all government programs. :\

 

[glenn1]

Yes, California is liberal. It is true if you look at geography it is pretty red, but if you look at where all the people live it is very blue. People vote, not dirt, so it's liberal. A form of this happens after most elections where a map comes out showing America is almost all red. The same thing is the case there.

If California is so liberal, why are its income and sales taxes so horrifically regressive? Between taxes and the stifling public union cronyism, the onerous regulations, and overall high cost of living it's like the state is purposely trying to fuck over the working poor and middle class as hard as it can.

 

[rockyct]

In most cases it obvious who fixed the districts. In CA the democrats now have this 'law' that they can claim they aren't doing anything.

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission

Can't really blame the Democrats for taking advantage of the thing Republicans were pushing for. Republicans wanted the commissions, they got them. Both sides tried to play the commissions but the Democrats were better at it. Sucks for GOP.

 

[fskimospy]

If California is so liberal, why are its income and sales taxes so horrifically regressive? Between taxes and the stifling public union cronyism, the onerous regulations, and overall high cost of living it's like the state is purposely trying to fuck over the working poor and middle class as hard as it can.

California's income tax is a progressive, not regressive tax. Even a cursory look at the brackets shows you that. Do you know what regressive taxation is?

The rest if your post is just unhinged ranting, kind of like in that Koch brothers thread.

 

[berzerker60]

If California is so liberal, why are its income and sales taxes so horrifically regressive? Between taxes and the stifling public union cronyism, the onerous regulations, and overall high cost of living it's like the state is purposely trying to fuck over the working poor and middle class as hard as it can.

California's taxation is mostly fucked up because of populist anti-tax ballot initiatives that screwed up property taxes, and before the most recent elections, meant that a small Republican minority could still prevent any tax increases whatsoever. As a result, we have loads of work-around, regressive 'fees' and local sales taxes and such that are regressive. The income tax overall isn't, though.

 

[glenn1]

California's income tax is a progressive, not regressive tax. Even a cursory look at the brackets shows you that. Do you know what regressive taxation is?

The rest if your post is just unhinged ranting, kind of like in that Koch brothers thread.

While technically true that they have graduated income tax brackets, the rates and income levels associated with them are quite regressive. For example, at $39,384 the rate is 8%, and it's 9.3% at $49,774-254,250. Plus there's brackets above that still. For comparison sake, only 3 states have top brackets above that (HI, OR, and RI) and they apply at far higher levels of income ($200k, 250k, and 373k respectively).

Combine that high income tax with a high base sales tax rate of 7.5% (higher in many CA localities) and you're talking 1/6th the income of someone earning under $40k in California. That seems pretty regressive to me.

 

[fskimospy]

While technically true that they have graduated income tax brackets, the rates and income levels associated with them are quite regressive. For example, at $39,384 the rate is 8%, and it's 9.3% at $49,774-254,250. Plus there's brackets above that still. For comparison sake, only 3 states have top brackets above that (HI, OR, and RI) and they apply at far higher levels of income ($200k, 250k, and 373k respectively).

Combine that high income tax with a high base sales tax rate of 7.5% (higher in many CA localities) and you're talking 1/6th the income of someone earning under $40k in California. That seems pretty regressive to me.

Uhmm, you just described a progressive tax system. Also, having more brackets for higher incomes generally makes a tax system LESS regressive, not more.

 

[First]

While technically true that they have graduated income tax brackets, the rates and income levels associated with them are quite regressive. For example, at $39,384 the rate is 8%, and it's 9.3% at $49,774-254,250. Plus there's brackets above that still. For comparison sake, only 3 states have top brackets above that (HI, OR, and RI) and they apply at far higher levels of income ($200k, 250k, and 373k respectively).

Combine that high income tax with a high base sales tax rate of 7.5% (higher in many CA localities) and you're talking 1/6th the income of someone earning under $40k in California. That seems pretty regressive to me.

One, you don't know what progressive taxes are; tax rates go up as you make more money, while regressive tax systems would do the polar opposite. That's the literal definition. CA's income tax goes from 1% on taxable income below $7,582 to 12.3% on taxable income over $508,500 (for single persons or married filing separately on Schedule X). This is the definition of a progressive tax system and isn't up for debate. What you're debating is whether CA's $49K-$254K 9.3% for single persons or married filing separately bracket should be narrowed to $100K-$254K or something, which would, again, make it more progressive.

Two, you're a little slow and not very good at taxes; no one actually making a gross income of $49,774K is hit by a 9.3% CA income tax since virtually all of them have deductions that bring them below that threshold. For example, as a single person you could gross $60K or $70K and have enough deductions to get into the 8% bracket. Or if filing jointly as a married couple, you can easily gross $100K and have deductions that get you into the 8% bracket, which for married persons filing jointly is taxable income below $99,548 using Schedule Y. I've personally done it.

 

[MagickMan]

*shrug*

You went there.

No, you did. :\

About like Florida actually.

You go to the developed areas with a bit of culture lots of blue.

But tons of Red in the rural areas, more or less ignorant areas.

 

[raildogg]

What's in a word? Why is being liberal, conservative or whatever so important? And why must we define ourselves and other people on one stupid word? And here we have people describing entire states on one silly word. Yet they want us to get along, etc. When you label yourself and another, you cannot get along. But, nevermind. We're taught from the moment we're born to label everything so lets continue wishing for harmony but actually increasing further division.