84 electoral votes combined that they just give away and those states are likely to never go Republican unless they have a "Reagan-type" person from California (Arnie was governor of course though he couldn't ever run).
Should that be part of the Republican strategy after 2020? Or are they permanently lost?
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 4, 2020 15:34:49 GMT
The growing schism between progressives and moderate liberals in California could make it vulnerable to a moderate Republican imo. Honestly, assuming Trump loses big in 2020 and the party by proxy cedes its Senate edge, I could see the party shifting towards the Larry Hogans of the world - anti-Trump Republicans who can make headway with Democratic voters. That's assuming, of course, that the party and its voters buy into the issue of "electability," something that currently only the spineless Democratic Party thinks about.
The Republicans have Texas to balance it out and have won big swing states like Florida in Ohio in the 3/5 of the last elections they've won. If Texas goes blue they are kind of toast at the presidential level, though.
Arnie would have had a shot in California in a presidential election as would have Giuliani in New York. In addition to the local connection they are both pro choice and pro gay. These days that's just a non-starter for a lot of people, you don't even associate with people with the opposite position as you on those issues, let alone vote for them. Someone like Bill Weld as the Republican nominee would create an interesting map. Liberal on abortion/gay issues, educated at Harvard and Oxford and doesn't come off as a dumb bumpkin. He could appeal to a completely different set of people. Of course the Republicans would never nominate someone like that as of now so it's a moot point.