The LA Times' Cathleen Decker writes an excellent post-election summary for California. I've been telling everyone that the GOP cannot appear to be anti-Latino and win any presidential election or any other election that counts California votes. Ms. Decker lays out why the GOP is doomed unless it changes its whitebread ways:
California in 1994 was more white and proportionately less Democratic than it is today, thus more similar to the country today. Nationally, non-whites made up only 22% of the Tuesday electorate; in California they made up 38%. Latinos nationally represented 8% of the national electorate, just shy of a third of their power in California. The California and national exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of news organizations, including television news networks and the Associated Press.
Tellingly, Latinos in California had a far more negative view of the GOP than other voters — almost 3 in 4 had an unfavorable impression, to 22% favorable. Among all California voters the view of Republicans was negative, but at a closer 61% negative and 32% positive. Latinos had a strongly positive view of Democrats, 58% to 37%, whereas all voters were closely split, 49% to 45%.
The best part? State Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring: "The reality is that Democrats have strong relationships with urban and immigration communities that Republicans have not had, and that must change," he said. "It is not only a matter of politics; it is a matter of mathematics." More here.
Bonus: Ken's take on the elections here. An excerpt:
On Russ Feingold: To paraphrase Homer Simpson, I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my Democrats FLAMING. Democrats ought to distinguish themselves from Republicans by supporting the rights of the accused, opposing military adventurism, and resisting the encroachment of the post-9/11 security state. If they don’t, they are just sh*tty second-rate Republicans with less of a pretense of fiscal responsibility.
On Oklahoma's Sharia Law Stupidity: Oklahomans took a strong stand against having Sharia law imposed upon them. As far as I can figure, the only way you can have Sharia law imposed on you is if at some point you consented contractually to having it imposed on you. Meanwhile, my plaintiff-side clients still routinely get binding arbitration imposed on them, which makes Sharia law look like an appearance before Judge Harry of Night Court. Maybe the idea is you can contract away your right to anything resembling due process only if it’s in front of irritable retired judges in really expensive office suits, not if it involves weird robes and ululating and stuff.