June 9, 2016

THE WAGES OF NATIVISM:

Just How Bad an Election Night Was It for California Republicans? (ADAM NAGOURNEY and JENNIFER MEDINA, JUNE 8, 2016, NY Times)

ADAM NAGOURNEY: Jenny. So, it might have gotten overlooked in the late-breaking Democratic presidential contest here (why, oh why, does it take California so long to count votes?), but this was not a good night for the California Republican Party. Or I guess I should say, once again, this was not a good night for the California Republican Party.

Coming into this contest, the Republican Party in California -- you know, California, the state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- did not control a single statewide office. In the contest you covered last night, to replace Senator Barbara Boxer (a Democrat), a Republican did not even make it to the runoff. And the winning campaign Donald Trump ran for the Republican presidential nomination, with its emphasis on battling illegal immigration and his challenge to the "Mexican" judge, is pretty much the stuff of nightmares for moderate California Republicans who have been trying to fashion a party that can appeal to the changing demographics of this state. Just how badly did the Republicans do in the Senate race?

JENNIFER MEDINA: I think it's fair to say: Downright terrible.

For the first time in a century, no Republican will be on the ballot for the state's Senate seat. No Republican even approached 10 percent of the total vote, and the top three combined received less than a million votes.

Now Trump is trying to do to the American voter what Pete Wilson did to the California.
Posted by at June 9, 2016 1:52 PM

  

« HE'S NOT A REPUBLICAN: | Main | DOES ANYONE (BESIDES HIM) THINK HE'S A GOOD BUSINESSMAN?: »