California has been a reliably blue state since 1992. Home to Hollywood and the godless liberals of San Francisco, it is a frequent object of social conservatives' ire and ground zero for their beloved "culture war." Many on the left consider it a safe redoubt, its 55 electoral votes automatically allocated to the Democratic column in any tactical analysis of the 2012 election. But should it be so? Maybe not.
First some history. California has not voted Republican for president since 1988, when it went for George H.W. Bush by a 51.1-47.6% margin. But before that the state had voted Republican in eight of the previous nine elections, the one exception being 1964 (when Johnson trounced Goldwater 59-41%). Since 1966, they have elected only three Democratic governors, one of whom was recalled, while the other two are the same person. And in recent years conservatives have successfully overturned the state's gay marriage law and blocked the full legalization of marijuana (admittedly, the latter was a complicated issue with many factors at play, but social conservatives played a large role in the proposition's defeat). So it's not a state without a solid Republican base.
In the most recent polls President Obama leads his two most likely Republican opponents, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, by double-digit margins in the Golden State. But that's a little misleading. While he has a whopping 55-35% edge over Gingrich, his lead over Romney is only 50-40%. More troubling, Californians are split over whether the president deserves to be reelected, 45-44%, and his approval rating in the state remains tepid at 48%. (All these figures can be found in this article in the National Journal.)
Ten points is not much of a comfort zone, especially when you consider that the president won California by more than 23 points in 2008. And there are other reasons for the Obama campaign to be concerned, especially if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee.
California is home to over 500,000 Mormons, more than any other state beside Utah. This represents a potential army of highly motivated and enthusiastic volunteers excited by the prospect of electing one of their own to the White House (and possibly fulfilling the White Horse Prophecy in the bargain). Moreover, California has shown a predilection for choosing socially moderate Republicans, at least in gubernatorial elections, and if Romney gets the nod he will undoubtedly tack centrist for the general election. It will be interesting to see whether he can maintain a balance between conservative enough for the party base, while at the same time moderate enough to appeal to swing voters. It would be difficult, but not impossible.
But Obama's biggest potential headache in California is Obama himself. I'm speaking of the president's decision to crack down on the state's legal marijuana industry, despite a 2008 campaign promise not to do so. In October, federal authorities ordered dispensaries in California to halt sales of marijuana or face prosecution, and launched a series of raids against licensed growers in northern California. As a result of this police action -- and make no mistake, that's what it is, a police action -- hundreds of legal businesses have been forced to close, and many more are poised to do so, in the process throwing hundreds if not thousands of people out of work. I thought we were in an economic downturn?
Obama's motivation for this step is unclear. Does he think he's going to win the anti-pot vote? If so he is seriously deluded. Those kind of social conservatives are never going to vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name, particularly not one with his skin tone. Meanwhile he is alienating a huge group of people who are his own natural supporters. If you're a Democrat and you can't win over the pot crowd, then you're doing something very, very wrong. And to what end? Hard to believe that Obama is personally that anti-pot (although not impossible; he is a very staid, buttoned-down man in many ways, who reportedly likes reading Bible verses on his Blackberry; perhaps he is more privately conservative than people think). The only explanation that makes sense is that no matter how progressive the candidate, once elected no president can tolerate an open challenge to federal (read: HIS) authority. The Obama administration has shown repeatedly that it is just as protective of its power and secrecy as his predecessor's. Perhaps this is just another example.
Interesting, though, that the administration has chosen to launch a war against the legal marijuana industry in California, while leaving a very similar system untouched in Colorado. Ah, but Colorado is a swing state. Can't afford to alienate anyone there. But California? That's a different story. A 23-point margin buys you an awful lot of leeway to look like a tough guy. I mean, who else they gonna vote for? Romney?
There is a serious danger of taking California for granted. It would be a mistake to assume that California is automatically going to go blue. Politics has a way of surprising us. Who would have imagined that a Republican would be occupying Teddy Kennedy's senate seat? But it happened. It happened because Democrats got cocky. We assumed that seat was ours for the taking, and when a perfect storm of political happenstance descended upon us in the form of the health care debate and the rise of the Tea Party, we were caught unprepared. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's particularly telling, given the history of the man against whom we could be running. In 2002 Shannon O'Brien had an overwhelming registration advantage, name recognition, money, and the support of a powerful entrenched establishment, yet still she lost the Massachusetts governor's race to Mitt Romney. That's a history none of us would like to see repeated.
I'm not saying we're necessarily going to lose California. And I don't many think disenchanted marijuana boosters are likely to vote Republican. But some might. More likely is the danger that a significant portion might just just sit out the election entirely, depriving the president of a large base of support. Couple that with a high Republican turnout at the prospect of unseating the illegitimate-secret-Muslim-who-wasn't-even-born-in-this-country (read: black guy), and we could end up having to fight a lot harder for the Golden State's 55 electoral votes than we expect.