A little trollish, but now that Democrats have a veto-proof majority (meaning Gavin Newsom is really just a spokesperson, his opinion is irrelevant, he cannot veto legislation), Californians only have one party to ask why the State is the way it is....the #1 poverty State.
Not only can Californians no longer blame Republicans (there basically aren't any left in the State), they can't even blame the Governor...he is truly pointless as he can no longer even veto legislation.
> A little trollish, but now that Democrats have a veto-proof majority
They don't. They are one vote shy in the Senate. Now, they will when the next session starts in December, but that supermajority can't reach back in time, and the economy takes time to change.
> (meaning Gavin Newsom is really just a spokesperson, his opinion is irrelevant, he cannot veto legislation)
That would be true on legislation, in effect, if every Democrat in both houses of the legislature always voted together.
This is decidedly not the case historically.
Also, the Governor's powers aren't just the veto power.
> Not only can Californians no longer blame Republicans
That doesn't mean the actions from when they did have policy power aren't part of the reason for present conditions.
> they can't even blame the Governor.
Well, they can't blame Newsom much, because he isn't Governor until January. But the idea that he will be powerless is unrealistic on many levels.
The only measure where California is "#1 poverty state" is by supplemental income measure. And the reason is due to high housing costs in coastal California. And this also is an incorrect measure, as poverty in CA is not entrenched in coastal areas.
So, I guess, the Democrats can gloat for stupendously high GDP, median income, per capita income. And blame themselves for high housing costs.
Reasons for high housing costs have been well documented and researched and it includes a combination of factors such as income, demand, NIMBY, regulations, traffic, crowding etc. There is definite movement towards building more housing now and I think the next decade will definitely see more housing being built.
"If those lousy liberals weren't raisin' our taxes, we wouldn't be in this mess" is no better an argument than "If those meanie conservatives weren't cuttin' our social nets, we wouldn't be in this mess." They're both facile stereotyping. Would you like to present a coherent argument for how you think the Bay Area would have followed a wildly better trajectory in the last decade if Republicans had been in charge? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they would not have raised the minimum wage faster, or advocated more strongly for rent control, or pushed stricter business regulations on giant tech firms in order to protect small businesses, or advocated for strengthening labor unions for low-wage workers, or been better at confronting the moneyed NIMBY interests that make constructing housing so difficult in some areas, or looked at reforming Proposition 13. So what would it have been?
There basically aren't any Republicans left in the State
Other than the third of Californians who voted for the Republican or Libertarian candidates in the 2016 election, sure. Unless you're suggesting they all left in the last two years.
Some of us judge the policies of the people in office, regardless of their ostensible party association. In a state where you have to register as a Democrat in order to have a chance at winning in many districts, the label doesn't mean much.
> Not only can Californians no longer blame Republicans
Assuming republicans are at fault (I know nothing of California state politics, so not taking a side here) it will take years to decades to move beyond any damage their policies caused. Politicians aren't free of blame they day they're voted out.
Well, you are right about one thing - you know nothing of the State politics
Democrats have had a virtual lock on this State for at least five years. So much so that their primary nemesis was their own moderate Governor, Jerry Brown. Think about that - conservatives had been so utterly decimated that the only thing standing in the way of the State legislature was a Governor from their own party.
They have a pliant Governor now but it is irrelevant - he can't even veto their bills anymore. He's a hood ornament and he knows it.
And astoundingly, outrageously, you actually think State Republicans, who have basically been an endangered species for years...are actually to blame. Wow. As it stands the last Republican Governor of the State was basically a Democrat anyway. But sure, maybe its all Pete Wilson's fault.
Honestly, I'm a democrat, and what he says makes a lot of sense.
It really worries me that they have a super majority now - my hope is that they use it to invest in infrastructure, like public transit, that is sorely lacking in the state.
But I am not holding my breath. I fully expect they will squander it on the public unions and double pensions.
> And astoundingly, outrageously, you actually think State Republicans, who have basically been an endangered species for years...are actually to blame.
I don't think that at all, I explicitly said that I have no thoughts on the issue. I was pointing out that policies outlast governments and the momentum of their decisions carries on well past the election date. You implied that everything that happens from now on will be 100% the democrats fault and that's simply not true.
If we want better politicians then we need better memories than goldfish.
