> You have basically said that the republicans are simply bad in the state because they “campaign like it’s Kansas,” which is ridiculous because candidates are always local.
The state party officials (and party aligned interest groups) have a big impact on candidate grooming, funding, selection, and messaging, and the influence they exert results in campaigns that are ineffective in much of the state. And it wasn't always that way, and it didn't because of the jungle primary change (Schwarzenegger was an exception to it, but not because he was before the jungle primary, but because he came through a route entirely outside of the party system, despite being a party member; the effect had already set in, though it wasn't yet as deep as it is now.)
> That type of dismissiveness of an entire party is exactly the issue.
You are making this out to be a political argument which it is not. The point is when all levels of government align under one party, which has leaders, it becomes more like a dictatorship. I don’t care how bad you personally consider the Republican party, there are those who consider Democrats the same way. That polar mindset is the problem. It’s not as black and white as you make it out to be and many people often agree with various positions on both sides, but when one side becomes to strong you are forced to essentially agree with all positions of that dominant side.
> You are making this out to be a political argument which it is not.
No, I'm not. I'm making it out to be a factual argument about the causes of the present political situation, which it very much is.
You seem to be unable to separate evaluation of the factual causes and effects of political situation with moral evaluation of the involved actors.
> The point is when all levels of government align under one party, which has leaders, it becomes more like a dictatorship.
Not really, especially with the jungle primary system which limits the ability of party leaders to control candidate selection in districts where the other major party fails to maintain competitiveness, and especially not where the people retain the powers of initiative, referendum, and recall, and entities outside the dominant party (including, but not limited to, the second place party) are able to bring issues directly to the people through those avenues against the desires of the dominant party.
> I don’t care how bad you personally consider the Republican party, there are those who consider Democrats the same way
I have said a word (in this thread) about how bad I consider the Republican Party, only how poorly chosen their recent electoral strategy has been for the realities of the State. There's other states (and, though to a far lesser extent, other times in not-too-distant California history) where I would say the same broad kind of things (with different details about the problem) about the Democrats.
> but when one side becomes to strong you are forced to essentially agree with all positions of that dominant side.
Maybe, in some abstract sense, but not on any concrete sense that actually has any bearing on the actual situation in California.
The way you are trying to dissect bits and pieces of this and not the point itself is proof enough of your bias here. You are literally splitting sentences in half and debating them separately. Really, you are even trying to debate an undisputed point of “bad” and go on to explain how wrong that is and that it is republicans “poorly chosen..etc.” Again that partisan politics has nothing to do with the point. What are are arguing is already obvious because republicans are losing and thus yes obviously they had a bad strategy. If a football team lost a game literally everyone could say they had a bad strategy or the other team has a good. The problem and point of what we are saying is what RESULTS from that occurring not a discussion on how it occurred.
> The problem and point of what we are saying is what RESULTS from that occurring not a discussion on how it occurred.
Explanations of both the cause and the results have been offered, and I have given arguments on both of those points, which you have responded to with irrelevancies as to arguments you imagine I might want to make about how good or bad the Republicans are (and then, bizarrely, having raised that imaginary argument, complained that I reacted to it and described it as misplaced and said it was an "undisputed point" that I was "trying to debate", when literally the reverse was true: it was a point I never made that you were trying to debate.)
The state party officials (and party aligned interest groups) have a big impact on candidate grooming, funding, selection, and messaging, and the influence they exert results in campaigns that are ineffective in much of the state. And it wasn't always that way, and it didn't because of the jungle primary change (Schwarzenegger was an exception to it, but not because he was before the jungle primary, but because he came through a route entirely outside of the party system, despite being a party member; the effect had already set in, though it wasn't yet as deep as it is now.)
> That type of dismissiveness of an entire party is exactly the issue.
You are confusing cause and effect.