[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

Could this be a downside of being a bit of a one party state? On paper, I imagine if more races were more competitive, we'd see our elected officials work harder to keep their jobs rather than lean back on the party establishment to support them.

This is actually an honest question - I'm not trying to make a political point here. I'm genuinely curious about whether purple states spend their tax dollars better than the very red and very blue ones.

[api]

It could be. At this point Democrats are basically tenured in California. The state has had Republican governors in the past but that was before present levels of polarization.

[seiferteric]

I really think we need a new party. Fiscally conservative Democrats. People who live in the real world with respect to budgets, with the ability to say NO to stupid things, but generally being open to some Government programs and of course socially liberal.

[api]

That’s sane. It would never go viral on social media.

[seiferteric]

I've come full circle, I think CA Democrats should be in favor of smaller Government and less taxes at the federal level so that states like CA can have a bigger slice of the tax pie by increasing state income taxes. If we did this I think we could get healthcare for all and other things for CA residents. Since it seem impossible to do things at the Federal level for several reasons, why even try? Just do it at the state level.

[hackeraccount]

I'm not a Democrat. I'm not of the Left. That said the argument for wanting activist government at the Federal and not the State level is that it avoids free rider problems. i.e. All sick people move to California because they have free health care. People making money run to low tax States.

I'm unsure personally about how accurate that argument really is but it's certainly made.