MosBen asks, "Given the size of the state, why don't we see more national Democratic candidates from California. Just on size alone I would think we'd at least have some major candidates in the running for president on a regular basis."In modern times, California has not been underrepresented at the presidential level. Of the last seven presidents, two (Nixon and Reagan) hailed from the Golden State. But as Ben says, given how Democratic California is, and how big it is, you'd expect to see a couple Democrats on that list. This, however, is one of those places where the state gets pummeled by its disproportionately small representation in the Senate. Presidential candidates tend to come from one of two jobs: governor or senator. California has no more governors than anyone else, and despite its size, no more senators than anyone else. So it can't field folks from those positions at a higher rate than, say, Vermont, even though California is approximately 6 million times as big.Moreover, California isn't monolithically Democratic when it comes to statewide elections. Three of the last five governors have been Republicans. Of the two Democrats, one, Gray Davis, was expelled from office, and the other, Jerry Brown, ran for president. So folks are trying. If the House of Representatives had more prestige, and more of its members ran for president, that would help, as California has a lot of Democratic congressmen. If the Senate had proportional representation, and Wyoming's 509,000 residents were equal to two senators, California would have around 140 senators, and thus a whole lot more presidential candidates. Of course, in that scenario, the Senate would be devalued, and some new job would feed into the presidency. But so long as the Senate's composition remains constant, and the presidency is a playground for governors and senators, California's 36,000,000 residents aren't much more likely to field a presidential candidate than anyone else. They have some advantages (money), some disadvantages (perceived liberalism), and are, in the aggregate, on an even playing field with Montana.Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user MumblyJoe. ASSIGNMENT DESK: CALIFORNIA DREAMING.
MosBen asks, "Given the size of the state, why don't we see more national Democratic candidates from California. Just on size alone I would think we'd at least have some major candidates in the running for president on a regular basis."In modern times, California has not been underrepresented at the presidential level. Of the last seven presidents, two (Nixon and Reagan) hailed from the Golden State. But as Ben says, given how Democratic California is, and how big it is, you'd expect to see a couple Democrats on that list. This, however, is one of those places where the state gets pummeled by its disproportionately small representation in the Senate. Presidential candidates tend to come from one of two jobs: governor or senator. California has no more governors than anyone else, and despite its size, no more senators than anyone else. So it can't field folks from those positions at a higher rate than, say, Vermont, even though California is approximately 6 million times as big.Moreover, California isn't monolithically Democratic when it comes to statewide elections. Three of the last five governors have been Republicans. Of the two Democrats, one, Gray Davis, was expelled from office, and the other, Jerry Brown, ran for president. So folks are trying. If the House of Representatives had more prestige, and more of its members ran for president, that would help, as California has a lot of Democratic congressmen. If the Senate had proportional representation, and Wyoming's 509,000 residents were equal to two senators, California would have around 140 senators, and thus a whole lot more presidential candidates. Of course, in that scenario, the Senate would be devalued, and some new job would feed into the presidency. But so long as the Senate's composition remains constant, and the presidency is a playground for governors and senators, California's 36,000,000 residents aren't much more likely to field a presidential candidate than anyone else. They have some advantages (money), some disadvantages (perceived liberalism), and are, in the aggregate, on an even playing field with Montana.Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user MumblyJoe. 
