|
Title: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 20, 2009, 12:58:21 PM 2008:
Northern: Obama: 63.91% (23 EV) McCain: 33.8% Southern: Obama: 58.79% (34 EV) McCain: 39.16% 2004: Northern: Kerry: 58.13% (23 EV) Bush: 40.44% Southern: Kerry: 51.52% (34 EV) Bush: 47.23% I'm too lazy to go any further. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 20, 2009, 01:31:07 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ?
Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 20, 2009, 02:05:07 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 20, 2009, 02:20:32 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 20, 2009, 02:23:38 PM 2008: Northern: Obama: 63.91% (23 EV) McCain: 33.8% Southern: Obama: 58.79% (34 EV) McCain: 39.16% 2004: Northern: Kerry: 58.13% (23 EV) Bush: 40.44% Southern: Kerry: 51.52% (34 EV) Bush: 47.23% I'm too lazy to go any further. I did the math for my map and SoCal is much closer. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: tallguy23 on August 20, 2009, 02:31:51 PM Does anyone have results for 2000?
So if SoCal were it's own state, would it be a swing state that leans Democratic? Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 20, 2009, 02:44:53 PM Does anyone have results for 2000? So if SoCal were it's own state, would it be a swing state that leans Democratic? Yes, I did the math. It would be about 52-48 Democrat. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Verily on August 20, 2009, 02:52:59 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: memphis on August 20, 2009, 02:59:52 PM 2000
SoCal Gore: 3,277,829 or 54.46% Bush: 2,740,587 or 45.54% NorCal Gore: 2,583,374 or 58.58% Bush: 1,826,842 or 41.42% NOTE: Percents are only of the two major parties. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: memphis on August 21, 2009, 03:33:29 PM Last time it would have mattered is 1988. Dukakis wins Northern California, but gets destroyed in the South. Carter '76 also wins NorCal, with some weird places. Ditto for Humphrey in '68, which makes Nixon's victory very close. Kennedy wins in the North as well.
Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: DariusNJ on August 25, 2009, 11:55:10 AM Northern California would be similar to Massachusetts. Lots of wealthy liberal white voters.
Southern California would be similar to Minnesota or Wisconsin. Mostly suburban with some large population centers. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Sbane on August 27, 2009, 10:07:31 AM Last time it would have mattered is 1988. Dukakis wins Northern California, but gets destroyed in the South. Carter '76 also wins NorCal, with some weird places. Ditto for Humphrey in '68, which makes Nixon's victory very close. Kennedy wins in the North as well. The central valley used to be a key part of the democratic constituency in California, which can seem pretty weird these days. It makes sense since it is a populist part of the country and it is not surprising that Carter did well there. Today the democrats don't need to win there to win the state, but they usually carry it when they win landslide victories in the state just like Obama did. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 27, 2009, 11:10:38 AM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. You know nothing about CA. :) Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Verily on August 27, 2009, 12:07:35 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. You know nothing about CA. :) I beg to differ. You can't come up with any reason to put Kern in SoCal except that it makes SoCal more Republican and that you like SoCal more. You had the incredibly stupid map in which the "Bay Area" included ultra-conservative counties in the northern Central Valley that had no geographic connection to the Bay at all. Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, the best split is a three-way split, with the Central Valley as its own state. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Sbane on August 27, 2009, 01:06:49 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. You know nothing about CA. :) I don't see what's so wrong with what he said. Kern County is definitely more a part of the central valley than Socal and it would make sense to keep the valley together. I disagree with him about SLO and SB though. Although they are coastal counties, they identify much more with LA than they do with any other area and thus should be in any Socal state, especially SB. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 27, 2009, 02:20:47 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. You know nothing about CA. :) I beg to differ. You can't come up with any reason to put Kern in SoCal except that it makes SoCal more Republican and that you like SoCal more. You had the incredibly stupid map in which the "Bay Area" included ultra-conservative counties in the northern Central Valley that had no geographic connection to the Bay at all. Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, the best split is a three-way split, with the Central Valley as its own state. My map was actually a geographic division based on gerrymadnering but obviously contained conservative counties due to close proximity. Kern is nothing like Northern California. Everyone is here is from Southern California, everything we do culturally is Southern Californian, our weather/climate is Southern Californian, our business is done with Southern California, we are IN Southern California and belong in a state different from the Bay Area should CA be split. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 27, 2009, 02:22:08 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. You know nothing about CA. :) I don't see what's so wrong with what he said. Kern County is definitely more a part of the central valley than Socal and it would make sense to keep the valley together. I disagree with him about SLO and SB though. Although they are coastal counties, they identify much more with LA than they do with any other area and thus should be in any Socal state, especially SB. He suggested Kern being placed in Northern CA. Fresno is debatable, but Kern is definitely Southern. A Valley state, sure it could include Kern, but not a Northern-Southern split. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Sbane on August 27, 2009, 10:41:32 PM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. You know nothing about CA. :) I don't see what's so wrong with what he said. Kern County is definitely more a part of the central valley than Socal and it would make sense to keep the valley together. I disagree with him about SLO and SB though. Although they are coastal counties, they identify much more with LA than they do with any other area and thus should be in any Socal state, especially SB. He suggested Kern being placed in Northern CA. Fresno is debatable, but Kern is definitely Southern. A Valley state, sure it could include Kern, but not a Northern-Southern split. I think he had a valid point that the valley should be kept together. In reality it doesn't matter that much. In my opinion Kern should be part of Socal and so should Tulare and Kings. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: phk on August 29, 2009, 12:59:35 AM How you determine what is "Northern" and what is "Southern" ? On a county map of California, there's a nice line through the state. The one Between San Bernardino-Kern-San Luis and Inyo-Tulare-Kings-Monterey ? Yes, although Kern is a little debatable. You could put it in NorCal if you wanted to keep the Central Valley together, although there definitely are crazy people who commute from Bakersfield to LA. There are two possible definitions, one which divides the state exactly along that line and another that puts Kern, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in NorCal. The latter is slightly more geographically reasonable, keeping the coast and Central Valley communities together, and also making the two states more even in population, but the former looks better on a map. You know nothing about CA. :) I don't see what's so wrong with what he said. Kern County is definitely more a part of the central valley than Socal and it would make sense to keep the valley together. I disagree with him about SLO and SB though. Although they are coastal counties, they identify much more with LA than they do with any other area and thus should be in any Socal state, especially SB. He suggested Kern being placed in Northern CA. Fresno is debatable, but Kern is definitely Southern. A Valley state, sure it could include Kern, but not a Northern-Southern split. I think he had a valid point that the valley should be kept together. In reality it doesn't matter that much. In my opinion Kern should be part of Socal and so should Tulare and Kings. If Tulare and Kern are going to So. Cal, it'd be wise to add Fresno, Mariposa, Madera, San Benito, Inyo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 29, 2009, 01:09:58 AM San Benito?
Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Sbane on August 29, 2009, 02:35:09 AM I was going to say the same thing. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: phk on August 29, 2009, 02:53:35 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Sbane on August 29, 2009, 03:04:19 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: phk on August 29, 2009, 03:14:13 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Why not? CA Politics is basically Bay Area vs the Rest of CA. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 29, 2009, 05:59:45 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Why not? CA Politics is basically Bay Area vs the Rest of CA. I think that the political consensus between Los Angeles & the entire Northeastern quadrant of the state is rather limited. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 29, 2009, 06:19:02 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Why not? CA Politics is basically Bay Area vs the Rest of CA. I think that the political consensus between Los Angeles & the entire Northeastern quadrant of the state is rather limited. All 12 of the people there? Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: memphis on August 29, 2009, 08:15:42 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Why not? CA Politics is basically Bay Area vs the Rest of CA. I think that the political consensus between Los Angeles & the entire Northeastern quadrant of the state is rather limited. All 12 of the people there? Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 29, 2009, 11:59:00 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Why not? CA Politics is basically Bay Area vs the Rest of CA. I think that the political consensus between Los Angeles & the entire Northeastern quadrant of the state is rather limited. All 12 of the people there? And they do with the Bay? Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: minionofmidas on August 29, 2009, 12:10:20 PM They do. If anything, a Bay-based state should extend into NW Nevada.
Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Sbane on August 30, 2009, 09:27:12 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Why not? CA Politics is basically Bay Area vs the Rest of CA. I think that the political consensus between Los Angeles & the entire Northeastern quadrant of the state is rather limited. All 12 of the people there? And they do with the Bay? Umm yeah.... Everything in life doesn't have to be based on how many percentage points their county gave to the democrats or republicans. Title: Re: Results by Northern and Southern California Post by: Sbane on August 30, 2009, 09:29:33 AM I was going to say the same thing. The eastern part that is. Anyway. If a partition of California was to occur, it would best be Bay Area and the rest of the state. That wouldn't make sense. Why not? CA Politics is basically Bay Area vs the Rest of CA. As I said to Hamilton, politics isn't everything. Regardless if the divisions should just be on political lines, shouldn't it be the bay and LA vs the rest of the state? |