The paradox of the California vote

[buritobr]

California used to vote Republican in the presidential elections during the age of the counterculture.

California votes Democratic in the presidential elections since the 1990s, during the age of the high tech business.

[Mr. Smith]

San Diego decides all, it was majority white before the 90's.

If NorCal had seceded, it would have been straightly Democratic all the way from the 60's, with only '72 and '84 in the way.

[buritobr]

Dole 1996 and Bush Jr. 2000 & 2004 won San Diego County.
Los Angeles County is a better bellwheter. It voted against the state only in 1976 and 1988.
Obama won San Diego in 2008 and 2012, but this county is still much more Republican than the average of the state.
Some northern counties are anti-bellwheter. They were Democratic in the past and Republican in the present.

[Mr. Smith]

Dole 1996 and Bush Jr. 2000 & 2004 won San Diego County.
Los Angeles County is a better bellwheter. It voted against the state only in 1976 and 1988.
Obama won San Diego in 2008 and 2012, but this county is still much more Republican than the average of the state.
Some northern counties are anti-bellwheter. They were Democratic in the past and Republican in the present.

And 1960, it voted for JFK not Nixon...even though that wasn't figured out until absentee ballots were counted.

Those inland Northern counties are culturally a lot like the South, that's why most of those counties have been GOP leaning only since 1980. That's why McGovern won more counties than Carter.

Well except for Alpine Co. which plays out more like a Vermont.

[RFayette]

If you read The Innovators during Walter Isaacson, you'd realize that high-tech culture and the counterculture are actually linked.  Many of the first computer programmers within the open-source movement were also "hippies" of the time (during the 1970's).  As such, it's fallacious to suggest that the high-tech industry and the counterculture in the Bay Area were distinct, opposing phenomena.  

That being said, even though the Bay Area has been Democratic-voting for a long time, white professionals were significantly more Republican-leaning in the area in the past, though this has changed, along with many other parts of the country.  That being said, much of the losses among white professionals are offset by gains with white working-class voters among Republicans.  It's the increasing Hispanic population that has decimated the CAGOP, as MormDem pointed out.

[buritobr]

Interesting. I looked at the map now. I saw that altough Alpine and Plumas are close to each other, they vote opposite. Except during the transition years, when both voted Republican.

[Mr. Smith]

If you read The Innavotrs during Walter Isaacson, you'd realize that high-tech culture and the counterculture are actually linked.  Many of the first computer programmers within the open-source movement were also "hippies" of the time (during the 1970's).  As such, it's fallacious to suggest that the high-tech industry and the counterculture in the Bay Area were distinct, opposing phenomena.  

That being said, even though the Bay Area has been Democratic-voting for a long time, white professionals were significantly more Republican-leaning in the area in the past, though this has changed, along with many other parts of the country.  That being said, much of the losses among white professionals are offset by gains with white working-class voters among Republicans.  It's the increasing Hispanic population that has decimated the CAGOP, as MormDem pointed out.

But Southern California didn't have this going on, and the inland South (Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Imperial) was more like Utah or Arizona.

And it, LA, and San Diego were just a bigger count than the New Deal Coalition of the North.

Only when the state realigned from North-South to Coast-Inland could the shift work.

1976 was the last North-South alignment, and 1988 was the first Coast-Inland alignment, just one or two more coast counties and the state would've have gone to Dukakis.

This actually mirrors quite nicely how just a few more Northern States would've given the Election to Dukakis

[Mr. Smith]

Interesting. I looked at the map now. I saw that altough Alpine and Plumas are close to each other, they vote opposite. Except during the transition years, when both voted Republican.

That's because Alpine was originally dominated by Old Yankee Conservatism. But around the advent of the ".com bubble", a huge gay population migrated east from the Bay Area.

While the events surrounding the county are reminiscent of Vermont, the fact that every other surrounding county was Democratic gives it a bit of an Eastern Tennessee spin to it. (Not quite again since Alpine relented to FDR, but not LBJ...and then didn't become perma-Dem until 12 years after in 2004)


Plumas on the other hand was more like The Deep South, strong Evangelical and white base and very heavily agrarian, so a Populist-to-Conservative approach was the ideal here.

So it's no surprise that it's almost identical to Georgia in outcome. (Not quite since Georgia voted for Goldwater, Wallace, and Nixon rather than Straight D...then voted for Carter rather than Reagan)

[RFayette]

If you read The Innavotrs during Walter Isaacson, you'd realize that high-tech culture and the counterculture are actually linked.  Many of the first computer programmers within the open-source movement were also "hippies" of the time (during the 1970's).  As such, it's fallacious to suggest that the high-tech industry and the counterculture in the Bay Area were distinct, opposing phenomena.  

That being said, even though the Bay Area has been Democratic-voting for a long time, white professionals were significantly more Republican-leaning in the area in the past, though this has changed, along with many other parts of the country.  That being said, much of the losses among white professionals are offset by gains with white working-class voters among Republicans.  It's the increasing Hispanic population that has decimated the CAGOP, as MormDem pointed out.

But Southern California didn't have this going on, and the inland South (Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Imperial) was more like Utah or Arizona.

And it, LA, and San Diego were just a bigger count than the New Deal Coalition of the North.

Only when the state realigned from North-South to Coast-Inland could the shift work.

1976 was the last North-South alignment, and 1988 was the first Coast-Inland alignment, just one or two more coast counties and the state would've have gone to Dukakis.

This actually mirrors quite nicely how just a few more Northern States would've given the Election to Dukakis

What are you referring to by "this"?  I was referring to Northern California concerning the tech industry and white professional shift, though the same shift among white professionals occurred in Southern California as well, though from a much higher % of white professionals voting Republican as a baseline beforehand.

Anyways, my point was that to my understanding, the white vote in California has been a wash (white professionals, once mixed in the Bay Area and staunchly GOP in SoCal have moved to lean D in the Bay Area and mixed in SoCal, but the GOP has made big gains among the white working class, offsetting these losses), but the large increase in Hispanic and Asian concentrations (many of whom, especially those who vote, inhabit the coastal counties in the South) have really made it hard for the CAGOP to assemble a winning coalition compared to the past.  Am I getting something wrong here?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If you read The Innavotrs during Walter Isaacson, you'd realize that high-tech culture and the counterculture are actually linked.  Many of the first computer programmers within the open-source movement were also "hippies" of the time (during the 1970's).  As such, it's fallacious to suggest that the high-tech industry and the counterculture in the Bay Area were distinct, opposing phenomena.  

I can't say this empirically or anything, but the impression I've been given is in alignment with this, in the sense that the Internet in its earliest public versions, was filled with maligned weirdos (people like those on this site, who have to talk about their obtuse habits in the privacy and anonymity of the "web"), and documentaries that talk about development of the Internet glorify how it was an extension of the individualism of the counter-culture and try to link it to libertarianism.

[Mr. Smith]

If you read The Innavotrs during Walter Isaacson, you'd realize that high-tech culture and the counterculture are actually linked.  Many of the first computer programmers within the open-source movement were also "hippies" of the time (during the 1970's).  As such, it's fallacious to suggest that the high-tech industry and the counterculture in the Bay Area were distinct, opposing phenomena.  

That being said, even though the Bay Area has been Democratic-voting for a long time, white professionals were significantly more Republican-leaning in the area in the past, though this has changed, along with many other parts of the country.  That being said, much of the losses among white professionals are offset by gains with white working-class voters among Republicans.  It's the increasing Hispanic population that has decimated the CAGOP, as MormDem pointed out.

But Southern California didn't have this going on, and the inland South (Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Imperial) was more like Utah or Arizona.

And it, LA, and San Diego were just a bigger count than the New Deal Coalition of the North.

Only when the state realigned from North-South to Coast-Inland could the shift work.

1976 was the last North-South alignment, and 1988 was the first Coast-Inland alignment, just one or two more coast counties and the state would've have gone to Dukakis.

This actually mirrors quite nicely how just a few more Northern States would've given the Election to Dukakis

What are you referring to by "this"?  I was referring to Northern California concerning the tech industry and white professional shift, though the same shift among white professionals occurred in Southern California as well, though from a much higher % of white professionals voting Republican as a baseline beforehand.

Anyways, my point was that to my understanding, the white vote in California has been a wash (white professionals, once mixed in the Bay Area and staunchly GOP in SoCal have moved to lean D in the Bay Area and mixed in SoCal, but the GOP has made big gains among the white working class, offsetting these losses), but the large increase in Hispanic and Asian concentrations (many of whom, especially those who vote, inhabit the coastal counties in the South) have really made it hard for the CAGOP to assemble a winning coalition compared to the past.  Am I getting something wrong here?

My bad, lost in thought there. I meant that SoCal was more traditionally moderate-conservative rather than the New Deal Coalition of liberals and Populists that aligned the urban Bay Area and the Northern inland counties (sans Alpine).

And no, that's actually pretty good analysis.

The reason the Bay Area was mixed in result also had to do with the huge black bloc in Oakland, which is even now, still the biggest concentration of African Americans west of the Mississippi.

[Sir Mohamed]

Dole 1996 and Bush Jr. 2000 & 2004 won San Diego County.
Los Angeles County is a better bellwheter. It voted against the state only in 1976 and 1988.
Obama won San Diego in 2008 and 2012, but this county is still much more Republican than the average of the state.
Some northern counties are anti-bellwheter. They were Democratic in the past and Republican in the present.

And 1960, it voted for JFK not Nixon...even though that wasn't figured out until absentee ballots were counted.

Those inland Northern counties are culturally a lot like the South, that's why most of those counties have been GOP leaning only since 1980. That's why McGovern won more counties than Carter.

Well except for Alpine Co. which plays out more like a Vermont.

It voted for Nixon. NV voted for JFK that year. LBJ won California in 1964, but with a smaller lead than in the national PV (59%).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Things have definitely changed since Ford won the bay area.

[Mr. Smith]

Dole 1996 and Bush Jr. 2000 & 2004 won San Diego County.
Los Angeles County is a better bellwheter. It voted against the state only in 1976 and 1988.
Obama won San Diego in 2008 and 2012, but this county is still much more Republican than the average of the state.
Some northern counties are anti-bellwheter. They were Democratic in the past and Republican in the present.

And 1960, it voted for JFK not Nixon...even though that wasn't figured out until absentee ballots were counted.

Those inland Northern counties are culturally a lot like the South, that's why most of those counties have been GOP leaning only since 1980. That's why McGovern won more counties than Carter.

Well except for Alpine Co. which plays out more like a Vermont.

It voted for Nixon. NV voted for JFK that year. LBJ won California in 1964, but with a smaller lead than in the national PV (59%).

The entirety of the state yes, but allegedly only after the absentee ballots were counted...JFK floored it on Election Night itself.

But LA County voted for JFK against the state, that refutes that only 1976 and 1988 were the sole times LA voted otherwise.

As for the smaller lead, Goldwater was pretty sympathetically received in South end, and why not Arizona is next door. Orange and San Diego voted for the cretin.

Also not a coincidence that the Senate seat went Republican that same year, kicking out the appointee who was of the JFK Admin.

[Sumner 1868]

California's Cold War Republicanism is greatly exaggerated on this forum. Let's look at the percentages from this era:

1952
Democratic: 42.3
Republican: 56.8

1956
Democratic: 44.3
Republican: 55.4

1960
Democratic: 49.6
Republican: 50.1

1964
Democratic: 59.1
Republican: 40.8

1968
Democratic: 44.7
Republican: 47.8

1972
Democratic: 41.5
Republican: 55.0

1976
Democratic: 47.6
Republican: 49.3

1980
Democratic: 35.9
Republican: 52.7

1984
Democratic: 41.3
Republican: 57.5

1988
Democratic: 47.6
Republican: 51.1

So, as we can see, there was always a sizable Democratic vote in California except when John Anderson took some former Carter supporters in 1980.

[buritobr]

Most of the counties in California won by McCain and Romney were won by Stevenson

[buritobr]

Difference to the national margin

1948: R+4.04%
1952: R+3.71%
1956: D+4.29%
1960: R+0.71%
1964: R+4.26%
1968: R+2.38%
1972: D+9.69%
1976: R+3.84%
1980: R+7.04%
1984: D+1.97%
1988: D+4.16%
1992: D+7.83%
1996: D+4.37%
2000: D+11.28%
2004: D+12.41%
2008: D+16.74%
2012: D+19.23%

California's Cold War Republicanism is greatly exaggerated on this forum. Let's look at the percentages from this era:

1952
Democratic: 42.3
Republican: 56.8

1956
Democratic: 44.3
Republican: 55.4

1960
Democratic: 49.6
Republican: 50.1

1964
Democratic: 59.1
Republican: 40.8

1968
Democratic: 44.7
Republican: 47.8

1972
Democratic: 41.5
Republican: 55.0

1976
Democratic: 47.6
Republican: 49.3

1980
Democratic: 35.9
Republican: 52.7

1984
Democratic: 41.3
Republican: 57.5

1988
Democratic: 47.6
Republican: 51.1

So, as we can see, there was always a sizable Democratic vote in California except when John Anderson took some former Carter supporters in 1980.

[Mr. Smith]

California's Cold War Republicanism is greatly exaggerated on this forum. Let's look at the percentages from this era:

1952
Democratic: 42.3
Republican: 56.8

1956
Democratic: 44.3
Republican: 55.4

1960
Democratic: 49.6
Republican: 50.1

1964
Democratic: 59.1
Republican: 40.8

1968
Democratic: 44.7
Republican: 47.8

1972
Democratic: 41.5
Republican: 55.0

1976
Democratic: 47.6
Republican: 49.3

1980
Democratic: 35.9
Republican: 52.7

1984
Democratic: 41.3
Republican: 57.5

1988
Democratic: 47.6
Republican: 51.1

So, as we can see, there was always a sizable Democratic vote in California except when John Anderson took some former Carter supporters in 1980.

That's as silly as saying Arizona's Republicanism is exaggerated, or Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are exaggerated regarding Democrats now because "muh less than 9% victory". Sorry, but fact of the matter is, the state only voted once for a Democratic candidate between 1952-1992, once. And even that one time, the trend was weaker than national, and George Murphy won.

Combine that with Pat Brown literally being the only strong Democrat before '58 when the GOP literally effed themselves into a corner with a stupid gamble, the 24 years of Republican Governors after Pat Brown was ousted (with only Jerry as relief).

Even in 1982 when Reagan was down nationally, the Senate was still a GOP hold [granted Jerry was in a rough patch but he still wouldn't have lost by such a wide margin in a true swinger], and the Bradley effect happened.


Sorry, but no, it's no exaggeration...California was GOP dominated, even it didn't look it until 1992 finally began the true defrosting (or warming if we use Atlas colors).

[buritobr]

Comparing California Counties to US States according to the vote

San Francisco = Massachusetts
Los Angeles = New York
Orange = Utah
Plumas = Georgia
Alpine = New Hampshire
San Diego = Nevada

[Antonio the Sixth]

Relevant to this, here are the PVI scores for the three Californias (see the threads for the relevant borders).