US with French parties

[Antonio the Sixth]

Arizona. Really did my best, but it's hard to balance compactness and equality...

I've kind of decided to go with equality rather than absolute compactness myself, which isn't really the French way but meh.

Anyways, I'm working on building a national 577 constituency map based on the individual states' districting. So get to work people!

Heck, it took me 3 hours to come with that map !

[Хahar 🤔]

Your SD map is almost the same as mine.

And that's a problem because...?

He never said it was. It was just an observation.

[Hash]

Washington, updated



1 (Spokane): blue, dev 10.481 R 57.5%
2 (Walla Walla-Wenatchee): green, dev 288. R 64.3%
3 (Yakima): purple, dev 18.990. R 63.4%
4 (Vancouver): red, dev 10.501. R 54%
5 (Pacific): gold, dev -6.469. D 51.4%
6 (Olympia): teal, dev 3.347. D 50.2%
7 (Bellingham-Mount Vernon-Puget Sound): gray, dev -2.772. D 50.5%
8 (Everett): weird colour, dev -6.509. D 51.2%
9 (Tacoma): cyan, dev 9.598. D 53.2%
10 (Burien-Kent-Covington-Vashon): pink, dev -13.220. D 53.8%
11 (Seattle Centre): light green, dev -7.836. D 82.1%
12 (Bellevue-King): cornflower blue, dev -12.474. D 53.9%
13 (Seattle Nord-Shoreline-Edmonds): brownish, dev -3.921. D 66%

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I went for compactness and municipal boundaries with this. All are within 10% of ideal population.



Boston area:



The party stats for Massachusetts strike me as a little questionable, but here's what DRA has:

1 (Ouest): blue, dev -46,708, D 60.5
2 (Springfield): green, dev -16,993, R 53.1
3 (Worcester): purple, dev 49,506, R 56.1
4 (Needham-Attleboro): red, dev -12,189, R 57.9
5 (Middlesex-Ouest): gold, dev 32,828, R 50.6
6 (Lowell-Newburyport): teal, dev -17,439, R 56.9
7 (Salem-Gloucester): grey, dev 11,613, R 55.2
8 (Banlieues Nords): lilac, dev 24,066, D 64.5
9 (Boston-Nord-Ouest): cyan, dev 5,559, D 67.1
10 (Boston-Sud-Est): pink, dev 5,316, D 57.5
11 (Bristol): chartreuse, dev -40,080, R 50.7
12 (Cap-aux-Morues): cornflower, dev 4,518, R 56.1

I'm really, really questioning where exactly these partisan numbers come from, but that's what DRA has.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tennessee :

[Antonio the Sixth]

Louisiana :



It's a bit tricky to watch, because for some reason DRA includes sea areas, but the main patterns are clear.

[Hash]

I'll restart this for a little while. California is going to be particularly long and tough.

Northern California

Upstate California (inland)

Rural, isolated and conservative, inland upstate California would, nowadays at least, be pretty solidly UMP. There might be some rump rural conservative FN support in the more isolated places. There would be a few rumps of boboish type PS and Green support in touristy places like Trinity County, Mount Shasta and Nevada County. There would have been a pretty marked trend to the right since the 1960s due in part to the decline of the timber industry and the shifting voting patterns in old timber-based counties due to the left's environmentalism. Mitterrand would have won much of the inland far north in 1965, for example.

North Coast

Besides Del Norte County, the entire coastal region north of Sonoma County would be solidly left-wing, with a marked trend to the left since the late 80s. It would be a largely bobo-type vote, with old hippies, artsy liberals, pot growers, affluent yippies in the Wine Country and similar types making up the bulk of PS-Green ranks. Arcata, Eureka, Ukiah and Noyo would be solidly left-wing, with some of the strongest Green votes in the country. Obviously, in 2009, the PS would have polled utter crap outside perhaps of Eureka and Fort Bragg which might keep a PS machine tradition dating back to lumber days. The left-wing vote then would have gone largely to the Greens, who would have swept Mendocino and Humboldt Counties. In presidential elections, it would probably lean towards the PS for obvious reasons.

The UMP would poll crap with Sarkozy, and there would probably have been a major trend to the left in 2007.

Sacramento Valley

Sacramento proper, especially the more Hispanic parts (Parkway), would be solidly PS in a way which needs not be described. Its suburbs, with a few exceptions for the more diverse inner suburbs, would be solidly right-leaning. Suburban growth would likely have moved places like Placer and El Dorado County (except touristy places around Lake Tahoe, which would be PS-Green) to the right in recent years, and they would be solidly UMP.

The rural areas of the Sacramento Valley, flat and rural agricultural areas, would have been solidly right-wing even perhaps in the days when the more mountainous working-class timber counties in the far-north were left-leaning. Chico is a rather large college town and would vote accordingly.

Napa, Yolo and Lake Counties - which I don't know much about - seem to be largely continuations of what we found on the North Coast. Davis is a college town and would vote like college towns vote. Woodland is largely Hispanic, and would be solidly PS.

Bay Area

North Bay

Sonoma and Marin Counties are affluent and liberal, and while in a not-so distant past (Giscard 74 and 81) they would have been right-wing strongholds, they would be ever more left-wing these days. Larger, more ethnically diverse cities which are also slightly less affluent - like Santa Rosa, San Rafael or Novato - would be more solidly PS. Affluent areas, especially places like Mill Valley or Tiburon would be slightly less left-wing, with a rump UMP support, but still rather left-leaning with a very strong Green vote, especially in 2009.

Solano County seems pretty boring to me. The less affluent and more diverse (blacks, Mexicans, Filipino Asians it seems) cities of Vallejo, Fairfield and Vacaville (though less diverse) would be solidly PS. The more affluent areas would be similar to Marin or Sonoma, though not as Green and more right-leaning.

East Bay

Things are rather interesting in the Oakland-Alameda area and in Contra Costa. Working-class areas in Contra Costa such as Richmond (shipyards) and Pittsburg (steel), which are now largely Hispanic, would be solidly PS and likely have been solidly PCF up until the 70s or so. The mayor of Richmond is actually a Greenie, but the city's demographics (poorer, non-white) do not lend to the place having a particularly strong Green vote. The right would always have been dead here. Concord and Walnut Creek are nondescript places and would be solidly left-wing. More affluent places such as Danville or San Ramon would probably still lean to the right (UMP) but with a bit of a left-wing trend in recent years.

TBC (Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, SFO, San Mateo and Silicon Valley)

[Хahar 🤔]

Good analysis. The North Bay certainly would have voted for Giscard both times, but it would be pretty solidly for the left now; I wouldn't be surprised if EE won it in 2009. It's worth noting that Democrats did very well in the rural Sacramento Valley up until a few decades ago for some reason; half the counties in the state that voted for McGovern also voted for McCain. Also, FWIW, nobody calls the far north "upstate" and Yolo, Napa and Lake counties are definitely not in the Bay Area.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Great analysis ! I'm glad to see this restarted.

I think a nice thing you could do is adding a county map. It's not a problem if you're not 100% sure about a few counties, I'd just help me to understand the general pattern better.

[Hash]

Northern California (continued)

East Bay

Berkeley, a huge college town and overwhelmingly liberal, would be a left-wing stronghold for reasons which need not be explained. Traditionally, the Greens would win some of their best results in the country in Berkeley, though I suppose in presidential elections the PS would dominate the field otherwise. In the 1960s, the PSU would have done very well, and Berkeley would have provided the LCR with one of its few bases in the country up until 2002-2007, when the old hippie Trot vote started being lost to the Greenies.

Oakland, which is a multicultural city with a strong working-class tradition (manufacturing, shipyards etc) would have been a PCF stronghold until not too long about (89? 95?) and would still be otherwise pretty solidly left-wing these days, though the PS would be the dominant party by far (though a few cantons, primarily the black ones, might elect PCF councillors). The growing Hispanic population would lean solidly PS. The Greens would poll well, but overall Oakland seems to be too poor and too diverse for there to be a strong Green vote as there is in Berkeley. That being said, Piedmont and the Oakland hills - which stand out from the city by their affluence and high education levels - would have a solid Green vote similar to that of Marin County with residual UMP strength (basically they'd be the only areas with a UMP vote which isn't laughably low).

Racial tensions and white flight in Oakland seems to have been a 50s phenomenon, so there would be no FN  vote to speak of in Oakland, even in 1984.

On a random note which I just thought of: Bayrou would have done quite well (second place behind Royal) in Marin/Sonoma Counties and similarly affluent liberal areas in the Bay Area, taking some of a bobo-yuppie vote which is too wealthy to be comfortable voting PS (which doesn't seem to exist in France, but would exist in these areas). The UDF would probably not have been particularly strong in these places (though Balladur would have beat Chirac in 95), but there would be a strong MoDem vote in 2007-2009.

San Leandro would be a PS stronghold, though it was apparently segregated/white flight land up until not that long ago, so you might have seen a strong FN vote in 1984. Hayward seems to have a working-class tradition and is pretty heavily Hispanic and Asian (Filipino) and would be, predictably, solidly PS, but with a Green vote around CSU East Bay. Union City would be solidly PS. Fremont (and Newark?) has an old car manufacturing base, and is pretty ethnically diverse and would be, again, solidly PS.

The affluent exurbs/outer suburbs of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton would likely lean slightly to the right (except for perhaps the more non-white parts) but Sarkozy would have done pretty badly as a right-winger in these places in 2007. I don't know if he'd have done badly to the point of Royal winning them (which I kind of doubt), but at any rate there would a pretty sharp trend to the left and Bayrou would have done very well.

South Bay: Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County

Before getting into Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, we should perhaps try to clarify the problem of Asians. Asians in France - if they vote to begin with - don't care much about politics but are presumably pretty solidly left-wing because, afaik, they're not as affluent and well-educated (except long-term Asian immigrants) as Asian-Americans. The Chinese in France live in pretty lower-income multicultural neighborhoods, which is not really the case in the US. Asian-Americans could be reliably right-wing because of their wealth, high educational achievement and residual social conservatism/religious conservatism (Koreans) or anti-communism (Vietnamese, Chinese in the past). Or they could be reliably left-wing, especially in recent years, because of them being close in terms of jobs and education to left-wing yuppies-bobos and reaction against the right's stance on immigration (especially Sarkozy) and, depending on how stuff is played out in the South, the alliance with Phil de Villiers' MPF. I think we can agree that Sarkozy would not be well perceived by Asian-Americans (immigration policy, faux populism). Chirac, otoh, might have had a much better image (remember how Chirac loves Japanese stuff, from sumo to banks in Tokyo to launder taxpayer money). While treating Asians as some homogeneous entity is wrong, I would assume that they would have shifted from more or less right-wing in the 70s-80s (for anti-communist reasons in part) to more left-leaning in the 90s and transforming into solidly left-wing post-2007.

Chinese-Americans would have followed this shift pretty closely, as would Indian-Americans. Koreans and Japanese are the least affluent (but still more affluent than average) so they might have been more solidly left-wing even in the past. Some Korean Americans are Christian fundamentalists, but they vote Democratic in OTL, so it's hard to say if they'd vote PS/left for economic reasons or be tempted by the right for moral issue reasons (maybe Christine Boutin would do well with them!). Filipinos are surprisingly affluent and pretty conservative, so they might be more right-leaning. The Vietnamese are anti-communist and would be the most right-leaning group to this day.

Overall, the Silicon Valley would be pretty solidly left-leaning. While not identical to Marin County's affluent bobo 'gauche caviar' type of leftieness, it would be a pretty similar young professional/highly educated intellectual kinda-bobo/yuppie type of leftieness mixed in with Asians and Hispanics.

Assuming that Asians especially Chinese, Indians and Filipinos are pretty leftie in this context, places like Milpitas, northern San Jose and Cupertino would be pretty left-leaning, though not in a way which needs particular description. As would, probably, the bulk of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Campbell. Certainly less affluent Hispanic neighborhoods such as Alum Rock, Seven Trees and Sunol-Midtown would be even more solidly PS.

Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Mountain View, Los Altos and especially Palo Alto/Stanford would have been similarly solidly left-leaning, but with a strong Green vote and, in 2007, some very good results for Bayrou and the MoDem. The right might have residual strength if it is particularly moderate, but the UMP's last holdouts in the Silicon Valley would largely be in the more hilly regions which surrounds the Santa Clara Valley.

The Peninsula: San Mateo County

San Mateo, like Marin (and possibly Santa Clara) would have been pretty reliably right-wing for most of the 60s, 70s and early 80s before shifting sharply to the left in recent years.

In some places, such as Menlo Park, voting patterns would be similar to those in adjacent affluent white/Asian Silicon Valley communities in Santa Clara County. However, East Palo Alto, while strongly PS, is quite dissimilar in that it is diverse (in the past, black, now Hispanic) and largely poor. Redwood City is similarly heavily Hispanic and hardly affluent compared to its neighbors, thus it would be one of the safest PS cities in the county.

On the other hand, wealthier places such as San Carlos, Belmont, Foster City, Burlingame and San Mateo and Millbrae to a lesser extent (they're not as affluent and a bit more Hispanic) would have been right-wing up until not too long ago but pretty safely left-leaning today in a yuppie/bobo/gauche caviar way which is getting pretty common in this description of the Bay Area. There would be, you know, a Green vote and a good Bayrou vote and yaddi yadda.

The one exception might be Atherton, which is exceptionally affluent and is much less solidly Dem in RL. I suppose it might have kept a small UMP lean.

San Bruno, South SF and Daly City would be solidly PS as well, but because they are rather less affluent and more ethnically diverse (Hispanics in South SF, Filipinos in Daly City etc) it would not be the same kind of leftiness as the rest of the county.

The Pacific coast (El Granada, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay etc) and southern San Mateo would be more or less left-leaning (leftiness type: affluent liberals) but would maintain a not-too-shabby rump UMP vote of maximum 40-43%.

City of San Francisco

The basics are that San Francisco would be a solidly left-wing city, and one of the PS machine cities in the country. The right would barely have a base, and the left would almost be evenly divided between the Greens and the PS while in the 60s there would have been a pretty strong base for small left-wing parties such as the PSU and, more recently, the LCR. San Francisco was historically a pretty working-class town with a strong labour movement and labour tradition. Presumably it would have been a PCF stronghold, at least at a local level, until the 70s or so.

Hippie/artsy/hipster/gay/bobo whatever districts such as Haight-Ashbury, the Castro, Hayes Valley, Mission (and Mission Bay) and Bernal Heights (Lesbian Heights) would be solidly left-wing with a huge Green vote (the highest in the country, presumably) and would usually give the left-wing candidate in presidential elections some of their highest margins in the country. It would be amusing to see how poorly Boutin/de Villiers types would poll there, haha. The Noe Valley, Saint Francis Wood, Presidio, Laurel Heights, Nob Hill, South Beach and Russian Hill would be largely similar in their politics, though with a slightly lower young hippie Trot (LCR-type) vote and a higher Bayrou 2007 vote (Bayrou wouldn't have done all that well in the Castro etc)

Lower-income and slightly more diverse areas in the downtown area such as Tenderloin would be heavily PS with a lower Green vote.

The Chinese vote would likely be solidly PS (though perhaps not as humongously overall leftie as in the Castro etc), and by consequence Chinatown, the Sunsets and Richmond would be heavily PS with a rather lower Green vote and probably no residues of the old PCF strength.

Southwestern San Francisco would be solidly left-wing as well, but of a much different type of leftieness than that found in Haights-Ashbury or the Castro. Poor black working-class neighborhoods such as Bayview-Hunters Point would be solidly PS, with a weak Green presence and the last residues of the old PCF machine (the canton of Bayview might elect a PCF councillor). For similar reasons, Visitacion Valley, Excelsior, Portola, Oceanview and part of Ingleside/Merced Heights would be politically similar. There might have been a not-too-shabby FN vote in some parts back in 1984, but today it is largely black (Bayview-Hunters Point) or less affluent Chinese/Asian (with residues of Irish and Italian working-classes). The PCF would poll best in SW SF.

[Hash]

Northern California (continued)

Santa Cruz County

A bit outside the Bay Area, but Santa Cruz in part shares the general political feel of the Bay Area. Santa Cruz, a big uni town with an additional liberal/alternative side, would be solidly left-wing with a strong Green vote and maybe a nice result for Bayrou in 2007. Ben Lomond, Scotts Valley and Boulder Creek would be similar politically though Scotts Valley might be a tad more right-wing.

Further south, near the Salinas Valley, Watsonville (and Freedom, Interlaken etc) is heavily Hispanic and pretty poor, so it would be solidly PS but with a weak Green presence. Turnout would be lower, and politics are starting to resemble those we'll find in the Central Valley (north San Joaquin Valley).

Central Valley: the northern San Joaquin Valley

We left the Central Valley, the Sacramento Valley to be fair, roughly in Sacramento's right-wing suburbs. We're entering the poorer, more Hispanic agricultural part of the Central Valley. Agriculture - largely fruits and vegetables - is traditionally the main economic activity, and predictably those farms have hired (for quite some time) a lot of Mexican farmworkers and there are a lot of hired illegal immigrants too. There are also weird Eastern European, Azorean and Asian (Filipino, Cambodian, Hmong, Paki) communities.

A general rule is that the cities (Stockton, Modesto, Merced and Fresno) which are either largely Hispanic or have a large Hispanic population which actually votes would be more or less heavily PS with little Green strength outside the few uni/college campuses. These are largely urban poor, diverse and blue-collar districts with food processing in Modesto and Fresno and a large harbour in Stockton on the San Joaquin River.

In a lot of cases, some rural areas might be heavily Hispanic but this rarely shows up politically. I'd guess that either turnout is atrociously low (which it is) or that there are a lot of illegals or unregistered farm workers. I would assume that Hispanic voter registration/turnout is higher in urban areas. At any rate, whites of all types with a few exceptions (the few white liberals?) would be heavily right-wing. You might have a few conservative Hispanics who vote for the right in rural areas, but it is not likely to be statistically important. Thus, rural areas are conservative and heavily UMP.

Fresno, the heavily Hispanic parts of it at least (which accounts for a lot) would be solidly PS, while its whiter and more affluent suburbia more heavily UMP. Scattered Hispanic small towns in Fresno County (Firebaugh, Mendota, Reedley, Orange Cove, Selma, Sanger) would be largely PS with maybe a small conservative Hispanic vote for the right (UDF/UMP).

The Central Valley was - iirc - originally settled by Southerners and voted Democrat until the 60s or so, so presumably the region would have been pretty big for Mitterrand in 1965.

San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera and Fresno Counties (Fresno to a lesser extent) are all high-growth exurban counties, of a not too-affluent type so with a lot of huge mortgages and foreclosures. This whole environment of not extremely affluent high-growth exurbia (periurbanisation in France) is very conducive to a strong FN vote, especially in circumstances of high foreclosures, immigration, criminality and unemployment. White areas would likely see a strong FN vote, especially in 2010 and 2011.

Further south, Tulare (big milk industry) and Kings are largely Hispanic but voter turnout is uber-low, especially in those rural Hispanic precincts. Basically, they'd be solidly UMP despite it all, with the PS concentrated in a handful of 80-90%+ Hispanic precincts and Hispanic parts of Tulare, Visalia and Hanford.

Sierra Nevada

Outside the San Joaquin Valley, getting into the Sierra Nevada, the rural counties here are more heavily white (less agriculturally reliant on Mexicans?) and very conservative. They would likely be UMP strongholds, with PS strength mainly in towns with Hispanics (Madera) or towns of some size and touristy places like Yosemite (with a big Green vote).

The one exception, and it is a recent one, would be Alpine and Mono Counties. They're sparsely populated but they have some increasingly important ski resort/touristy-service communities such as Mammoth Lakes (Mono) and Kirkwood (Alpine) which would make them pretty leftie these days (though it is a very recent thing) with a big Green vote and an overall social liberal feel.

Monterey Bay, Salinas Valley and the Big Sur

The Hispanic areas outside of Watsonville (Pajaro, Castroville) would be solidly PS, as would most of Salinas which is a largely low-income Hispanic town (though with wealthy suburbs which seem Hispanic as well). The Salinas Valley, which is very agricultural (salads etc) is heavily Hispanic as well (Mexican agricultural workers probs), but turnout is pretty low and PS strength would be limited in the valley to cities like Soledad, Greenfield and King City.

Monterey, Carmel, Pacific Grove, Marina and the sparsely populated Big Sur coastal stretch is all pretty liberal (and white) and would be the final extension of the Bay Area's dominant upper middle-class young affluent leftie social liberalism. It would lean to the PS except for a few UMP enclaves in uber-rich places (Del Monte), and would have a strong Green vote (and Bayrou-2007, yaddi yadda).

TBC: Bakersfield, San Luis, Santa Barbara, LAX, Riverside, San Diego, OC etc

[Hash]

So people whine for this to come back, and when it does nobody reads it? Cool stuff, bros.

Southern California

Southern Central Coast: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara Counties

Continuing the patterns found along the northern Central Coast in NoCal, the coastal areas of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties would lean to the left, but, in SLO's case, this wouldn't make a sizable impact.

San Luis Obispo, home to Cal Poly, would lean to the left (with a Green presence), as would coastal communities such as Los Osos, Arroyo Grande and Santa Maria (largely Hispanic low-income and blue-collar), though those latter places wouldn't have any Green vote to speak of.

Santa Barbara, a tourist town and a college town with a particularly left-wing campus (UCSB), would be heavily left-leaning with a very strong Green presence. The student community of Isla Vista would obviously be heavily left-wing as well, while the affluent white-collar high-tech areas of the Goleta Valley would be more swingy, perhaps with a slight lean to the right (albeit declining).

Inland SLO and Santa Barbara Counties are largely agricultural (wine and cattle in SLO, fruits/veggies in SB), though Santa Barbara has a small oil and gas sector in the northern mountainous parts. Compounded with those inland places being largely white, they'd be traditional UMP strongholds.

San Joaquin Valley (south): Kern County

Kern County completes the Central Valley, and would largely share its political inclinations as well. Besides a few heavily Hispanic small towns (Delano, McFarland, Wasco), the rural parts of the valley would be rock-solidly conservative with huge UMP margins. Pretty standard-fare, but the agricultural aspect of the Central Valley is changed a bit (and it means that the mood is even more right-wing) by the presence of the big oil and gas sector here (and the military in the Mojave Desert). The Sierra Nevada and Mojave Desert parts of Kern would be solidly right-wing too.

Bakersfield, the downtown and eastern/SE parts of the city, has a large Hispanic population and those precincts would be heavily left-wing. But Bakersfield (and especially its suburbs, which I would gather are hell on earth) would be a solidly UMP city with a very strong FN vote as well. There would be some pretty bad racial voting, with the whitey parts being solidly UMP/FN.

Kern is very high-growth not-too-affluent country with high foreclosures and idiots who buy things they can't effing afford, so the comments made about the northern San Joaquin Valley and the likelihood of there being a particularly high FN vote applies very well here. Presumably, the FN would have done real well in 2010 here.

Ventura County

Ventura County would lean to the right overall, however, Oxnard, a largely Hispanic blue-collar town whose economy relies on the Port of Hueneme would be heavily left-wing. Ventura would be kind of swingy, perhaps with a slight UMP lean. Inland, Ventura's low-income farming communities in the Santa Clara River valley, which are largely Hispanic, would probably lean left depending on Hispanic turnout. The UMP's base would be in upscale residential areas, especially in the affluent and white Conejo Valley - the towns of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks particularly.

Los Angeles County: Santa Monica Mountains

This is a particularly famous, affluent and heavily white areas. Similar to the Bay Area, but with the added influence of the entertainment industry, the region mixes affluence with social liberalism and, in most cases, gauche caviar politics. It is once again tough to determine whether the social liberalism and environmentalism which makes these regions largely Democratic would be enough to make then lean to the left in this "Franco-American" context. It is still rather hard to see most of these regions being enamored by Sarkozy (or Royal, of course) in 2007.

Agoura Hills, largely affluent, would probably conserve a small lean to the UMP but with a sizable Green/Bayrou/bobo PS vote based on its important cultural scene and other general factors. Malibu has a sh**tload of rich people, but a lot of those rich people are affluent bobos, meaning that they would presumably give the area, in recent years, a small leftie lean, again with strong Green and Bayrou presence. Of course, both of these places would have gone solidly for Giscard in 1974 and again in 1981.

Topanga is a bohemian enclave and would vote solidly left-wing/Green. Calabasas and especially Hidden Hills are extremely affluent and slightly less boboish, and would presumably be rather moderately right-leaning, though Bayrou would likely have done very well there in 2007.

Los Angeles County: Westside and Santa Monica

Affluent neighborhoods such as Pacific Palisades, Brentwood and Westwood are continuations further south of the common ol' affluent liberalism pattern. They'd be rather swingy traditionally, but with a more pronounced trend to the left in recent years - Royal would probably have won those places narrowly in 2007, probably some kind of historic first for a PS presidential candidate. Westwood might be the exception as UCLA's presence might make it more leftie (profs?), but UCLA students largely live in Mar Vista, Palms and Culver City. Bel Air is even more affluent, so presumably more strongly right-wing.

Santa Monica is already slightly less affluent and more ethnically diverse (by wealthyland standards!), and the economy is already more service-reliant. Yet, it remains socially liberal and well-off, so it would retain the political feel of its neighbors while being more strongly left-wing (and historically leftie compared to the rest) with a strong Green presence. Marina del Rey is slightly posher than its surroundings, so it presumably continues the patterns of Pacific Palisades et al.

Mar Vista, Palms and Del Rey would be heavily left-wing - they're less affluent, more ethnically diverse and have a younger student population (Mar Vista, Palms) or a large number of renters rather than owners (Palms). The PS would be stronger, while the Greens would retain a presence. Bayrou's influence, perceptible in the affluent neighborhoods and Santa Monica, would be much reduced here. The same would likely apply for Culver City, though I don't see the Greenies as strong.

Venice Beach, on the other hand, is almost a hippie commune, and would have been leftie for decades, with a huge Green vote, following in the pattern of a strong PSU vote in the 60s. The PS is strong too, more in the lower-income parts.

West LA, Sawtelle, Rancho Park and Cheviot Hills are all pretty well-off quiet suburban professional neighborhoods, rather nondescript, and would likely be traditionally left-wing since the 90s with the PS as the dominant party. Century City is less suburban, but would vote similarly. Beverlywood and Pico-Robertson are similarly suburban and professional, though they both have a larger Jewish population (non-Hasidic oc), with a rising Hispanic presence. They would be traditionally left-wing as well.

Beverly Hills will be covered in the next post.

TBC: the rest of LA County

[Хahar 🤔]

I've been reading it. It's a good writeup; I'll have some comments later.

[Hash]

I've been reading it. It's a good writeup; I'll have some comments later.

Hopefully they're good and I didn't screw up anywhere!


Southern California (continued)

Beverly Hills

Beverly Hills, which is generally rather affluent and liberal, would lean to the left, but there would be a political division between the uber-rich mansions north of Santa Monica Boulevard, which would vote pretty solidly UMP, and the less affluent (but still rather well-off and white) 'flats' south of said road, which would vote more left-wing with the PS and Greens as the main parties on the left.

Los Angeles County: Central LA and Hollywood

West Hollywood, which has a huge gay "godless libruls" population, is practically some hippie or bobo-leftie enclave, and would vote very heavily left-wing with, presumably, a huge Green vote (and the PSU in the 1960s), though the PS would also do quite well (perhaps with the Jewish population). The Hollywood Hills are affluent and liberal, so they would follow the patterns of equally affluent hilly places described in the last post.

Carthay and Fairfax/Beverly Grove are largely white and rather well-off (not uber-rich, but not poor either) and they also have a fairly large Jewish population. It is hard to see them voting for anybody else than the PS, though perhaps with an important Green vote and maybe (maybe) a not too negligible UMP rump.

Mid-City is a very mixed neighborhood, both in terms of race (blacks, Hispanics, whites) and income. There are some middle-class black and white neighborhoods, while getting further towards downtown, the Hispanic areas are not as well-off. Despite the diversity, it would still be a heavily left-wing neighborhood overall with the PS, by far, as the dominant political force.

Mid-Wilshire as a whole is another mish-mash of different ethnicities and incomes. Mid-Wilshire proper is fairly white and middle-class, and would be of nondescript PS-voting nature. Further towards downtown, Arlington Heights, Harvard Heights and Pico-Union are largely Hispanic - the latter two especially, whose Hispanic population is rather unusual in that it is quite a fair bit Guatemalan or Salvadoran. They would, of course, be heavily PS. We are getting closer to LA's "pure" nature as a solidly Socialist city with no sizable Green or right-wing vote. They are, of course, socially conservative, but it would carry little impact in voting behaviour. Westlake is largely Hispanic as well, and has a large Central American element as well. It would be heavily PS.

Koreatown is getting increasingly Hispanic, but a good number of its areas remain largely Asian - Korean, of course, in large part. Koreatown is pretty poor now (especially the Hispanic areas), and lots of Koreans left following the 1992 riots which had a particularly bad effect on the neighborhood's economy. There might be a larger conservative law-and-order vote in the Korean community, which would likely have voted for Sarkozy, but for the most part both the Korean and Hispanic areas would vote largely PS.

Hancock Park and Windsor Square (parts of Larchmont as well) are far more affluent (in a few precinct's cases, very affluent) and less diverse (more white). While still likely being left-leaning since the 90s, there would be a sizable UMP rump.

Hollywood is actually not too affluent, and the Hispanic neigborhoods (large Central American element too) further east are quite deprived, and would be solidly PS. The whiter parts of Hollywood might have a slightly larger UMP rump, but would have a left-wing lean since the 90s at least. East Hollywood is largely low-income and Hispanic - with a small Thai and Armenian population, and it would be solidly PS.

Los Feliz, Silver Lake and Echo Park are more affluent, whiter (parts of Silver Lake and Echo Park are more Hispanic, and Echo Park is not all that affluent) and are largely hip/artsy/bobo type of neighborhoods. They would be heavily left-wing as well, like their neighbors, but would have a large Green vote which makes them stand out from their neighbors.

We are now in the downtown core of LA. Chinatown, which is more or less largely Asian (obviously Chinese), is rather poor (with some gentrification or artsy types) given that a lot of wealthier Asians have moved elsewhere (Monterey Park). It would be heavily PS.

Downtown LA is the city's business and cultural heart, but those who live there - while very ethnically diverse (Mexicans, Koreans, Japanese, blacks, whites) are largely low-income. It would be a PS stronghold, but the Green vote wouldn't be particularly high (except a few places).

Los Angeles County: South LA

South LA would be one of the most left-wing areas in the country: it is only 2% white and it is very much a working-poor area with high criminality and so forth.

South Park has seen gentrification with more luxury condos, but it and Historic South-Central, Central Alameda and Florence-Graham are basically parts of Mexico by their demographics, and they're also very poor. They would be the ultimate PS strongholds, with no Green or right-wing (UMP/UDF) presence.

Getting further south, into Watts, Willowbrook and other smaller neighborhoods (Green Meadows, Broadway-Manchester, Vermont Vista) are more ethnically mixed (Hispanics and blacks) but overall they're very deprived inner-city areas with crime problems and so forth. Watts is a pretty well-known place for such reasons. There might be racial tensions played out politically at a cantonal level, but overall there would be little ethnic differences in voting: this area is rock-solid PS.

Further west, Westmont and Gramercy Park are heavily black though the former has a growing Hispanic population. They are not as poor (though not very affluent still), but they'd still be rock-solid PS, as would Manchester Square and Vermont Knolls, which are also largely black and low-income.

Around Chesterfield Square, Harvard Park, Vermont-Slauson, Vermont Square and so forth are poor largely Hispanic areas with a black minority, and they would vote heavily PS. There would be some Green strength around USC in University Park, but the area in general is as solidly and homogeneously PS as they come.

Hyde Park, Leimert Park, Crenshaw and the Baldwin Hills are largely black, but they're slightly wealthier than surrounding neighborhoods (including West Adams, which used to be fairly middle-class black area but now appears to be largely Hispanic and lower-income). The middle-class black areas would be solidly PS as well. Ladera Heights and View Park-Windsor Hills are the most affluent black neighborhoods in the city, but it is unlikely that they would be any more right-wing as a result: the only difference might be a larger Green vote and maybe a not-too-bad result for Bayrou in 2007.

Los Angeles County: South Bay and the Palos Verdes

We're jumping around a bit and we're soon encountering new types of communities.

Inglewood proper is still largely income and closely divided between older black communities and newer Hispanic immigrants. The blacks would probably dominate politically, but overall there would again be little surface voting pattern differences. Inglewood would be a PS stronghold. Lennox, a small unincorporated neighborhood, is poor and Hispanic. No cookie for guessing how it votes. Hawthorne, Lawndale and Del Aire are more Hispanic and in some cases the black populations are quite small, but there's no use in breaking them down: all pretty solidly PS, though in Lawndale and Del Aire we might start seeing a bigger UMP vote in the whiter precincts. Hawthorne and Lawndale are more middle-class too.

Gardena is more diverse, with a fairly large Hispanic element but a small black element and a large Japanese population as well. The Hispanic and black areas would be the most solidly PS areas, which would give Gardena its strong left-wing lean, but the Japanese areas would be more swingy, thus a bit more right-wing though probably would have voted for Royal narrowly in 2007. That being said, remember what I said about Chirac winning the Japanese vote in the past.

Westchester, which includes LAX, is whiter and wealthier and includes a uni (Loyola Marymount), would be more swingy but probably with a narrow lean to the left in recent years. Wealthy neighborhoods north of the airport might vote UMP on a more consistent basis, though. Playa del Rey would be more left-wing, though seemingly of a bobo-left nature.

El Segundo is white and pretty well-off, and despite a large Chevron refinery, what drives the economy is the big aerospace industry in El Segundo and surrounding cities. As a defense-driven white middle-class suburban community, it would likely lean UMP without being a right-wing stronghold.

Manhattan Beach is a very affluent beachfront community with exorbitant property prices. It is socially liberal, though not as much as Venice Beach, which is basically a hippie commune. Manhattan Beach might be shifting away from the populist-right brand of the UMP under Sarkozy, but would likely have voted for Sarkozy in 2007 and, while being swingy, still have a slight UMP lean. Bayrou would have done very well. Hermosa Beach would be more leftie as it seems a bit more bobo.

Redondo Beach would be politically similar to Manhattan Beach, though it is not as affluent and the defense industry is more important. It would thus be more swingy, but Sarkozy would probably have won in 2007 - albeit pretty narrowly.

Torrance is largely white and Asian (largely Japanese), and its economy is driven by a mix of oil refineries, automaker sale offices and the aerospace industry. The Japanese parts would vote like those in neighboring Gardena, that is, more or less tied in 2007 and more Chiraquien in the past. The white affluent areas would be traditionally right-leaning. I don't know much about this place, but it seems to be a place where Sarkozy would have appealed well to the middle-class white suburbanites.

The Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling Hills etc) is extremely affluent (and white), with a fair number of gated communities. Also, in contrast to the more socially liberal places such as Bel-Air, the Palos Verdes doesn't appear to be particularly socially liberal. It would be a UMP stronghold with little left-Green presence.

TBC: the rest of LA County

[Hash]

Southern California (continued)

Los Angeles County: Compton, Harbor, Long Beach and Santa Catalina

Compton is an inner-city, low income and ethnically mixed community with a criminality problem but some slow 'gentrification' of sorts. Hispanics actually outnumber blacks now in Compton, though blacks dominate politically and Compton is usually associated with being a black community. As we found in South LA's more mixed neighborhoods, this ethnic difference is unlikely to result in any perceptible difference in voting patterns. Compton would be a PS stronghold, in the real sense of the word "stronghold".

Harbor Gateway and West Carson and largely Hispanic with a large Filipino population, at any rate they seem to be lower middle-class areas. Solidly PS, of course. Carson is a working-class city with large industrial activities (factories, oil refineries) and a diverse ethnic makeup: Hispanics, blacks and Filipinos. Black and Hispanic areas would be solidly PS, but Filipino areas lining the Interstate 110 would be slightly less left-wing, though still with a marked left-wing bias.

Harbor City and San Pedro are more mixed (especially in terms of income), though largely Hispanic (some whites near Torrance and the Palos Verdes). Wilmington, on the other hand, is heavily Hispanic and deprived in terms of income. All three would likely be PS strongholds, Wilmington especially so.

Long Beach is a mix of different communities and, as a result, some different voting behaviours. Long Beach's Hispanic communities downtown and on the east and west sides as well as in North Long Beach would be solidly PS. Filipinos, again, slightly less left-leaning, but Cambodians would probably be very left-leaning, like the Mexicans. There are some liberal 'bobo' type whites, I think, around Belmont Shores/Belmont Heights/Alamitos Heights and Cal State, and they would lean to the left with a strong Green vote. However, the white upper-income areas (I suppose the residents work in the aerospace industry) on the border with the OC and near Lakewood would be about tied up in 2007, with a shift to the left after having been more or less right-wing in the not so distant past.

Lakewood is largely white, suburban and middle-class/old WWC with defense probably a major employer. Save for Hispanic areas around the Hawaiian Gardens and slightly more diverse areas elsewhere, Lakewood would probably be an old PS area, but with a more recent lean to the right. Sarkozy would have done particularly well here.

Santa Catalina Island, and its sole settlement, Avalon, are fairly affluent places living off tourism and would seem fairly white though Avalon, surprisingly, is now Hispanic plurality. From what I know of Santa Catalina, it would be left-leaning with a large Green vote.

Los Angeles County: Southeast

Paramount, Lynwood, South Gate, Huntington Park, Maywood, Bell, Bell Gardens, Commerce and Cudahy are some of the most heavily Hispanic areas in LA, and while not dirt-poor, they're not breaking affluence records any time soon. They would heavily PS, presumably with some type of corrupt Mexican political boss-run type of machine. Vernon is a huge employment hub for the whole area with manufacturing and food processing plants, but nobody seems to vote there (24 people in 2010).

Downey is kind of weird in that it is pretty largely Hispanic (though not as big as in neighboring places) but also a bit more affluent and more conservative in its voting habits OTL. I don't know much about it, but based on what actually goes on there, there could be a strong UMP vote in the more affluent precincts despite them being more affluent.

Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, West Whittier, Pico-Rivera and Montebello are all heavily Hispanic, but more middle-class suburban types of neighborhoods. While the right (UDF?) might have more of a base than in poorer Hispanic neighborhoods, overall it would pretty much be a more or less strongly left-leaning area.

South Whittier has more second and third-generation Hispanics, and as a result is more right-wing though overall it would remain left-leaning, with the PS beating out the UMP in all but the worst years for the left.

Bellflower and Artesia, while plurality Hispanic, have a large white and Asian population respectively, which makes both of them slightly less left-wing than the little inner-city Mexicos, though not enough to make them lean to the right. The PS would retain a strong edge.

La Mirada is a high-growth suburb closer in its politics to the OC than LA County, and while there is very rapid Hispanic growth far outpacing white growth, it remains an upper middle-class white suburban county, thus traditionally a right-wing place, though changing demographics obviously favour the PS. There is a pretty important Evangelical uni here, so it might give the MPF its only base in California.

Cerritos is a heavily Asian-American (Korean, Filipino primarily with some Chinese) upper middle-class suburban community, and would probably have a slight lean to the left while retaining a solid enough UMP base to allow the right to win in its good and best years. On balance, in 2007, it would likely have split narrowly in the PS' favour.

Los Angeles County: Eastside and Northeast LA

East LA and Boyle Heights are two of the most Hispanic parts of LA, they are also poor inner-city/working poor neighborhoods. As with similar neighborhoods in the South and Southeast, they'd be rock-solid PS. El Sereno and Lincoln Heights are not as heavily Hispanic but they are similarly deprived. Once again, the hills start bringing less Hispanics, more wealth and more left-liberalness, but overall the Eastside would be a rock-solid PS area of the city.

In the Northeast, the hilly area of Eagle Rock is ethnically diverse but its defining features is its relative affluence and its artsy/young professional population. It would be left-leaning, but the PS would not be as hegemonic: there would be a strong Green vote. Neighboring Highland Park, Montecito Heights, Glassell Park and Atwater Village are perhaps more heavily Hispanic and not as well-off with pockets of deprivation, but they generally continue the left-liberal leanings of Eagle Rock. It would vote similarly as well.

Los Angeles County: Glendale and Burbank

Glendale is a fairly well-off middle-class suburban community, largely white and home to the corporate HQs of Nestlé USA. What sets Glendale out a bit is its large Armenian population - about 30% of the city's population iirc. Aznavour is the only French-Armenian I know, so it's not a great base about French-Armenian voting behaviour. I would assume they would be more or less leaning in the PS' favour. WASPish affluent places in the hills would be more right-wing.

Burbank is similarly well-off and white, though perhaps not as suburban given the size and importance of the entertainment industry (Walt Disney Studios, Warner Brothers). It would be a left-leaning city, with the left concentrated in the Armenian areas near Glendale and white liberal area on the border with LA City, as well as Hispanic areas near North Hollywood and Sun Valley. There would be pockets of UMP support in whiter hilly affluent areas.

That's it folks, until January 9-10 at the earliest. To be continued with the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, and the rest of California.

[Hash]

Should I even bother with this? I had been given the opinion that a lot of people cared about this, but now I'm getting the total opposite.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I, at least, am still interested.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I am very much still interested in this.

[Хahar 🤔]

Oh, crap, I'm really sorry about not writing about California. I had some things come up, and I lost track of this. I'll have something soon.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just finished to read it. I'm really amazed by how detailed and approfondite your analysis was. However, as I said, I can't really comment much on it apart from saying it made me learn a lot of things I didn't know.

[Bacon King]

MOAR

[Hash]

Southern California

Los Angeles County: The San Fernando Valley

The San Fernando Valley is fairly easy to understand. The flats in the valley are poor and Hispanic, the hills are affluent and white(r). This has not always been the case, in fact the flats used to be white middle-class suburbia, though with a working-class tradition. Because of low housing prices in the flats, Hispanics who are largely low-income have replaced the whites.

North Hollywood, Sun Valley, Van Nuys, Panorama City, Arleta, Pacoima, Sylmar, San Fernando, North Hills and Mission Hills are all largely Hispanic neighborhoods and all pretty low-income. The most heavily Hispanic areas - Panorama City, Pacoima, Arleta and San Fernando - are also the poorest places in the valley and places like Pacoima have seen criminality and the like. There is a long working-class tradition, especially in Van Nuys which had a GM plant until not that long ago. All these places, to varying levels, would be PS strongholds. A large Asian Filipino presence in parts of North Hills and Mission Hills make those two areas slightly less left-wing.

The NoHo Arts District (which is close to the hills) in North Hollywood stands out from the rest as it is largely white, more affluent and far more socially liberal. There has been gentrification there and it has contributed to a large artsy element. While still solidly left-wing, the Greens would poll very well. Which makes it stand out from left-leaning but poor, Hispanic and conservative areas in the flats.

The entertainment industry is centered around Studio City and also has a significant influence on Valley Village (large Jewish population), Valley Glen, Sherman Oaks and parts of Van Nuys. The entertainment industry seems to make these white and affluent neighborhoods very socially liberal, so they would presumably be solidly left-wing again with a large Green vote. Encino, on the other side of the highway (405) seems pretty similar if not a bit less left-wing.

West of the 405, there is an area defined on the north by a railway line and on the south by Victory Boulevard (corresponding to the neighborhoods of Lake Balboa, Reseda, Winnetka and Canoga Park) which is now largely Hispanic (though still ethnically mixed, with a significant white and Asian population) and lower middle-class. With a few negligible exceptions, this area would be a PS stronghold.

Northridge is fairly interesting. The immediate area around the uni (CSU Northridge) would be liberal and strongly left-wing, with a strong Green vote, but in the rest of the neighborhood there are (white) pockets of affluence. Granada Hills, Chatsworth, Porter Ranch and West Hills are all pretty white (save for Porter Ranch which has a large Korean population) and very affluent. Basically forming a hilly ring around the poorer flats, these neighborhoods would be UMP-leaning swing vote places with a marked shift to the PS in recent years. The Greens would do fairly well too. Shadow Hills, north of Burbank, can be added to this list. But Woodland Hills, while still white and affluent, is more liberal because of the entertainment industry, and as such would be more left-leaning. Tarzana is similar, but the large Iranian population would make it more right-wing than Woodland Hills.

[greenforest32]

I've been reading without commenting. It's interesting. Basically:

MOAR

[Peeperkorn]

Tony, don't you think that today's GOP is more like the "new" FN?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tony, don't you think that today's GOP is more like the "new" FN?

Are you talking to me ? Nobody here calls me Tony.

Anyways no, despite 2/3rds of the GOP would easily be seen as far-right in France, it wouldn't share a lot in common with the FN, which is extremist in a very different way. First of all, the FN is economically statist. Which is not to say they're left-wing (even though their rhetoric has adopted some left-populist tones), but they are protectionist, support government's intervention to defend local businesses against foreign competition and pledge to protect welfare and public services. This would basically be a no-goer for almost everybody in the GOP. On for social issues, the FN isn't as insane as the religious right. While they claim to defend "tradition" and are generally conservative on most social issues, they don't focus on this aspect at all and recently try to appear as "modern" and "open-minded". Actually, the "new FN" now even claims to support laïcité (the secularity of the French State). Although this is just a pretext to bash da evul muzlimz who can't integrate our society, and there are tons of religious nuts left in. And to be fair with the GOP, I don't think even people like Brewer go as far as Le Pen when it comes to immigrant hatemongering.