What is the Political Geography of California?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:06:07 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  What is the Political Geography of California?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: What is the Political Geography of California?  (Read 1956 times)
butcherry
Cody White
Newbie
*
Posts: 2
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 28, 2017, 06:19:36 PM »

Explain
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2017, 09:55:20 AM »

A. The North (Poor and populist)

B. The Bay Area (Every political stereotype of the state here, makes sense given the disproportionate number of people elected from here)

C. Central Valley (Like The North, but with greater racial polarization and more emphasis on agriculture)

D. Central Coast (More populist than The Bay or LA, very agriculture heavy [though not the extent of The Valley], but also very touristy thanks to Big Sur)

E. LA-SD (The second fiddle to the Bay with political power. Less environmentalist, arguably the topic here is immigration, but otherwise not too different from The Bay)

F. Inland Empire (Even more immigration heavy than LA, slightly to the right. Kinda ignorant to the nature of things down there)

This is just a rough sketch.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2017, 12:35:31 PM »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2017, 12:48:19 PM »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....

Lol....kinda true I guess.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2017, 04:31:12 PM »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....

In Soviet Russia, Opposition is driven out

In Bay Area, Opposition drives itself out
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2017, 01:42:25 AM »
« Edited: August 30, 2017, 03:15:06 AM by smoltchanov »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....

In Soviet Russia, Opposition is driven out

In Bay Area, Opposition drives itself out

No, i disageee politely. In Bay Area opposition is, essentially, driven out too. No one listens to you, no one respects you and your opinion, a lot - despise you openly. Who would like to live under such conditions and stress? Somewhat milder then in USSR, but not by lot... Political sorting at it's best...
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2017, 10:12:44 AM »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....

In Soviet Russia, Opposition is driven out

In Bay Area, Opposition drives itself out

No, i disageee politely. In Bay Area opposition is, essentially, driven out too. No one listens to you, no one respects you and your opinion, a lot - despise you openly. Who would like to live under such conditions and stress? Somewhat milder then in USSR, but not by lot... Political sorting at it's best...

Some places in say, rural Alabama are the same way for the other side.   If you don't think so go ask an Abortion provider in the area.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2017, 11:06:51 AM »

Bay Area has plenty of disagreements and political fights, it's just that their Overton window is way to the left of the U.S. as a whole. Plenty of people register disagreement with the Dems by voting third party or abstaining from elections.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2017, 12:43:28 PM »
« Edited: August 30, 2017, 12:54:50 PM by smoltchanov »

Bay Area has plenty of disagreements and political fights, it's just that their Overton window is way to the left of the U.S. as a whole. Plenty of people register disagreement with the Dems by voting third party or abstaining from elections.

For greens and socialists? In Bay Area these "third parties" are, usually, to the left of Democratic, and almost all "disagreements" are between solid left and "far left". The most moderate are "business Democrats" - solidly liberal on all social issues, but with some fiscal conservative streak. These, for all practical purposes, are "conservatives" of Bay Area... But no one in his sane mind will call them genuine conservatives.. Quarter century ago there was a real competition between liberal Democrats and relatively progressive (but with the above mentioned fiscal conservative streak) Republicans. Sometimes (people like state Senator Peter Behr) the Republicans were even more progressive. No more... As (from memory) Henry Ford has said: "you can buy any car, provided it's a black colored Ford". The same situation in general...  And if the only "reasonable choice" for political opponents is to abstain from election - sorry, it's not a democracy, but a mild form of dictatorship...
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2017, 01:25:00 PM »
« Edited: August 30, 2017, 01:28:21 PM by Virginia »

And if the only "reasonable choice" for political opponents is to abstain from election - sorry, it's not a democracy, but a mild form of dictatorship...

How do you propose forcing competition on an area? If everyone in that particular area agrees on a core set of issues, who are you to tell them that is bad? Is it their fault there is no other party that can appeal to those people? Our system fosters only 2 major parties, and the other is in some ways the polar opposite. That is just how things worked out. As for "mild dictatorship," that seems like hyperbole at best. No one is throwing out elections or ballots, or jailing local opposition politicians, or what have you. Just because it is one party rule doesn't mean it is a dictatorship.

If people want to change the balance of power there, perhaps it is time to redesign the way we conduct elections, moving to one of the plenty of better designs that exist that would foster more, better choices. Of course, even then, there is no guarantee that you end up with anything but "far left" and "left" choices there. If those beliefs are the overwhelmingly consensus there, then it is what it is.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2017, 02:04:35 PM »
« Edited: August 30, 2017, 02:07:02 PM by smoltchanov »

If people want to change the balance of power there, perhaps it is time to redesign the way we conduct elections, moving to one of the plenty of better designs that exist that would foster more, better choices. Of course, even then, there is no guarantee that you end up with anything but "far left" and "left" choices there. If those beliefs are the overwhelmingly consensus there, then it is what it is.

I always said that political polarization + "2-party system" will eventually lead this country to Balkanization, we already observe, which, in turn,  will threaten to break it apart (exactly what happened with Soviet Union or Yugoslavia). Wide areas of the country are "ruled" by one party - and it's bad, notwithstanding which one: Democratic in California's Bay Area or Republican in Northern part of Texas.. Two-party system was adequate for previous historic period, where both parties more or less subscribed under "broad tent" idea, where there were really conservative Democrats and really liberal Republicans who could successfully compete "on enemy's territory", and so on. Not now - where you can predict general political positions of 98% Democratic and Republican candidates knowing nothing about them, but letter after their names. And results of elections in 95% of congressional districts based on their geographic location and demographic composition. Right now polarization and political sorting led to a situation where there are, essentially, two Americas, hating each other to the utmost. This can't continue forever - either polarization will subside, or parlamentary multiparty system will be created. or - country will be torn apart. We will see, which variant prevails.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2017, 04:32:51 PM »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....

In Soviet Russia, Opposition is driven out

In Bay Area, Opposition drives itself out

No, i disageee politely. In Bay Area opposition is, essentially, driven out too. No one listens to you, no one respects you and your opinion, a lot - despise you openly. Who would like to live under such conditions and stress? Somewhat milder then in USSR, but not by lot... Political sorting at it's best...

Lol I live in the Bay Area. I don't find it particularly less tolerant than any other politically homogeneous region of the country. If you disagree from what most people believe, they're gonna dislike and be prejudice against you. That's true in essentially every polarized community. Now, the Bay Area is more ideologically diverse that it appears. We've got Bernie-types, actual communists, anarchists, moderate Democrats, conservatives and libertarians, even some Trump voters. We vote as a monolith, but when you dig down people are quite diverse. And don't forget, most people everywhere are actually not that political (almost half the country never votes, for example). But I'll grant that if you voted for Trump, 70% of the Bay Area immediately hates you.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2017, 01:36:04 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2017, 01:52:37 AM by smoltchanov »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....

In Soviet Russia, Opposition is driven out

In Bay Area, Opposition drives itself out

No, i disageee politely. In Bay Area opposition is, essentially, driven out too. No one listens to you, no one respects you and your opinion, a lot - despise you openly. Who would like to live under such conditions and stress? Somewhat milder then in USSR, but not by lot... Political sorting at it's best...

Lol I live in the Bay Area. I don't find it particularly less tolerant than any other politically homogeneous region of the country. If you disagree from what most people believe, they're gonna dislike and be prejudice against you. That's true in essentially every polarized community. Now, the Bay Area is more ideologically diverse that it appears. We've got Bernie-types, actual communists, anarchists, moderate Democrats, conservatives and libertarians, even some Trump voters. We vote as a monolith, but when you dig down people are quite diverse. And don't forget, most people everywhere are actually not that political (almost half the country never votes, for example). But I'll grant that if you voted for Trump, 70% of the Bay Area immediately hates you.

Well, i am absolutely anti-Trump (at least in 99% of cases). But, as late president Truman has said, "show me!" (though i am not from the state of Missouri). Where are Republican congressmen or state Senators from Bay Area? In fact, until Catherine Baker (very moderate Republican) managed her feat and won 16th Assembly district - there was zero in Assembly too. Now there is exactly ONE!. And this is in a part of state that gave (in the past) such moderate or openly liberal Republican officeholders as Welch, Behr, Filante, Marks, McCloskey, Boro and other. How many Republicans hold posts in San Francisco? AFAIK - zero, the only one nominal Republican, who was one of the BART directors, was defeated in 2014 despite being supported by almost all Democratic establishment - probably because of this "nominal Republicanism". How many republican officeholders are in San Mateo or Marin? I don't know a single one, and i trace politics of this region with all possible attention. Everything is done in one party. Exactly as it was in USSR, i already mentioned (after all, in CPSU there were their own "reformists", like Gorbachev, and their own hardliners). Essentially Republicans don't even have  chances to pretend on winning election now - 20-25% (at most - 30) is their ceiling in almost all races - from President to dogcatcher.... One-party rule is bad! Always, be it Republican in Texas or Oklahoma, or Democratic here. It's a sort of axiom for me, who has rich experience of living under such rule.

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2017, 08:21:29 AM »

Dictatorship in the Soviet Union meant police breaking down your door and sending you to a prison camp in Siberia for 10 years for rumors that you said something objectionable. Leftism in San Francisco means you get dirty looks if you were a MAGA cap in public and you don't have enough power to get elected officials who agree with you. Not really the same.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2017, 09:24:40 AM »

Dictatorship in the Soviet Union meant police breaking down your door and sending you to a prison camp in Siberia for 10 years for rumors that you said something objectionable. Leftism in San Francisco means you get dirty looks if you were a MAGA cap in public and you don't have enough power to get elected officials who agree with you. Not really the same.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 35 years since my birth. Who of us knows life there better?)))))
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2017, 10:24:27 AM »

Dictatorship in the Soviet Union meant police breaking down your door and sending you to a prison camp in Siberia for 10 years for rumors that you said something objectionable. Leftism in San Francisco means you get dirty looks if you were a MAGA cap in public and you don't have enough power to get elected officials who agree with you. Not really the same.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 35 years since my birth. Who of us knows life there better?)))))

I'm sure you know it very well, and the analogy is still very hard to sustain.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2017, 10:50:30 AM »

Dictatorship in the Soviet Union meant police breaking down your door and sending you to a prison camp in Siberia for 10 years for rumors that you said something objectionable. Leftism in San Francisco means you get dirty looks if you were a MAGA cap in public and you don't have enough power to get elected officials who agree with you. Not really the same.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 35 years since my birth. Who of us knows life there better?)))))

I'm sure you know it very well, and the analogy is still very hard to sustain.

Not so hard. Soviet Union (Brezhnev's, not Stalin's) is what strongly one-party areas like Bay Area (or Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma - you choose) may become in 20-25 years, if polarization will continue. Where only one point of view is respected and even tolerated... It's a warning about what must be avoided in any case...
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2017, 11:57:02 AM »

Dictatorship in the Soviet Union meant police breaking down your door and sending you to a prison camp in Siberia for 10 years for rumors that you said something objectionable. Leftism in San Francisco means you get dirty looks if you were a MAGA cap in public and you don't have enough power to get elected officials who agree with you. Not really the same.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 35 years since my birth. Who of us knows life there better?)))))

I'm sure you know it very well, and the analogy is still very hard to sustain.

Not so hard. Soviet Union (Brezhnev's, not Stalin's) is what strongly one-party areas like Bay Area (or Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma - you choose) may become in 20-25 years, if polarization will continue. Where only one point of view is respected and even tolerated... It's a warning about what must be avoided in any case...

So, what's the solution? Force people in the Bay Area to become more conservative? Force more conservatives to move to the bat area? Huh
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2017, 12:42:53 PM »

^ The Bay Area reminds me old Soviet Union in at least two aspects - both are (were) leftist and, essentially, one party....

In Soviet Russia, Opposition is driven out

In Bay Area, Opposition drives itself out

No, i disageee politely. In Bay Area opposition is, essentially, driven out too. No one listens to you, no one respects you and your opinion, a lot - despise you openly. Who would like to live under such conditions and stress? Somewhat milder then in USSR, but not by lot... Political sorting at it's best...

Uh no, there was plenty of bipartisan layout until The People's Park Butcher started to deny the use of trees.

And then said party and "moderates" such as yourself gave cred to the "trees are dangerous" guy.

And of course, the whole Prop. 187 nonsense did no favors either.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2017, 02:11:35 PM »

Dictatorship in the Soviet Union meant police breaking down your door and sending you to a prison camp in Siberia for 10 years for rumors that you said something objectionable. Leftism in San Francisco means you get dirty looks if you were a MAGA cap in public and you don't have enough power to get elected officials who agree with you. Not really the same.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 35 years since my birth. Who of us knows life there better?)))))

I'm sure you know it very well, and the analogy is still very hard to sustain.

Not so hard. Soviet Union (Brezhnev's, not Stalin's) is what strongly one-party areas like Bay Area (or Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma - you choose) may become in 20-25 years, if polarization will continue. Where only one point of view is respected and even tolerated... It's a warning about what must be avoided in any case...

So, what's the solution? Force people in the Bay Area to become more conservative? Force more conservatives to move to the bat area? Huh

Try to learn to respect the views, which are opposite of yours. As French philosophers of 18th century have said "i may hate your views, but i am ready to give my life for your right to express it". I never saw so much "dirt", and direct hatred in electoral campaigns of 1970-80th, when i began to study American politics, as i see now. It was normal then for a candidates to have dinner together after election day, and now, if one would believe everything one candidate says about another the second would be minimum serial killer (and in many cases - more than that). The simple phrase "my opponent is a good honorable man, but we disagree on .... (this and that)" is a BIG rarity in present day campaigns. No understanding that your opponent may be right on something, while you are not. And so on... If people will relearn mutual respect i mentioned above, and decrease the overwhelming level of polarization we have now - then my "apocalyptic scenario" may never happen. Otherwise - not so sure.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2017, 06:48:54 AM »

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...
An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.

Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2017, 10:31:48 AM »

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...
An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.



I misread "San Benito" as "San Bernardino", and was very confused for a moment. Tongue
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2017, 11:17:54 AM »

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...
An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.



In such case "California" and "Northern California" will surely be Democratic, "Southern California" - probably swing...
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2017, 01:33:07 PM »

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...
An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.



In such case "California" and "Northern California" will surely be Democratic, "Southern California" - probably swing...

"California" -- six counties, 2010 population 11,805,781; voted for Clinton 69% to 25% for Trump.
"Northern California" -- 40 counties, 2010 population 12,392,396; voted for Clinton 65% to 28% for Trump.
"Southern California" -- 12 counties; 2010 population 13,055,779; voted for Clinton 51.57% to 41.86% for Trump.

It's not at all clear how the current 53 seats in the House would be divided up.
Logged
Starpaul20
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 284
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.68, S: -5.22

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2017, 03:07:37 PM »

It's not at all clear how the current 53 seats in the House would be divided up.

Based on some quick calculations I just made, "California" would have 17 seats, "Northern California" and "Southern California" would both have 18 seats. All other states are unaffected.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.