What is the Political Geography of California?

[Mr. Smith]

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.

[Mr. Smith]

^ 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

[Mr. Smith]

^ 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.