Here is the first of a multi-part series on how the demographic changes in California’s counties had an impact on the counties and the state overall. I unfortunately couldn’t find any info on race or ethnicity from the Census Bureau before 2000, so I will just be sticking with population increase/decrease, showing how the population of each county changed, and their share of the state at each census.
For the first leg of our journey, we will stop by the San Francisco Bay Area, long a very influential area in California politics. In the first few decades of the 20th century, the Bay Area was the dominant political force in California, and also a bastion of progressive Republicanism. From 1900 to 1928, the Republican presidential candidate always won California in a landslide except 1912 (thanks to the progressive-conservative split in the GOP that resulted in a TR win) and 1916 (in which an unintended snub of Governor Hiram Johnson by Charles Evans Hughes probably cost him the state and the presidency). In the Depression and War years, these counties shifted Democratic, allowing FDR to win 4 times.
The counties moderated right after the war and in the Eisenhower years and started shifting leftward after that. For example, 1956 was the last presidential election in which the core counties of the Bay Area, San Francisco and Alameda (Oakland), voted Republican. The rest of the counties were mostly suburban and stayed Republican though they were trending Democratic also. And though the Bay Area was still a significant population center in the state and was trending Democratic, the rapid growth further south kept California a Republican-voting state from 1952 to 1988 save the LBJ landslide in 1964. The counties would continue their Democratic trend to the present day, though had the Southland not trended Democratic also, California would probably not be the strongly Democratic state it is today. It would be more Democratic than Republican, but far from in the bag for Democrats.
Alameda
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
344,177 |
39.8% |
10.04% |
R+9.6 |
| 1930 |
474,883 |
38.0% |
8.36% |
R+6.0 |
| 1940 |
513,011 |
8.0% |
7.43% |
D+1.4 |
| 1950 |
740,315 |
44.3% |
6.99% |
D+0.3 |
| 1960 |
908,209 |
22.7% |
5.78% |
D+4.7 |
| 1970 |
1,073,184 |
18.2% |
5.38% |
D+13.7 |
| 1980 |
1,105,379 |
3.0% |
4.67% |
D+10.3 |
| 1990 |
1,279,182 |
15.7% |
4.30% |
D+20.7 |
| 2000 |
1,443,741 |
12.9% |
4.26% |
D+21.6 |
| 2008* |
1,474,368 |
2.1% |
4.03% |
D+27.1 |
Contra Costa
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
53,889 |
70.1% |
1.57% |
R+4.2 |
| 1930 |
78,608 |
45.9% |
1.38% |
R+0.1 |
| 1940 |
100,450 |
27.8% |
1.45% |
D+9.0 |
| 1950 |
298,984 |
197.6% |
2.82% |
D+5.4 |
| 1960 |
409,030 |
36.8% |
2.60% |
D+4.8 |
| 1970 |
556,116 |
36.0% |
2.80% |
D+3.9 |
| 1980 |
656,331 |
18.0% |
2.77% |
R+1.8 |
| 1990 |
803,732 |
22.5% |
2.70% |
D+7.7 |
| 2000 |
948,816 |
18.1% |
2.80% |
D+8.8 |
| 2008* |
1,029,703 |
8.5% |
2.77% |
D+14.9 |
Marin
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
27,342 |
8.9% |
0.80% |
R+8.6 |
| 1930 |
41,648 |
52.3% |
0.73% |
D+0.9 |
| 1940 |
52,907 |
27.0% |
0.77% |
R+0.2 |
| 1950 |
85,619 |
61.8% |
0.81% |
R+12.3 |
| 1960 |
146,820 |
71.5% |
0.93% |
R+8.0 |
| 1970 |
208,652 |
42.1% |
1.05% |
R+2.8 |
| 1980 |
222,592 |
6.7% |
0.94% |
R+3.4 |
| 1990 |
230,096 |
3.4% |
0.77% |
D+15.8 |
| 2000 |
247,289 |
7.5% |
0.73% |
D+15.9 |
| 2008* |
248,794 |
0.6% |
0.68% |
D+25.6 |
Napa
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
20,678 |
4.4% |
0.60% |
R+9.6 |
| 1930 |
22,897 |
10.7% |
0.40% |
D+1.9 |
| 1940 |
28,503 |
24.5% |
0.41% |
R+1.5 |
| 1950 |
46,603 |
63.5% |
0.44% |
R+6.8 |
| 1960 |
65,890 |
41.4% |
0.42% |
R+0.7 |
| 1970 |
79,140 |
20.1% |
0.40% |
D+0.7 |
| 1980 |
99,199 |
25.3% |
0.42% |
R+5.3 |
| 1990 |
110,765 |
11.7% |
0.37% |
D+5.1 |
| 2000 |
124,279 |
12.2% |
0.37% |
D+5.6 |
| 2008* |
133,433 |
7.4% |
0.36% |
D+12.3 |
San Francisco
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
506,676 |
21.5% |
14.79% |
D+3.6 |
| 1930 |
634,394 |
25.2% |
11.17% |
D+8.6 |
| 1940 |
634,536 |
0.0% |
9.19% |
D+8.9 |
| 1950 |
775,357 |
22.2% |
7.32% |
D+0.4 |
| 1960 |
740,316 |
-4.5% |
4.71% |
D+7.0 |
| 1970 |
715,674 |
-3.3% |
3.59% |
D+16.6 |
| 1980 |
678,974 |
-5.1% |
2.87% |
D+11.4 |
| 1990 |
723,959 |
6.6% |
2.43% |
D+27.2 |
| 2000 |
776,733 |
7.3% |
2.29% |
D+29.8 |
| 2008* |
808,976 |
4.2% |
2.21% |
D+34.1 |
San Mateo
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
36,781 |
38.4% |
1.07% |
R+10.1 |
| 1930 |
77,405 |
110.4% |
1.36% |
R+0.6 |
| 1940 |
111,782 |
44.4% |
1.62% |
D+1.0 |
| 1950 |
235,659 |
110.8% |
2.23% |
R+9.8 |
| 1960 |
444,387 |
88.6% |
2.83% |
R+2.7 |
| 1970 |
557,361 |
25.4% |
2.79% |
D+4.5 |
| 1980 |
587,329 |
5.4% |
2.48% |
R+3.1 |
| 1990 |
649,623 |
10.6% |
2.18% |
D+11.7 |
| 2000 |
707,161 |
8.9% |
2.09% |
D+15.0 |
| 2008* |
712,690 |
0.8% |
1.95% |
D+21.4 |
Santa Clara
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
100,676 |
20.5% |
2.94% |
R+8.4 |
| 1930 |
145,118 |
44.1% |
2.56% |
R+6.9 |
| 1940 |
174,949 |
20.6% |
2.53% |
R+4.1 |
| 1950 |
290,547 |
66.1% |
2.74% |
R+6.4 |
| 1960 |
642,315 |
121.1% |
4.09% |
R+2.2 |
| 1970 |
1,065,313 |
65.9% |
5.34% |
D+5.2 |
| 1980 |
1,295,071 |
21.6% |
5.47% |
D+2.4 |
| 1990 |
1,497,577 |
15.6% |
5.03% |
D+8.0 |
| 2000 |
1,682,585 |
12.4% |
4.97% |
D+11.3 |
| 2008* |
1,764,499 |
4.9% |
4.82% |
D+16.7 |
Solano
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
40,602 |
47.3% |
1.18% |
D+1.6 |
| 1930 |
40,834 |
0.6% |
0.72% |
D+7.8 |
| 1940 |
49,118 |
20.3% |
0.71% |
D+16.3 |
| 1950 |
104,833 |
113.4% |
0.99% |
D+12.9 |
| 1960 |
134,597 |
28.4% |
0.86% |
D+12.5 |
| 1970 |
171,989 |
27.8% |
0.86% |
D+8.5 |
| 1980 |
235,203 |
36.8% |
0.99% |
D+1.8 |
| 1990 |
339,471 |
44.3% |
1.14% |
D+7.4 |
| 2000 |
394,542 |
16.2% |
1.16% |
D+7.8 |
| 2008* |
407,515 |
3.3% |
1.11% |
D+9.9 |
Sonoma
| Year |
Population |
Change |
% of state |
PVI |
| 1920 |
52,090 |
7.6% |
1.52% |
R+6.7 |
| 1930 |
62,222 |
19.5% |
1.10% |
D+1.3 |
| 1940 |
69,052 |
11.0% |
1.00% |
R+4.6 |
| 1950 |
103,405 |
49.7% |
0.98% |
R+10.9 |
| 1960 |
147,375 |
42.5% |
0.94% |
R+4.3 |
| 1970 |
204,885 |
39.0% |
1.03% |
D+1.1 |
| 1980 |
299,681 |
46.3% |
1.27% |
R+1.5 |
| 1990 |
388,222 |
29.5% |
1.30% |
D+13.3 |
| 2000 |
458,614 |
18.1% |
1.35% |
D+12.6 |
| 2008* |
466,741 |
1.8% |
1.28% |
D+20.7 |
When i read about “progressive Republicanism” as a political tradition of Bay Area counties one more name sprang to my mind: a long term Republican congressman from San Francisco (can anyone imagine that now??!!) Richard J. Welch. Democrats usually didn’t even ran a candidate against him, so his only opposition usually was a Socialist or Communist candidate. It all looks a fairy tale now)
To watch how in the 70’s, 80’s and even the 90’s a bit, the San Francisco Bay Area was growing very quickly but it has slowed down now.
You can see why Democrats had trouble winning California in the past, but once the Bay Area shifted, the wins started. 1992 was the biggest turning point, it really brought Democrats into the drivers seat. The State Senate and Assembly maintained a few moderate Republicans from around these counties, but that number is zero now and I think that’s not only because of increased Democratic strength, but because Republicans have stopped welcoming moderates in their ranks.