My Predictions for 2010

At long last, I have finished making predictions, this time mixing my “gut feeling” predictions from earlier with the formula prediction methods I had used since 2006. I found the dearth of House polls very annoying, so many of my House predictions could be way off. We shall see in 12 or so hours.

GOVERNOR

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Alabama: Bentley by 15.33%

Alaska: Parnell by 15.67%

Arizona: Brewer by 15%

Arkansas: Beebe by 25.67%

California: Brown by 14.33%

Colorado: Hickenlooper by 3.67%

Connecticut: Malloy by 5.67%

Florida: Sink by 1.67%

Georgia: Deal by 7.67%

Hawaii: Abercrombie by 5%

Idaho: Otter by 22%

Illinois: Brady by 4.67%

Iowa: Branstad by 10.5%

Kansas: Brownback by 27%

Maine: LePage by 11.33%

Maryland: O’Malley by 12.67%

Massachusetts: Patrick by 2.67%

Michigan: Snyder by 16.67%

Minnesota: Dayton by 1.33%

Nebraska: Heineman by 42%

Nevada: Sandoval by 15.67%

New Hampshire: Lynch by 8.33%

New Mexico: Martinez by 8.33%

New York: Cuomo by 22%

Ohio: Strickland by 1%

Oklahoma: Fallin by 18.5%

Oregon: Kitzhaber by 1.67%

Pennsylvania: Corbett by 9%

Rhode Island: Chafee by 8%

South Carolina: Haley by 8.33%

South Dakota: Daugaard by 13.67%

Tennessee: Haslam by 28%

Texas: Perry by 1%

Utah: Herbert by 25.33%

Vermont: Shumlin by 2%

Wisconsin: Walker by 8.67%

Wyoming: Mead by 36%

OVERALL: Republicans gain a net of 5 for the majority of governorships, 27-22-1

SENATE

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Alabama: Shelby by 28%

Alaska: McAdams by 0.67% (Miller in 2nd; Murkowski in 3rd)

Arizona: McCain by 23%

Arkansas: Boozman by 19.67%

California: Boxer by 6.67%

Colorado: Buck by 1%

Connecticut: Blumenthal by 8%

Delaware: Coons by 14%

Florida: Rubio by 16%

Georgia: Isakson by 25.67%

Hawaii: Inouye by 24.5%

Idaho: Crapo by 44%

Illinois: Kirk by 4.33%

Indiana: Coats by 10.33%

Iowa: Grassley by 31%

Kansas: Moran by 40%

Kentucky: Paul by 3.18%

Louisiana: Vitter by 5.87%

Maryland: Mikulski by 26.67%

Missouri: Robin Carnahan by 0.67%

Nevada: Reid by 0.67%

New Hampshire: Ayotte by 15%

New York A: Schumer by 28.67%

New York B: Gillibrand by 18.33%

North Carolina: Burr by 12.33%

North Dakota: Hoeven by 47%

Ohio: Portman by 9.83%

Oklahoma: Coburn by 40%

Oregon: Wyden by 15.33%

Pennsylvania: Toomey by 4.67%

South Carolina: DeMint by 42% (The Green candidate may get more votes than the Greene candidate.)

South Dakota: Thune by 70-90%

Utah: Lee by 25.33%

Vermont: Leahy by 35%

Washington: Murray by 1.88%

West Virginia: Manchin by 1.33%

Wisconsin: Johnson by 7.67%

OVERALL: Republicans gain a net of 5, but Democrats retain control 54-46

HOUSE

Light Blue = D+1; Light Red = R+1; Red = R+2; Medium-Dark Red = R+3; Dark Red = R+4; Very Dark Red = R+5

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

AL-02: Bright by 3.75%

AZ-01: Gosar by 4% (R pickup)

AZ-03: Hulburd by 1.17% (D pickup)

AZ-05: Schweikert by 0.67% (R pickup)

AZ-07: Grijalva by 4.08%

AZ-08: Giffords by 6.12%

AR-01: Crawford by 5.56% (R pickup)

AR-02: Griffin by 11% (R pickup)

CA-03: Lungren by 3.75%

CA-11: McNerney by 2.75%

CA-18: Cardoza by 10.75%

CA-20: Costa by 2.87%

CA-44: Calvert by 13.17%

CA-45: Bono Mack by 15%

CA-47: Sanchez by 8.25%

CO-03: Salazar by 1.25%

CO-04: Gardner by 3.58% (R pickup)

CT-04: Himes by 2.42%

CT-05: Murphy by 4.17%

DE-AL: Carney by 9.83% (D pickup)

FL-02: Southerland by 9.25% (R pickup)

FL-08: Webster by 3.25% (R pickup)

FL-22: Klein by 0.94%

FL-24: Adams by 6.25% (R pickup)

FL-25: Rivera by 3%

GA-02: Bishop by 2.67%

GA-08: Scott by 12.5% (R pickup)

HI-01: Hanabusa by 2.17% (D pickup)

ID-01: Minnick by 2.42%

IL-10: Seals by 7.6% (D pickup)

IL-11: Kinzinger by 5.13% (R pickup)

IL-14: Hultgren by 0.31% (R pickup)

IL-17: Schilling by 2.63% (R pickup)

IN-02: Donnelly by 4.38%

IN-08: Buschon by 8.75% (R pickup)

IN-09: Hill by 0.52%

IA-01: Braley by 10%

IA-02: Loebsack by 8.75%

IA-03: Boswell by 8.07%

KS-03: Yoder by 10% (R pickup)

KY-03: Yarmuth by 10.5%

KY-06: Chandler by 3.69%

LA-02: Richmond by 11.83% (D pickup)

LA-03: Landry by 12.25% (R pickup)

ME-01: Pingree by 12.42%

MD-01: Harris by 4.92% (R pickup)

MA-10: Keating by 2.63%

MI-01: Benishek by 2.71% (R pickup)

MI-07: Schauer by 0.44%

MI-09: Peters by 3.88%

MN-01: Walz by 10.42%

MN-08: Oberstar by 4.88%

MS-01: Childers by 0.88%

MS-04: Taylor by 2.69%

MO-03: Russ Carnahan by 5.63%

NV-03: Titus by 0.33%

NH-01: Guinta by 10.25% (R pickup)

NH-02: Bass by 0.08% (R pickup)

NJ-03: Runyan by 1.13% (R pickup)

NM-01: Barela by 0.63% (R pickup)

NM-02: Pearce by 4.83% (R pickup)

NY-01: Bishop by 7.56%

NY-13: McMahon by 7.5%

NY-19: Hayworth by 1.02% (R pickup)

NY-20: Gibson by 3.46% (R pickup)

NY-23: Owens by 0.88%

NY-24: Arcuri by 3.31%

NY-25: Maffei by 6.58%

NY-29: Zeller by 12.5% (R pickup)

NC-02: Etheridge by 2.5%

NC-07: McIntyre by 3.75%

NC-08: Kissell by 2.38%

NC-11: Shuler by 11.88%

ND-AL: Berg by 4.97% (R pickup)

OH-01: Chabot by 6.25% (R pickup)

OH-06: Wilson by 2.06%

OH-13: Sutton by 10%

OH-15: Stivers by 6.25% (R pickup)

OH-16: Renacci by 0.63% (R pickup)

OH-18: Gibbs by 1.88% (R pickup)

OR-05: Schrader by 2.75%

PA-03: Kelly by 6.25% (R pickup)

PA-04: Altmire by 12.58%

PA-07: Meehan by 3.83% (R pickup)

PA-08: Fitzpatrick by 4.53% (R pickup)

PA-10: Marino by 4.57% (R pickup)

PA-11: Barletta by 2.13% (R pickup)

PA-12: Critz by 5.38%

PA-15: Dent by 11.63%

RI-01: Cicilline by 4.94%

SC-05: Mulvaney by 4.75% (R pickup)

SD-AL: Noem by 0.31% (R pickup)

TN-04: DesJarlais by 1% (R pickup)

TN-06: Black by 12.5% (R pickup)

TN-08: Fincher by 9.5% (R pickup)

TX-17: Edwards by 1.72%

TX-23: Rodriguez by 2.15%

TX-27: Ortiz by 2.88%

VA-02: Rigell by 3.04% (R pickup)

VA-05: Hurt by 5.28% (R pickup)

VA-09: Boucher by 4.5%

WA-02: Larsen by 5.75%

WA-03: Herrera by 3.56% (R pickup)

WA-08: Reichert by 5.38%

WV-01: McKinley by 2.25% (R pickup)

WI-03: Kind by 8.75%

WI-07: Duffy by 7.21% (R pickup)

WI-08: Ribble by 5.46% (R pickup)

OVERALL: Republicans gain a net of 42 for control 220-215

California Race Chart 2010 (Part 3 of 3: State Legislature)

Here is Part 3, the last part of my analysis of this fall’s elections in California, which will cover the state legislative races.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos, Calitics, and Democracy for California.

STATE SENATE (District size: ~846,791) (Composition: 25 Democrats, 15 Republicans)

Districts to watch:

SD-12 (Part of Central Valley and inland Central Coast): Ceres Mayor Anthony Cannella (R) vs. St. Asm. Anna Caballero (D) – vacated by Jeff Denham (R)

Registration: 50.2% DEM, 31.1% GOP, 14.9% DTS, 3.8% Other

Profile: In spite of the hefty registration advantage, Denham managed to win twice in this district because many Democrats here are more conservative than most California Democrats. Nonetheless, this is still the best (and only) opportunity for a Democratic pickup in the State Senate for the first time in a decade. Caballero also got more votes than Cannella in the primary (neither had primary challengers), even though Republican turnout was higher due to competitive statewide office primaries on that side and few on the Democratic side. If Caballero could get more votes even in spite of lower Democratic turnout (though I’m not sure what the numbers in the 12th were), then she probably will be able to do so again in the general, with higher Democratic turnout.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Toss-up/tilt Caballero (Dem pickup)

SD-34 (Central Orange County): Lou Correa (D) vs. Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring (R)

Registration: 44.5% DEM, 32.4% GOP, 19.3% DTS, 3.8% Other

Profile: This was a close call in 2006, with Correa hanging on by just about a thousand or so votes. The registration gap was also much smaller, with Democrats having only a 39%-37% edge, and for those that may remember, turnout in 2006 was depressed due to bitterness in the governor’s race. Now, though, with a 12-point Dem registration advantage and turnout likely to improve over 2006, Correa’s prospects for a second term look brighter.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Likely Correa

Safe:

SD-01 (Sierras): Special election to replace the deceased Dave Cox (R)

SD-02 (North Coast): Noreen Evans (D) – vacated by Pat Wiggins (D)

SD-04 (Sacramento Valley and Del Norte County): Doug LaMalfa (R) – vacated by Sam Aanestad (R)

SD-06 (Sacramento): Darrell Steinberg (D)

SD-08 (San Mateo, western part of San Francisco): Leland Yee (D)

SD-10 (Southern Alameda County, northern Santa Clara County): Ellen Corbett (D)

SD-14 (San Joaquin, Yosemite, eastern Fresno): Tom Berryhill (R) – vacated by Dave Cogdill (R)

SD-16 (Central Valley including parts of Fresno and Bakersfield): Michael Rubio (D) – vacated by Dean Florez (D)

SD-18 (Bakersfield, Tulare, Big Empty): Jean Fuller (R) – vacated by Roy Ashburn (R)

SD-20 (San Fernando): Alex Padilla (D)

SD-22 (South Pasadena, part of L.A.): Kevin de León (D) – vacated by Gil Cedillo (D)

SD-24 (Covina, Baldwin Park, part of L.A.): Ed Hernandez (D) – vacated by Gloria Romero (D)

SD-26 (Culver City): Curren Price (D)

SD-28 (Beach Cities): Vacant (Jenny Oropeza (D) died October 20, 2010. If she “wins”, a special will be held)

SD-30 (Eastern L.A. suburbs): Ron Calderon (D)

SD-32 (Pomona, San Bernardino): Gloria Negrete-McLeod (D)

SD-36 (Eastern San Diego County): Joel Anderson (R) – vacated by Dennis Hollingsworth (R)

SD-38 (San Juan Capistrano, Oceanside, Carlsbad): Mark Wyland (R)

SD-40 (Imperial County, southeastern Riverside and San Diego Counties): Juan Vargas (D) – vacated by Denise Ducheny (D)

STATE ASSEMBLY (District size: ~423,388) (Composition: 50 Democrats, 29 Republicans, 1 Independent)

Districts to watch:

AD-05 (Northern Sacramento suburbs): Businessman Andy Pugno (R) vs. Dr. Richard Pan (D), Elizabeth Martin (PF) – vacated by Roger Niello (R)

Registration: 40.1% GOP, 37.7% DEM, 17.9% DTS, 4.3% Other

Profile: In this evenly-divided district just outside Sacramento, we have a very formidable candidate in Pan against Prop. 8 author Pugno. This district overlaps the 3rd congressional district and will likely see a lot of activity.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up

AD-10 (Eastern Sacramento suburbs): Alyson Huber (D) vs. businessman Jack Sieglock (R), Janice Bonser (L), Albert Troyer (PF)

Registration: 40.9% DEM, 39.1% GOP, 16.1% DTS, 4.0% Other

Profile: In another evenly-divided Sacto-area seat that also happens to partly overlap CA-03, we have another exciting race, where in 2008 Huber won by under 500 votes and was declared the winner after her opponent went to the capital for orientation. He is back for a second round, and while Huber doesn’t have coattails working in her favor, she does have incumbency (no incumbent in the state legislature has lost reelection in a decade) and a Democratic trend in registration on her side.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up/tilt Huber

AD-15 (Inner East Bay): Joan Buchanan (D) vs. San Ramon Mayor Abram Wilson (R)

Registration: 41.5% DEM, 35.3% GOP, 19.3% DTS, 3.9% Other

Profile: This district includes parts of San Joaquin County and conservative parts of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, much of which overlaps the hotly-contested CA-11 race. Buchanan ran in the CA-10 special election last year, so that may be a liability for her, but she is still favored to win because of an increasing Dem advantage in registration, incumbency, and the fact that rematches rarely succeed for the challenger.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Tilt/Lean Buchanan

AD-30 (Southern San Joaquin Valley): Farmer David Valadao (R) vs. businesswoman Fran Florez (D) – vacated by Danny Gilmore (R)

Registration: 45.7% DEM, 36.1% GOP, 14.3% DTS, 3.9% Other

Profile: This was the only legislative gain for the GOP in 2008 because the outgoing Democrat Nicole Parra endorsed Gilmore. This time Gilmore is not running, while Florez is again, having defeated Nicole Parra’s father Pete in the primary. Parra endorsed Valadao, plus a poll has shown him with a double-digit lead, so I’ll leave it as a retention for Team Red.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Lean Valadao

AD-33 (Part of southern Central Coast): SLO County Sup. Katcho Achadjian (R) vs. Santa Maria Mayor Pro Tem Hilda Zacarias and Paul Polson (L) – Vacant; Sam Blakeslee (R) was elected to the State Senate

Registration: 40.6% GOP, 35.4% DEM, 18.4% DTS, 5.6% Other

Profile: In this open seat on the Central Coast, we have another formidable Democratic challenger. The registration gap does make things a little challenging for us here, but from what I heard Hilda has had a strong ground campaign.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Lean Achadjian

AD-36 (Lancaster, Palmdale): Steve Knight (R) vs. school board member Linda Jones (D)

Registration: 39.1% GOP, 38.6% DEM, 17.0% DTS, 5.2% Other

Profile: This race was closer than expected in 2008 due to presidential coattails and many minorities moving into the Antelope Valley area. This time around, though, the lack of coattails and incumbency will make this race less competitive than last time.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Knight

AD-68 (Garden Grove, Costa Mesa): (D) – Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor (R) vs. entrepreneur Phu Nguyen – vacated by Van Tran (R)

Registration: 41.0% GOP, 32.4% DEM, 22.0% DTS, 4.6% Other

Profile: Here is another strong candidate we have in Nguyen, who has the backing of public safety unions (even though Mansoor is a former deputy) and has led in campaign spending and cash-on-hand. While this is a very traditionally Republican area that has long been a tough nut for Democrats to crack, look for this to be the closest a Democrat has come to winning in this area in a long time if Nguyen can rally the Vietnamese and Hispanic communities in the district.

10/27/2010 Outlook: Lean Mansoor

AD-70 (Irvine, Laguna Beach): CC Trustee Don Wagner (R) vs. attorney Melissa Fox (D) and Deborah Tharp (L) – vacated by Chuck DeVore (R)

Registration: 43.0% GOP, 29.8% DEM, 23.2% DTS, 4.0% Other

Profile: In another OC district, Democrat Fox is mounting a strong, serious challenge, and Democrats are becoming more competitive here because of the bluing of Irvine (going from Bush by 8 in 2000 to Bush by 5 in 2004 to Obama by 16 in 2008).

10/27/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Wagner

Safe:

AD-01 (North Coast): Wesley Chesbro (D)

AD-02 (Sacramento Valley): Jim Nielsen (R)

AD-03 (Northeast): Dan Logue (R)

AD-04 (Tahoe): Ted Gaines (R)

AD-06 (North Bay): Jared Huffman (D)

AD-07 (Napa Valley): Michael Allen (D) – vacated by Noreen Evans (D)

AD-08 (Sacramento River Delta): Mariko Yamada (D)

AD-09 (Sacramento): Roger Dickinson (D) – vacated by Dave Jones (D)

AD-11 (Northern Contra Costa County): Susan Bonilla (D) – vacated by Tom Torlakson (D)

AD-12 (Western San Francisco): Fiona Ma (D)

AD-13 (Eastern San Francisco): Tom Ammiano (D)

AD-14 (Berkeley, Richmond): Nancy Skinner (D)

AD-16 (Oakland): Sandré Swanson (D)

AD-17 (Stockton, Merced): Cathleen Galgiani (D)

AD-18 (Eastern Oakland suburbs): Mary Hayashi (D)

AD-19 (Most of San Mateo County): Jerry Hill (D)

AD-20 (Southern East Bay): Bob Wieckowski (D) – vacated by Alberto Torrico (D)

AD-21 (Silicon Valley): Rich Gordon (D) – vacated by Ira Ruskin (D)

AD-22 (Western San Jose): Paul Fong (D)

AD-23 (Downtown San Jose): Nora Campos (D) – vacated by Joe Coto (D)

AD-24 (Southern San Jose): Jim Beall (D)

AD-25 (Mother Lode, Yosemite): Kristin Olsen (R) (unopposed) – vacated by Tom Berryhill (R)

AD-26 (Stockton, Modesto): Bill Berryhill (R)

AD-27 (Northern Central Coast): Bill Monning (D)

AD-28 (Inner Central Coast region): Luis Alejo (D) – vacated by Anna Caballero (D)

AD-29 (Eastern Fresno): Linda Halderman (R) – vacated by Michael Villines (R)

AD-31 (Western Fresno): Henry Perea (D) – vacated by Juan Arambula (I)

AD-32 (Bakersfield): Shannon Grove (R) – vacated by Jean Fuller (R)

AD-34 (Big Empty): Connie Conway (R)

AD-35 (Santa Barbara, Oxnard): Das Williams (D) – vacated by Pedro Nava (D)

AD-37 (Most of Ventura, small part of L.A.): Jeff Gorell (R) – vacated by Audra Strickland (R)

AD-38 (Santa Clarita): Cameron Smyth (R)

AD-39 (San Fernando): Felipe Fuentes (D)

AD-40 (San Fernando Valley, including Van Nuys): Bob Blumenfield (D)

AD-41 (Oxnard, Malibu, Santa Monica): Julia Brownley (D)

AD-42 (Beverly Hills, West Hollywood): Mike Feuer (D)

AD-43 (Burbank, Glendale): Mike Gatto (D)

AD-44 (Pasadena): Anthony Portantino (D)

AD-45 (East L.A.): Gil Cedillo (D) – vacated by Kevin de León (D)

AD-46 (East L.A., Huntington Park): John Pérez (D)

AD-47 (Culver City): Holly Mitchell (D) – vacated by Karen Bass (D)

AD-48 (Part of South Central L.A.): Mike Davis (D)

AD-49 (Inner Northeastern suburbs of L.A.): Mike Eng (D)

AD-50 (Bellflower): Ricardo Lara (D) – vacated by Hector De La Torre (D)

AD-51 (Inglewood, Hawthorne): Steven Bradford (D)

AD-52 (Compton): Isadore Hall (D)

AD-53 (Beach Cities): Betsy Butler (D) – vacated by Ted Lieu (D)

AD-54 (Palos Verdes, Long Beach, Avalon): Bonnie Lowenthal (D)

AD-55 (Carson, Long Beach): Warren Furutani (D)

AD-56 (Norwalk, Buena Park): Tony Mendoza (D)

AD-57 (Covina, Baldwin Park): Roger Hernandez (D) – vacated by Ed Hernandez (D)

AD-58 (Inner Eastern suburbs of L.A.): Charles Calderon (D)

AD-59 (Parts of L.A. and San Bernardino Counties): Tim Donnelly (R) – vacated by Anthony Adams (R)

AD-60 (Western Inland Empire): Curt Hagman (R)

AD-61 (Pomona, Ontario): Norma Torres (D)

AD-62 (San Bernardino, Fontana): Wilmer Carter (D)

AD-63 (Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands): Mike Morrell – Vacant; Bill Emmerson (R) was elected to the State Senate

AD-64 (Riverside, Palm Desert): Brian Nestande (R)

AD-65 (Yucca Valley, Big Bear): Paul Cook (R)

AD-66 (Temecula, Riverside): Kevin Jeffries (R)

AD-67 (Huntington Beach): Jim Silva (R)

AD-69 (Anaheim, Santa Ana): Jose Solorio (D)

AD-71 (Corona, part of inland Orange County): Jeff Miller (R)

AD-72 (Inland Northern Orange County): Chris Norby (R)

AD-73 (San Clemente, Oceanside): Diane Harkey (R)

AD-74 (Coastal Northern San Diego suburbs): Martin Garrick (R)

AD-75 (Inner Northern San Diego suburbs): Nathan Fletcher (R)

AD-76 (Northern San Diego City): Toni Atkins (D) – vacated by Lori Saldaña (D)

AD-77 (Most of inland San Diego County): Brian Jones (R) – vacated by Joel Anderson (R)

AD-78 (Chula Vista, Lemon Grove): Marty Block (D)

AD-79 (Southern San Diego City, Imperial Beach): Ben Hueso (D) – vacated by Mary Salas (D)

AD-80 (Imperial County, eastern Riverside County): Manuel Perez

California Race Chart 2010 (Part 2 of 3: Congressional Races)

Here is Part 2 of my analysis of this fall’s elections in California, which will cover the Congressional races. Part 3 will cover the state legislature.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos, Calitics, and Democracy for California.

Incumbents are in boldface. In the case of open seats, the party of the retiring incumbent is listed without boldface.

D: Democratic

R: Republican

L: Libertarian

G: Green

AI: American Independent

PF: Peace and Freedom

SW: Socialist Workers

I: Independent

Senator: Barbara Boxer (D) vs. ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R), Duane Roberts (G), Gail Lightfoot (L), Edward Noonan (AI), Marsha Feinland (PF), James Harris (SW-W/I)

Even after Arnold decided against running, and long before “Coakley” became a verb, I expected Boxer to be in a tough fight in 2010. Fortunately, she is no slacker and knows how to run a tough campaign, hitting her opponent where it hurts (in this case, on attacking Fiorina’s praise of outsourcing and using former HP employees). She is polarizing, but fortunately the Democratic base in California is big enough for her to win even if she loses independent voters by single to low-double digits.

Outlook: Lean Boxer

U.S. HOUSE (Composition: 34 Democrats, 19 Republicans)

CA-03 (Sacramento suburbs): Dan Lungren (R) vs. Dr. Ami Bera (D), Art Tuma (L), Lerry Leidecker (AI), Mike Roskey (PF)

Registration: 40.31% GOP, 37.55% DEM, 17.72% DTS, 4.42% other

Profile: This is one of the Democrats’ best chances of picking off a GOP-held seat in the House. This suburban Sacramento seat was strongly Republican early in the decade before rapidly swinging left to become an Obama-voting district in 2008, also nearly catching Lungren off-guard. Bera has outraised Lungren every quarter this cycle, and don’t be surprised to see this as one of the closest races in a GOP-held seat.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Toss-up/tilt Lungren

CA-11 (San Joaquin County and parts of East Bay): Jerry McNerney (D) vs. attorney David Harmer (R), David Christensen (AI)

Registration: 39.45% DEM, 39.00% GOP, 17.54% DTS, 4.01% Other

Profile: This was expected since the end of the last cycle to be another challenging race for McNerney, especially after Harmer won the primary. Harmer, as you may remember, made the 2009 special in the more Democratic CA-10 a 10-point race against Garamendi. Fortunately for Harmer, the 11th is much less Democratic and he now has more name recognition. Unfortunately for Harmer, the race in CA-11 will be in a general election rather than an off-year special, so turnout is guaranteed to be higher. Also, the trends in registration are more in McNerney’s favor, flipping to a Dem advantage in registration for the first time, mirroring the trend to the Dems statewide in registration.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean McNerney

CA-18 (Upper Central Valley): Dennis Cardoza (D) vs. agribusinessman Mike Berryhill (R)

CA-20 (Fresno, part of Bakersfield): Jim Costa (D) vs. farmer Andy Vidak (R)

CA-18 Registration: 49.85% DEM, 31.81% GOP, 14.32% DTS, 4.02% Other

CA-20 Registration: 51.45% DEM, 31.02% GOP, 12.64% DTS, 4.89% Other

Profile: Not on anybody’s radar screens until about a month ago, the Central Valley is now the source of two more competitive races, with water a hot issue here and the Republicans harping the issue nonstop. The 18th is less Democratic than the 20th, owing to the lack of a major urban center, having gone for Bush narrowly in 2004, but Cardoza is taking his tougher-than-expected reelection more seriously, so I expect Costa to have a slightly tougher reelection than Cardoza.

CA-18 10/23/2010 Outlook: Likely Cardoza

CA-20 10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Costa

CA-44 (Riverside, Corona, San Clemente): Ken Calvert (R) vs. educator Bill Hedrick (D)

Registration: 43.11% GOP, 33.87% DEM, 18.38% DTS, 4.64% Other

Profile: One of the out-of-nowhere near-upsets of 2008, Hedrick is back for a rematch. Calvert is trying to avoid being caught asleep at the wheel again, and Hedrick is surprisingly lacking in the money department despite coming very close last time, so I don’t like his chances this time.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Calvert

CA-45 (Most of Riverside County): Mary Bono Mack (R) vs. Palm Springs mayor Steve Pougnet (D), Bill Lussenheide (AI)

Registration: 41.29% GOP, 38.31% DEM, 16.17% DTS, 4.23% Other

Profile: Democrats got a top-tier recruit here in the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs. Bono Mack has taken heat for her vote against repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, even though her district has the highest proportion of gays of any Republican-held district, and Lussenheide is challenging her from the right, on some of her “insufficiently conservative” votes such as cap-and-trade. I expect Pougnet to perform better than Bornstein last time, though still come up short.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Likely Bono Mack

CA-47 (Anaheim, Santa Ana): Loretta Sanchez (D) vs. Assemblyman Van Tran (R), Ceci Iglesias (I), Gary Schank (I)

Registration: 46.90% DEM, 30.90% GOP, 18.67% DTS, 3.53% Other

Profile: Like the Central Valley Dem districts, the Orange County Dem district, which also voted for Bush like CA-18, is now a hot race after being off most radar screens until about a month ago. Sanchez didn’t help herself by the gaffe “The Vietnamese are after my seat”, which I thought was really boneheaded, considering all that she had done for them in the past. I still expect Sanchez to win, though by less than against Tan Nguyen from 2006.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Sanchez

CA-48 (Central Orange County, including Irvine): John Campbell (R) vs. Irvine Councilwoman Beth Krom (D), Mike Binkley (L)

Registration: 44.41% GOP, 28.99% DEM, 22.45% DTS, 4.15% Other

Profile: Once expected to be a top-tier race, this district fell off the radar screen as the touted former mayor of Irvine Beth Krom has lagged on the money front.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Likely Campbell

Safe:

CA-01 (North Coast): Mike Thompson (D)

CA-02 (Northern Sacramento Valley): Wally Herger (R)

CA-04 (Northeast, including Tahoe): Tom McClintock (R)

CA-05 (Sacramento): Doris Matsui (D)

CA-06 (Northern SF Bay): Lynn Woolsey (D)

CA-07 (Northeast SF Bay): George Miller (D)

CA-08 (San Francisco): Nancy Pelosi (D)

CA-09 (Berkeley, Oakland): Barbara Lee (D)

CA-10 (Inner East SF Bay): John Garamendi (D)

CA-12 (Lower SF Peninsula): Jackie Speier (D)

CA-13 (Southern East Bay): Pete Stark (D)

CA-14 (Silicon Valley): Anna Eshoo (D)

CA-15 (Santa Clara, Cupertino): Mike Honda (D)

CA-16 (San Jose): Zoe Lofgren (D)

CA-17 (Northern Central Coast): Sam Farr (D)

CA-19 (Yosemite, part of Fresno): Jeff Denham (R) – vacated by George Radanovich (R)

CA-21 (Tulare): Devin Nunes (R)

CA-22 (Bakersfield): Kevin McCarthy (R)

CA-23 (Southern Central Coast): Lois Capps (D)

CA-24 (Inner Santa Barbara/Ventura): Elton Gallegly (R)

CA-25 (Palmdale, Big Empty): Buck McKeon (R)

CA-26 (Northeastern L.A. suburbs): David Dreier (R)

CA-27 (Western San Fernando Valley): Brad Sherman (D)

CA-28 (Eastern San Fernando Valley): Howard Berman (D)

CA-29 (Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena): Adam Schiff (D)

CA-30 (Malibu, Beverly Hills): Henry Waxman (D)

CA-31 (Hollywood): Xavier Becerra (D)

CA-32 (Covina, Baldwin Park): Judy Chu (D)

CA-33 (Culver City): Karen Bass (D) – vacated by Diane Watson (D)

CA-34 (Downtown L.A.): Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)

CA-35 (South Central): Maxine Waters (D)

CA-36 (Beach Cities): Jane Harman (D)

CA-37 (South Central, Long Beach): Laura Richardson (D)

CA-38 (Southeastern L.A. suburbs): Grace Napolitano (D)

CA-39 (Southeastern L.A. County): Linda Sánchez (D)

CA-40 (Northern Orange County): Ed Royce (R)

CA-41 (Most of San Bernardino County): Jerry Lewis (R)

CA-42 (Chino, Brea): Gary Miller (R)

CA-43 (Ontario, San Bernardino): Joe Baca (D)

CA-46 (Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Palos Verdes): Dana Rohrabacher (R)

CA-49 (Temecula, Oceanside): Darrell Issa (R)

CA-50 (Northern San Diego suburbs): Brian Bilbray (R)

CA-51 (Imperial County, southern SD suburbs): Bob Filner (D)

CA-52 (Eastern San Diego suburbs): Duncan D. Hunter (R)

CA-53 (San Diego): Susan Davis (D)

California Race Chart 2010 (Part 1 of 3: Statewide Races)

Cross-posted at Daily Kos, Calitics, and Democracy for California.

Here I will cover the eight constitutional offices, three State Supreme Court justice confirmations, and nine ballot measures. In the second diary, I will cover the U.S. Senate race and the House races, and in the third the state legislature. I will also combine my regular registration updates within the diaries.

Speaking of registration updates, as you will see in the layout of the statewide registration numbers, Democrats are more pumped up here, adding almost half a million voters to their rolls since 2008. The Republicans in comparison added just 13,000 in the same amount of time. So if you are looking for a lethargic Democratic base, look elsewhere because you won’t find it here!

More info can be found at the 2010 Race Tracker.

Here is the most recent registration data: http://www.sos.ca.gov/election…

Here is the list of candidates that will appear on the ballot: http://www.sos.ca.gov/election…

Statewide Layout

Democrats: 7,531,986 (44.32%)

Republicans: 5,257,669 (30.94%)

Decline to State: 3,427,395 (20.17%)

Others: 776,025 (4.56%)

Key: I will list the incumbent first, in boldface (in the case of open seats, the incumbent party first without boldface), and all minor parties after the two major parties.

D: Democratic

R: Republican

L: Libertarian

G: Green

AI: American Independent

PF: Peace and Freedom

NP: Nonpartisan

SW: Socialist Workers

Race Ratings

Toss-up: Margin by less than 5%

Lean: Margin by 5-10%

Likely: Margin by 10-15%

Strong: Margin by 15-20%

Solid: Margin by more than 20%

Governor: Ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) vs. Attorney General Jerry Brown (D), Laura Wells (G), Dale Ogden (L), Chelene Nightingale (AI), Carlos Alvarez (PF), and Lea Sherman (SW-W/I)

Profile: Forgive me for being a broken record as I have been in past comments, but again, I see no way Whitman can win. Running as an outsider when the current governor, who also ran as an outsider, is leaving office with 20% approval ratings, is a surefire losing strategy. And pissing voters off by running ads nonstop and spending nine-figure sums of money while they’re forced to cut back is not going to help at all. Brown is leading by example, running on a shoestring budget and calling for everyone to sacrifice, meaning no sacred cows. Polls may not yet show it, but in my opinion I think Whitman is finished. In fact, I’ll be very surprised if she even manages to make it a low-teen loss.

Outlook: Likely to Strong Brown (D pickup)

Lieutenant Governor: Interim Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado (R) vs. S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom (D), Jimi Castillo (G), Pamela Brown (L), Jim King (AI), and C.T. Weber (PF)

Profile: Here we have quasi-incumbent Abel Maldonado, appointed after John Garamendi went to Congress, running to be elected in his own right against Newsom. While Maldonado is moderate for a Republican (though that is not saying much), being closely associated with Arnold is going to be a huge liability, which I do not think he will overcome.

Outlook: Lean Newsom (D pickup)

Attorney General: S.F. DA Kamala Harris (D) vs. L.A. DA Steve Cooley (R), Peter Allen (G), Timothy Hannan (L), Dianne Beall Templin (AI), and Robert J. Evans (PF)

Profile: This is the only statewide race in California I am worried about, and where my theory (that California has just become too Democratic for even a moderate Republican to win barring unusual circumstances) will be put to the test. Cooley is not that bad for a Republican, having had the audacity to stand against popular opinion of issues such as three strikes and Jessica’s Law, though he is also against dispensaries for medical marijuana. Harris is a rising star in Democratic circles, and is a more formidable opponent than any of Cooley’s challengers in the past. The wild card is the big enchilada of L.A. County, where Harris’ name ID is low and she’d need to win by 18-20% to win statewide. I am of course pulling for Harris because I want our bench to stay nice and full for the inevitable retirements of DiFi probably in 2012, Boxer probably in 2016, and for the open governorship in 2014 or 2018; and also because she has courageously stood up to Prop 8, while Cooley pledges to defend it in court.

Outlook: Toss-Up

Secretary of State: SoS Debra Bowen (D) vs. businessman Damon Dunn (R), Ann Menasche (G), Christina Tobin (L), Merton D. Short (AI), and Marylou Cabral (PF)

Profile: Bowen is a lock for reelection.

Outlook: Solid Bowen

Treasurer: Treasurer Bill Lockyer (D) vs. State Senator Mimi Walters (R), Kit Crittenden (G), Edward Teyssier (L), Robert Lauten (AI), and Debra Reiger (PF)

Profile: Lockyer is a lock for reelection.

Outlook: Solid Lockyer

Controller: Controller John Chiang (D) vs. State Senator Tony Strickland (R), Ross Frankel (G), Andy Favor (L), Lawrence Beliz (AI), and Karen Martinez (PF)

Profile: A rematch from 2006, only with Democrats more pumped up, Chiang will win by a wider margin this time around.

Outlook: Strong to Solid Chiang

Insurance Commissioner: State Assemblyman Mike Villines (R) vs. State Assemblyman Dave Jones (D), William Balderston (G), Richard Bronstein (L), Clay Pedersen (AI), and Dina Padilla (PF)

Profile: In California, when a non-damaged Democrat is up against a generic Republican, the Democrat wins. Take it to the bank.

Outlook: Likely to Strong Jones (D pickup)

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Retired Superintendent Larry Aceves (NP) vs. State Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (NP)

Profile: Torlakson voted against Race to the Top and believes parents, teachers, students, and communities alike all need to come together to improve our schools, while Aceves believes that the problem with public schools is the teachers and hedge funds and billionaires should have more control over K-12 education. This will be a close one.

Outlook: Toss-Up

State Supreme Court confirmation – Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Voters are being asked whether to confirm Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arnold’s pick to replace Chief Justice Ron George. She is seen as uncontroversial, but likely to share Arnold’s views on corporate power.

Outlook: Lean Confirm

State Supreme Court retention – Ming Chin: Chin was in the minority that voted to uphold the state’s ban on marriage equality in 2008, and is one of the most right-wing justices on the state Supreme Court. I want to see him go, but it doesn’t look likely.

Outlook: Likely Retention

State Supreme Court retention – Carlos Moreno: Moreno was the only justice who courageously voted to overturn Prop 8 at the State Supreme Court last year, and has been a reliable vote for equality and so should be voted to be retained.

Outlook: Likely Retention

Ballot Measures: Nine measures will be on the California ballot this fall. Information can be found here: http://www.smartvoter.org/2010… Field has released polls on 19, 23, and 25. http://www.field.com/fieldpoll…

Prop. 19 (Marijuana): If passed, this proposition would legalize the possession and growing of marijuana for personal use of adults 21 years and older, and allow state and local governments to regulate and tax related commercial activities. This proposition winning may make Washington reexamine its own policy towards marijuana, since what happens in California often makes it way to the other side of the country. Polls have shown Yes leading by single digits, so I’ll call 19 a passing proposition.

My recommendation: YES!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Lean Pass

Prop. 20 (Redistricting Congressional Districts): This proposition would amend the state Constitution be amended to have the Citizens Redistricting Commission (prop 11 from 2008) redistrict for the U.S. House of Representatives seats. This initiative calls for each district being composed of people of the same income level and people with the same work opportunities, which to me feels like a backdoor to the old bygone Jim Crow ways. And passing this prop while giving free passes to Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas and Florida to gerrymander the hell out of those states is likely to put California at a disadvantage when competing for federal dollars. In addition, there is no way this commission can be held accountable.

My recommendation: NO!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-up/Lean Fail

Prop. 21 (Vehicle License Surcharge): Establishes an $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to provide funds for maintaining the state parks and wildlife programs, and grants surcharged vehicles free admission to the state parks. Our cash-starved state parks could use the extra funds. In addition, the governor can’t take funds from this coffer when other coffers are low. The tough economy may dampen the chances of this prop passing, though.

My recommendation: YES!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up

Prop. 22 (Local Government Funds): Prohibits the state from taking funds used for local government services. It is well-intentioned but flawed. The cities and counties would get an immediate payment of over $1 billion, forcing further cuts to vital public services.

My recommendation: NO!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up/Lean Fail

Prop. 23 (Suspension of AB 32): Backed by Texas oil interests, this prop would suspend AB 32 until unemployment dropped to an unrealistic 5.5% for a whole year and hurt the state’s fledgling green jobs industry, doing the exact opposite of what its backers claim: it would actually kill more jobs than create more jobs. (Here in “business-friendly” Texas, the economic situation is also pretty bad, with unemployment here at its highest level since the late ’80s [and me being unable to find a job to save my life] and an $18 billion deficit for the 2011 budget session, which will make 2003 look like the good old days.) Polls have shown a low double-digit lead for the No side.

My recommendation: NO! NO! NO!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Likely Fail

Prop. 24 (Corporate Loopholes): A long-overdue measure that would close corporate tax loopholes, reducing the budget deficit by $2 billion.

My recommendation: YES!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up

Prop. 25 (Majority Vote on Budget): Another very long-overdue measure that eliminates the ridiculous 2/3rds rule to pass a budget in the state legislature. This prop is passing by double-digits in the polls.

My recommendation: YES! YES! YES!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Likely Pass

Prop. 26 (Two-Thirds Vote on Fees): Would require two-thirds vote approval for the imposition of certain state and local fees, including those on businesses that adversely impact the local community and environment. The last thing we need is higher vote thresholds.

My recommendation: NO! NO! NO!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up

Prop. 27 (Redistricting Commission): This proposition eliminates the Citizens Redistricting Commission from Prop 11, which barely passed, suggesting some voters have some doubts about its effectiveness. This commission also gives Republicans much more power than their current share of the population.

My recommendation: YES!

10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up

Arizona: Analysis of County PVIs 1948-2008

Since Arizona has only 15 counties (14 until 1984), I will first do an overall analysis of the state followed by analysis of each county.

County maps 1948-1976: http://www.thepoliticsgeek.com…

County maps 1980-2008: http://www.thepoliticsgeek.com…

Cross-posted at my blog and Daily Kos.

Arizona began trending Republican after World War II with the migration of snowbirds from the Midwest and to a lesser extent the Northeast, with the Republicanism peaking in the Goldwater and Reagan years. After the Reagan years, the trend has been slightly Democratic, mostly because of Bill Clinton’s declaring the Grand Staircase area as a National Monument in 1996.

These days, Arizona Republicanism is a quirky brand of Republicanism, with the overwhelming vote for a sales tax hike earlier this year, and incumbent Republican governor Jan Brewer considering more tax hikes yet doing no worse than a statistical tie against Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard. Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties are the only counties in the whole country so far that rejected a ban on same-sex marriage (November 2006) and supported a tax increase (May 2010). Most of Arizona’s Republicanism comes from law-and-order issues.

Looking ahead to 2012, if the Democrat campaigns hard on environmental and law-and-order issues, then Arizona could flip.

Now I will go through each county starting with Apache. After trending the same way as the state voting-wise, Apache broke away from that pattern in the 1970s as the local Native Americans, mostly Navajo, began voting Democratic in large numbers. Now Apache is the most Democratic county in the state.

Cochise and Graham Counties remained largely rural and had similar trends to Arizona until 2000, when they trended slightly more Republican because of law-and-order issues.

Coconino County, home to the Grand Canyon and Lake Powell, has been more Democratic of late due to a large college employee population in Flagstaff and many federal employees at the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Greenlee County was a Yellow Dog Democratic bastion, having voted much more Democratic than the state as a whole until the 1990s, when it trended Republican like many white-majority counties in the South. Gila County mimicked Greenlee to a lesser extent, except for a flirt with voting for Reagan in the 1980s, and including a sharp swing Republican after the 1990s.

La Paz County has been a consistently Republican-voting county since it was carved out of Yuma County in 1984.

Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, and many other cities, voted strongly Republican from the 1960s to the 1980s because of the migration of many Midwestern snowbirds who were very receptive to Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. The declaring of the Grand Staircase Monument in adjacent Coconino County brought out the environmentalism in many of these Midwesterners, resulting in Maricopa voting less Republican in the 1990s and early 2000s. A positive reception to native son McCain resulted in a slight Republican trend in 2008, but don’t be surprised to see a Democratic trend here in 2012 if the environment becomes a hot topic again.

Mohave County, home to Lake Havasu and part of Grand Canyon National Park, saw a slight moderation from its usual strongly Republican voting patterns thanks to the Grand Staircase National Monument resonating positively with local voters.

Navajo County has leaned Republican because conservative white voters turn out in greater numbers than the Native American voters.

Pima County, home to Tucson, has historically been a swing county, though of late has leaned more Democratic again mostly because of environmentalism from Midwesterners that settled in the area. The college vote from the University of Arizona is balanced out by the military vote from employees of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

Pinal County, between Maricopa and Pima, has been a swing county since WWII ended, though some suburbanization from Maricopa County has produced a slight Republican trend.

Santa Cruz County was a swing county for much of the post-war period until the 1990s, when Bill Clinton began helping make Democratic Party policies more palatable to Hispanics. Now Santa Cruz is the second-most Democratic county in the state.

Yavapai County, home to Prescott and most of Democratic-leaning Sedona, has remained a strongly Republican county due to a large evangelical population in Prescott.

Yuma County voted more Democratic than the country from 1948 to 1960, though Goldwater in 1964 had made the county turn sharply Republican and trend Republican since then, because of law-and-order issues.

Tabulated PVIs can be found here. I was able to collect all of Arizona’s county voting data from 1912 to 2008, though for now, like the other states, I am focusing on the elections since 1948.

Alabama: Analysis of County PVIs 1948-2008

Also posted at my blog and Daily Kos. Check out the tabulated PVIs here.

Most of Alabama’s counties were much more Democratic than the national average in the “Solid South” years. Central Alabama around Birmingham was less Democratic than most of the state in these years because of some Appalachian and anti-secession attitudes, from “the Republic of” Winston County to Chilton County. The Republican trend spread to Jefferson County (Birmingham) itself as well as outside of Central Alabama to Dallas County (Selma), Montgomery (Montgomery), the Gulf counties Mobile (Mobile) and Baldwin, and a little in Houston County (Dothan) in the late 1950s, due to the option of “unpledged electors” on the ballot.

alabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvi

The option “unpledged” appeared on the ballot again in 1960, and the Republican trend continued in the aforementioned counties, turning Dallas, Montgomery, and Jefferson more Republican as per PVI. As you can see, in the counties that were already trending Republican, the bottom fell out of Democratic numbers in 1964 as most of the counties flipped to R+ PVIs. The presence of the Tennessee Valley Authority in North Alabama kept most counties in that region in the D+ PVI range. The only blue county outside North Central Alabama next to Montgomery in the 1964 map is heavily black and college county Tuskegee. Also-heavily black Macon County (just south of Tuskegee) and Greene (west of Tuscaloosa) joined Tuskegee in 1968. Washington County, along with Mobile to the south, also trended slightly Democratic.

alabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvi

During the Nixon years, the racial divisions in Alabama began to become more apparent, with much of Central Alabama becoming very Republican, and North Alabama and the Florida counties beginning to trend that way. Jimmy Carter temporarily stopped the bleeding, but the Ronald Reagan revolution would put an end to that for decades to come. The Reagan revolution brought a rapid Republican trend in most counties in Alabama, resulting in many R+ counties in 1988 as the national margin went slightly less for George H.W. Bush than for Reagan.

alabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvi

In spite of two fellow Southerners on the ticket in the 1990s, the Republican trend in Alabama continued, and the realignment of the counties, stalled in the Carter and early Bill Clinton years, picked up. North Alabama was the last holdout outside the Black Belt through 2000 probably because of the connection some voters there felt to the TVA and to Al Gore, who came from demographically similar Middle Tennessee.

alabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvi

The 2004 and 2008 elections saw the realignment pretty much consolidate, with the only Democratic counties for both elections in the Black Belt. Significant Democratic minorities can be found in the urban counties of Mobile, Birmingham, and around the Black Belt. Some counties in North Alabama are catching up to most of the rest of the state, as memories of the Tennessee Valley Authority diminish with each passing day. Looking ahead to 2012, if current trends continue, it won’t be a pretty picture for Democrats. While they may be able to improve on some whites in the cities and college towns, the rest of the counties look likely to stay solidly in the Republican column for a long time.

alabama counties,cook pvialabama counties,cook pvi

California: How Demographic Changes Impacted Partisan Changes (Part 4)

For the final leg of our journey, we are going to the Southland, which includes the 3 biggest counties in the state. Back in 1910, these counties held just about 30% of the state’s population, while the Bay Area held 40%. Now, the Southland’s slice of the pie has been pumped up to 55%, while the Bay Area holds barely 20%. Looking at the PVI results from 1992, it made perfect sense for Clinton to focus his California efforts more on SoCal, because it was making up a greater share of the state. His efforts plus the demographic changes already underway played a big part in pulling this very populous region, and the state, leftward.

Los Angeles

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
936,455
85.8%
27.33%
R+9.1
1930
2,208,492
135.8%
38.90%
R+5.8
1940
2,785,643
26.1%
40.33%
D+4.7
1950
4,151,687
49.0%
39.22%
R+1.7
1960
6,038,771
45.5%
38.42%
D+1.3
1970
7,041,980
16.6%
35.29%
D+2.4
1980
7,477,239
6.2%
31.59%
R+0.2
1990
8,863,052
18.5%
29.78%
D+8.7
2000
9,519,338
7.4%
28.10%
D+13.5
2008*
9,862,049
3.6%
26.96%
D+16.0

Orange

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
61,375
78.20%
1.79%
R+14.2
1930
118,674
93.40%
2.09%
R+14.6
1940
130,760
10.20%
1.89%
R+15.2
1950
216,224
65.40%
2.04%
R+10.4
1960
703,925
225.60%
4.48%
R+13.7
1970
1,421,233
101.90%
7.12%
R+17.3
1980
1,932,921
36.00%
8.17%
R+13.1
1990
2,410,668
24.70%
8.10%
R+10.4
2000
2,846,289
18.10%
8.40%
R+7.1
2008*
3,010,759
5.80%
8.23%
R+6.8

San Diego

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
112,248
82.00%
3.28%
R+4.0
1930
209,659
86.80%
3.69%
R+5.9
1940
289,348
38.00%
4.19%
D+1.6
1950
556,808
92.40%
5.26%
R+5.8
1960
1,033,011
85.50%
6.57%
R+6.8
1970
1,357,854
31.40%
6.81%
R+6.5
1980
1,861,846
37.10%
7.87%
R+11.0
1990
2,498,016
34.20%
8.39%
R+4.8
2000
2,813,833
12.60%
8.31%
R+4.0
2008*
3,001,072
6.70%
8.20%
R+0.2

Imperial

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
43,453
219.70%
1.27%
R+1.4
1930
60,903
40.20%
1.07%
D+0.5
1940
59,740
-1.90%
0.86%
R+1.6
1950
62,975
5.40%
0.59%
R+6.7
1960
72,105
14.50%
0.46%
R+1.2
1970
74,492
3.30%
0.37%
R+5.5
1980
92,110
23.70%
0.39%
R+3.5
1990
109,303
18.70%
0.37%
R+1.0
2000
142,361
30.20%
0.42%
D+5.2
2008*
163,972
15.20%
0.45%
D+7.0

Riverside

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
50,297
45.00%
1.47%
R+13.2
1930
81,024
61.10%
1.43%
R+15.8
1940
105,524
30.20%
1.53%
R+9.6
1950
170,046
61.10%
1.61%
R+10.3
1960
306,191
80.10%
1.95%
R+5.6
1970
456,916
49.20%
2.29%
R+2.8
1980
663,199
45.10%
2.80%
R+5.8
1990
1,170,413
76.50%
3.93%
R+4.3
2000
1,545,387
32.00%
4.56%
R+4.9
2008*
2,100,516
35.90%
5.74%
R+4.9

San Bernardino

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
73,401
29.40%
2.14%
R+6.4
1930
133,900
82.40%
2.36%
R+11.5
1940
161,108
20.30%
2.33%
R+0.9
1950
281,642
74.80%
2.66%
R+2.6
1960
503,591
78.80%
3.20%
R+0.8
1970
682,233
35.50%
3.42%
R+3.1
1980
895,016
31.20%
3.78%
R+5.9
1990
1,418,380
58.50%
4.77%
R+4.7
2000
1,709,434
20.50%
5.05%
R+2.7
2008*
2,015,355
17.90%
5.51%
R+2.6

California: How Demographic Changes Impacted Partisan Changes (Part 3)

We next stop by the coastal counties outside the major urban centers. In most of the northern half, the coastal regions outside the cities started out Republican and began trending Democratic in the mid-20th century with the migration of urban people and the establishment of UC Santa Cruz in Santa Cruz County. Lake and bellwether San Benito Counties are technically not coastal, but their political dynamics are very similar to the non-major-urban coastal counties, so that is why I am including them here instead of with the other inland counties. San Luis Obispo and Del Norte counties are much further away from urban settings and thus have not had the Democratic trend of the others. Some of these counties, especially Mendocino and Humboldt, Perot and Nader way overperformed, which artificially made the counties more Republican in 2000.

Santa Barbara is regarded as mirroring California politically and demographically (while San Benito only mirrors the state politically) and its trend has largely followed the state’s. Ventura County was a originally a swing county and trended Republican as it became more of a suburb of L.A., before beginning trending the opposite direction in the 90s along with the rest of suburban SoCal.

While these counties don’t make up a very big slice of the pie population-wise, only about 10% or so, and are also growing slower than average, their Democratic trend is still more than welcome.

Del Norte

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
2,759
14.1%
0.08%
R+3.7
1930
4,739
71.8%
0.08%
D+5.4
1940
4,745
0.1%
0.07%
R+5.8
1950
8,078
70.2%
0.08%
R+9.0
1960
17,771
120.0%
0.11%
D+3.0
1970
14,580
-18.0%
0.07%
D+1.5
1980
18,217
24.9%
0.08%
R+3.0
1990
23,460
28.8%
0.08%
D+1.9
2000
27,507
17.3%
0.08%
R+7.2
2008*
29,100
5.8%
0.08%
R+6.9

Humboldt

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
37,413
10.5%
1.09%
R+12.5
1930
43,233
15.6%
0.76%
R+7.6
1940
45,812
6.0%
0.66%
D+1.4
1950
69,241
51.1%
0.65%
R+3.5
1960
104,892
51.5%
0.67%
D+4.0
1970
99,692
-5.0%
0.50%
D+5.2
1980
108,525
8.9%
0.46%
D+1.2
1990
119,118
9.8%
0.40%
D+9.9
2000
126,518
6.2%
0.37%
D+1.1
2008*
129,000
2.0%
0.35%
D+10.9

Lake

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
5,402
-2.2%
0.16%
D+4.1
1930
7,166
32.7%
0.13%
R+1.2
1940
8,069
12.6%
0.12%
R+10.4
1950
11,481
42.3%
0.11%
R+12.8
1960
13,786
20.1%
0.09%
R+8.2
1970
19,548
41.8%
0.10%
D+0.1
1980
36,366
86.0%
0.15%
R+0.9
1990
50,631
39.2%
0.17%
D+6.4
2000
58,309
15.2%
0.17%
D+4.3
2008*
64,866
11.2%
0.18%
D+5.9

Mendocino

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
24,116
0.8%
0.70%
R+5.0
1930
23,505
-2.5%
0.41%
R+0.7
1940
27,864
18.5%
0.40%
D+1.6
1950
40,854
46.6%
0.39%
R+5.9
1960
51,059
25.0%
0.32%
D+0.5
1970
51,101
0.1%
0.26%
D+3.5
1980
66,738
30.6%
0.28%
D+1.4
1990
80,345
20.4%
0.27%
D+13.6
2000
86,265
7.4%
0.25%
D+6.5
2008*
86,221
-0.1%
0.24%
D+17.5

Monterey

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
27,980
15.9%
0.82%
R+4.5
1930
53,705
91.9%
0.95%
R+2.5
1940
73,032
36.0%
1.06%
D+0.0
1950
130,498
78.7%
1.23%
R+6.1
1960
198,351
52.0%
1.26%
R+4.2
1970
247,450
24.8%
1.24%
R+0.6
1980
290,444
17.4%
1.23%
R+5.2
1990
355,660
22.5%
1.20%
D+5.0
2000
401,762
13.0%
1.19%
D+7.4
2008*
408,238
1.6%
1.12%
D+14.1

San Benito

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
8,995
11.9%
0.26%
R+1.2
1930
11,311
25.7%
0.20%
D+2.4
1940
11,392
0.7%
0.16%
R+2.1
1950
14,370
26.1%
0.14%
R+9.7
1960
15,396
7.1%
0.10%
R+1.8
1970
18,226
18.4%
0.09%
D+0.2
1980
25,005
37.2%
0.11%
R+3.7
1990
36,697
46.8%
0.12%
D+1.0
2000
53,234
45.1%
0.16%
D+4.1
2008*
54,699
2.8%
0.15%
D+6.1

San Luis Obispo

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
21,893
12.9%
0.64%
R+2.2
1930
29,613
35.3%
0.52%
D+3.7
1940
33,246
12.3%
0.48%
R+0.6
1950
51,417
54.7%
0.49%
R+9.4
1960
81,044
57.6%
0.52%
R+2.7
1970
105,690
30.4%
0.53%
R+0.4
1980
155,435
47.1%
0.66%
R+6.9
1990
217,162
39.7%
0.73%
R+1.9
2000
246,681
13.6%
0.73%
R+7.4
2008*
265,297
7.5%
0.73%
R+1.7

Santa Barbara

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
41,097
48.2%
1.20%
R+3.4
1930
65,167
58.6%
1.15%
R+5.2
1940
70,555
8.3%
1.02%
R+0.2
1950
98,220
39.2%
0.93%
R+12.4
1960
168,962
72.0%
1.08%
R+7.1
1970
264,324
56.4%
1.32%
R+1.0
1980
298,694
13.0%
1.26%
R+5.7
1990
369,608
23.7%
1.24%
D+0.1
2000
399,347
8.0%
1.18%
R+0.9
2008*
405,396
1.5%
1.11%
D+6.6

Santa Cruz

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
26,269
0.5%
0.77%
R+4.6
1930
37,433
42.5%
0.66%
R+5.8
1940
45,057
20.4%
0.65%
R+8.1
1950
66,534
47.7%
0.63%
R+12.9
1960
84,219
26.6%
0.54%
R+8.0
1970
123,790
47.0%
0.62%
D+2.5
1980
188,141
52.0%
0.79%
D+2.5
1990
229,734
22.1%
0.77%
D+17.9
2000
255,602
11.3%
0.75%
D+16.0
2008*
253,137
-1.0%
0.69%
D+25.9

Ventura

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
28,724
56.6%
0.84%
R+13.1
1930
54,976
91.4%
0.97%
R+5.0
1940
69,685
26.8%
1.01%
D+1.9
1950
114,647
64.5%
1.08%
D+3.4
1960
199,138
73.7%
1.27%
D+3.9
1970
378,497
90.1%
1.90%
R+4.6
1980
529,174
39.8%
2.24%
R+8.8
1990
669,016
26.4%
2.25%
R+5.4
2000
753,197
12.6%
2.22%
R+2.6
2008*
797,740
5.9%
2.18%
D+1.0

California: How Demographic Changes Impacted Partisan Changes (Part 2)

Our next stop is the inland area of Central and Northern California. Back in the old days, while the Republicans dominated the cities, Democrats dominated the countryside. The shift to the Republicans began in the 1960s after Civil Rights, though some areas held out until the 1980s. The only counties to resist the rightward trend were heavily urban Sacramento and college town Yolo (home of UC Davis).

In recent decades, population growth began a reversal of the Republican trend in counties such as San Joaquin as well as the tiny ski-based counties of Alpine and Mono and to a lesser extent Inyo. Other counties (Butte, Merced), with significant college towns, also reversed course. Fresno and El Dorado (suburban Sacramento) are beginning to follow those counties. Fortunately for California Democrats, aside from Kern and Kings, none of the counties that are still trending Republican are growing very fast, and this region has never made up more than 21% of the state’s population so the Republican shift has been far outweighed by the dramatic Democratic shifts in the NorCal and SoCal megalopolises.

Alpine

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
243
-21.4%
0.01%
R+25.8
1930
341
40.3%
0.01%
R+21.6
1940
323
-5.3%
0.00%
R+15.4
1950
241
-25.4%
0.00%
R+33.0
1960
397
64.7%
0.00%
R+24.4
1970
484
21.9%
0.00%
R+8.7
1980
1,097
126.7%
0.00%
R+7.9
1990
1,113
1.5%
0.00%
R+3.7
2000
1,208
8.5%
0.00%
R+3.5
2008*
1,061
-12.2%
0.00%
D+7.4

Amador

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
7,793
-14.2%
0.23%
D+1.9
1930
8,494
9.0%
0.15%
D+14.8
1940
8,973
5.6%
0.13%
D+12.8
1950
9,151
2.0%
0.09%
D+4.9
1960
9,990
9.2%
0.06%
D+6.8
1970
11,821
18.3%
0.06%
D+3.7
1980
19,314
63.4%
0.08%
R+3.2
1990
30,039
55.5%
0.10%
R+3.7
2000
35,100
16.8%
0.10%
R+9.4
2008*
38,238
8.9%
0.10%
R+11.4

Butte

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
30,030
10.0%
0.88%
R+1.5
1930
34,093
13.5%
0.60%
D+3.6
1940
42,840
25.7%
0.62%
D+4.4
1950
64,930
51.6%
0.61%
R+6.3
1960
82,030
26.3%
0.52%
R+4.5
1970
101,969
24.3%
0.51%
R+6.1
1980
143,851
41.1%
0.61%
R+8.0
1990
182,120
26.6%
0.61%
R+2.9
2000
203,171
11.6%
0.60%
R+10.1
2008*
220,337
8.4%
0.60%
R+3.1

Calaveras

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
6,183
-32.6%
0.18%
R+0.6
1930
6,008
-2.8%
0.11%
D+7.6
1940
8,221
36.8%
0.12%
D+7.1
1950
9,902
20.4%
0.09%
R+3.9
1960
10,289
3.9%
0.07%
R+1.7
1970
13,585
32.0%
0.07%
R+5.5
1980
20,710
52.4%
0.09%
R+6.3
1990
31,998
54.5%
0.11%
R+3.5
2000
40,554
26.7%
0.12%
R+10.2
2008*
46,843
15.5%
0.13%
R+10.6

Colusa

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
9,290
20.2%
0.27%
D+7.1
1930
10,258
10.4%
0.18%
D+7.3
1940
9,788
-4.6%
0.14%
D+7.0
1950
11,651
19.0%
0.11%
R+2.1
1960
12,075
3.6%
0.08%
D+1.4
1970
12,430
2.9%
0.06%
R+1.9
1980
12,791
2.9%
0.05%
R+7.0
1990
16,275
27.2%
0.05%
R+9.5
2000
18,804
15.5%
0.06%
R+16.1
2008*
21,204
12.8%
0.06%
R+14.9

El Dorado

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
6,426
-14.2%
0.19%
D+2.6
1930
8,235
28.2%
0.15%
D+15.5
1940
13,229
60.6%
0.19%
D+13.2
1950
16,207
22.5%
0.15%
R+1.7
1960
29,390
81.3%
0.19%
D+2.2
1970
43,833
49.1%
0.22%
D+0.1
1980
85,812
95.8%
0.36%
R+5.8
1990
125,995
46.8%
0.42%
R+7.5
2000
156,299
24.1%
0.46%
R+12.7
2008*
176,075
12.7%
0.48%
R+10.0

Fresno

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
128,779
70.2%
3.76%
D+3.4
1930
144,379
12.1%
2.54%
D+8.7
1940
178,565
23.7%
2.59%
D+15.6
1950
276,515
54.9%
2.61%
D+7.4
1960
365,945
32.3%
2.33%
D+9.9
1970
413,329
12.9%
2.07%
D+6.1
1980
514,621
24.5%
2.17%
R+0.4
1990
667,490
29.7%
2.24%
D+0.4
2000
799,407
19.8%
2.36%
R+5.7
2008*
909,153
13.7%
2.49%
R+4.7

Glenn

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
11,853
65.3%
0.35%
D+0.7
1930
10,935
-7.7%
0.19%
D+0.8
1940
12,195
11.5%
0.18%
D+2.6
1950
15,448
26.7%
0.15%
D+7.0
1960
17,245
11.6%
0.11%
D+1.1
1970
17,521
1.6%
0.09%
R+5.9
1980
21,350
21.9%
0.09%
R+10.2
1990
24,798
16.1%
0.08%
R+10.7
2000
26,453
6.7%
0.08%
R+19.4
2008*
28,237
6.7%
0.08%
R+15.8

Inyo

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
7,031
0.8%
0.21%
D+0.9
1930
6,555
-6.8%
0.12%
D+4.5
1940
7,625
16.3%
0.11%
D+0.4
1950
11,658
52.9%
0.11%
R+12.1
1960
11,684
0.2%
0.07%
R+6.8
1970
15,571
33.3%
0.08%
R+9.9
1980
17,895
14.9%
0.08%
R+13.4
1990
18,281
2.2%
0.06%
R+11.4
2000
17,945
-1.8%
0.05%
R+14.6
2008*
17,136
-4.5%
0.05%
R+8.7

Kern

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
54,843
45.4%
1.60%
D+10.8
1930
82,570
50.6%
1.45%
D+5.1
1940
135,124
63.6%
1.96%
D+10.2
1950
228,309
69.0%
2.16%
D+2.5
1960
291,984
27.9%
1.86%
D+2.8
1970
330,234
13.1%
1.66%
R+1.6
1980
403,089
22.1%
1.70%
R+6.6
1990
544,981
35.2%
1.83%
R+9.5
2000
661,645
21.4%
1.95%
R+13.6
2008*
800,458
21.0%
2.19%
R+14.3

Kings

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
22,031
35.7%
0.64%
D+2.6
1930
25,385
15.2%
0.45%
D+9.8
1940
35,168
38.5%
0.51%
D+13.3
1950
46,768
33.0%
0.44%
D+7.6
1960
49,954
6.8%
0.32%
D+11.4
1970
66,717
33.6%
0.33%
D+2.8
1980
73,738
10.5%
0.31%
R+2.7
1990
101,469
37.6%
0.34%
R+4.1
2000
129,461
27.6%
0.38%
R+8.6
2008*
149,518
15.5%
0.41%
R+12.8

Lassen

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
8,507
77.2%
0.25%
D+0.6
1930
12,589
48.0%
0.22%
D+7.6
1940
14,479
15.0%
0.21%
D+16.2
1950
18,474
27.6%
0.17%
D+12.1
1960
13,597
-26.4%
0.09%
D+12.3
1970
16,796
23.5%
0.08%
D+6.0
1980
21,661
29.0%
0.09%
R+0.1
1990
27,598
27.4%
0.09%
R+6.3
2000
33,828
22.6%
0.10%
R+18.2
2008*
34,574
2.2%
0.09%
R+21.0

Madera

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
12,203
45.8%
0.36%
D+5.0
1930
17,164
40.7%
0.30%
D+8.9
1940
23,314
35.8%
0.34%
D+14.0
1950
36,964
58.5%
0.35%
D+6.7
1960
40,468
9.5%
0.26%
D+11.7
1970
41,519
2.6%
0.21%
D+5.3
1980
63,116
52.0%
0.27%
R+0.4
1990
88,090
39.6%
0.30%
R+4.8
2000
123,109
39.8%
0.36%
R+14.0
2008*
148,333
20.5%
0.41%
R+12.0

Mariposa

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
2,775
-29.9%
0.08%
D+8.0
1930
3,233
16.5%
0.06%
D+7.5
1940
5,605
73.4%
0.08%
D+11.6
1950
5,145
-8.2%
0.05%
R+11.0
1960
5,064
-1.6%
0.03%
R+3.6
1970
6,015
18.8%
0.03%
R+1.2
1980
11,108
84.7%
0.05%
R+3.4
1990
14,302
28.8%
0.05%
R+2.5
2000
17,130
19.8%
0.05%
R+12.7
2008*
17,976
4.9%
0.05%
R+10.2

Merced

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
24,579
62.3%
0.72%
R+0.9
1930
36,748
49.5%
0.65%
D+4.9
1940
46,988
27.9%
0.68%
D+9.9
1950
69,780
48.5%
0.66%
D+2.9
1960
90,446
29.6%
0.58%
D+9.9
1970
104,629
15.7%
0.52%
D+5.8
1980
134,558
28.6%
0.57%
D+2.0
1990
178,403
32.6%
0.60%
D+0.7
2000
210,554
18.0%
0.62%
R+3.7
2008*
246,117
16.9%
0.67%
R+2.7

Modoc

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
5,425
-12.4%
0.16%
D+4.3
1930
8,038
48.2%
0.14%
D+7.1
1940
8,713
8.4%
0.13%
D+4.9
1950
9,678
11.1%
0.09%
R+3.3
1960
8,308
-14.2%
0.05%
D+1.1
1970
7,469
-10.1%
0.04%
R+3.7
1980
8,610
15.3%
0.04%
R+9.7
1990
9,678
12.4%
0.03%
R+9.2
2000
9,449
-2.4%
0.03%
R+21.7
2008*
9,184
-2.8%
0.03%
R+22.8

Mono

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
960
-53.0%
0.03%
R+4.7
1930
1,360
41.7%
0.02%
D+0.8
1940
2,299
69.0%
0.03%
D+0.7
1950
2,115
-8.0%
0.02%
R+21.0
1960
2,213
4.6%
0.01%
R+16.5
1970
4,016
81.5%
0.02%
R+14.0
1980
8,577
113.6%
0.04%
R+13.9
1990
9,956
16.1%
0.03%
R+6.9
2000
12,853
29.1%
0.04%
R+7.8
2008*
12,774
-0.6%
0.03%
D+2.2

Nevada

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
10,850
-27.4%
0.32%
D+0.3
1930
10,596
-2.3%
0.19%
D+6.4
1940
19,283
82.0%
0.28%
D+11.1
1950
19,888
3.1%
0.19%
R+5.8
1960
20,911
5.1%
0.13%
R+3.1
1970
26,346
26.0%
0.13%
R+1.5
1980
51,645
96.0%
0.22%
R+6.6
1990
78,510
52.0%
0.26%
R+5.6
2000
92,033
17.2%
0.27%
R+11.6
2008*
97,118
5.5%
0.27%
R+2.0

Placer

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
18,584
1.9%
0.54%
D+5.3
1930
24,468
31.7%
0.43%
D+11.6
1940
28,108
14.9%
0.41%
D+14.2
1950
41,649
48.2%
0.39%
D+6.7
1960
56,998
36.9%
0.36%
D+8.8
1970
77,632
36.2%
0.39%
D+6.5
1980
117,247
51.0%
0.50%
R+2.0
1990
172,796
47.4%
0.58%
R+7.7
2000
248,399
43.8%
0.73%
R+13.0
2008*
341,945
37.7%
0.93%
R+10.8

Plumas

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
5,681
8.0%
0.17%
D+0.8
1930
7,913
39.3%
0.14%
D+15.3
1940
11,548
45.9%
0.17%
D+17.7
1950
13,519
17.1%
0.13%
D+12.3
1960
11,620
-14.0%
0.07%
D+14.0
1970
11,707
0.7%
0.06%
D+10.8
1980
17,340
48.1%
0.07%
R+0.2
1990
19,739
13.8%
0.07%
R+0.3
2000
20,824
5.5%
0.06%
R+13.9
2008*
20,275
-2.6%
0.06%
R+10.6

Sacramento

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
91,029
34.2%
2.66%
D+0.6
1930
141,999
56.0%
2.50%
D+9.9
1940
170,333
20.0%
2.47%
D+15.5
1950
277,140
62.7%
2.62%
D+7.2
1960
502,778
81.4%
3.20%
D+9.5
1970
634,373
26.2%
3.18%
D+8.3
1980
783,381
23.5%
3.31%
D+2.0
1990
1,041,219
32.9%
3.50%
D+2.0
2000
1,223,499
17.5%
3.61%
D+1.1
2008*
1,394,154
13.9%
3.81%
D+3.7

San Joaquin

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
79,905
57.5%
2.33%
D+3.3
1930
102,940
28.8%
1.81%
D+2.1
1940
134,207
30.4%
1.94%
D+4.9
1950
200,750
49.6%
1.90%
R+2.1
1960
249,989
24.5%
1.59%
D+0.0
1970
291,073
16.4%
1.46%
D+0.5
1980
347,342
19.3%
1.47%
R+3.7
1990
480,628
38.4%
1.62%
R+1.2
2000
563,598
17.3%
1.66%
R+2.4
2008*
672,388
19.3%
1.84%
R+0.4

Shasta

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
13,361
-29.4%
0.39%
D+1.7
1930
13,927
4.2%
0.25%
D+10.8
1940
28,800
106.8%
0.42%
D+11.1
1950
36,413
26.4%
0.34%
D+2.6
1960
59,468
63.3%
0.38%
D+12.2
1970
77,640
30.6%
0.39%
D+9.1
1980
115,613
48.9%
0.49%
R+3.7
1990
147,036
27.2%
0.49%
R+8.3
2000
163,256
11.0%
0.48%
R+17.9
2008*
180,214
10.4%
0.49%
R+16.9

Sierra

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
1,783
-56.5%
0.05%
R+0.9
1930
2,422
35.8%
0.04%
D+10.4
1940
3,025
24.9%
0.04%
D+13.6
1950
2,410
-20.3%
0.02%
D+1.9
1960
2,247
-6.8%
0.01%
D+4.9
1970
2,365
5.3%
0.01%
D+6.9
1980
3,073
29.9%
0.01%
D+1.4
1990
3,318
8.0%
0.01%
R+1.5
2000
3,555
7.1%
0.01%
R+17.0
2008*
3,263
-8.2%
0.01%
R+14.6

Siskiyou

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
18,545
-1.4%
0.54%
D+4.4
1930
25,480
37.4%
0.45%
D+7.8
1940
28,598
12.2%
0.41%
D+8.2
1950
30,733
7.5%
0.29%
D+1.4
1960
32,885
7.0%
0.21%
D+7.2
1970
33,225
1.0%
0.17%
D+3.9
1980
39,732
19.6%
0.17%
R+4.0
1990
43,531
9.6%
0.15%
D+1.9
2000
44,301
1.8%
0.13%
R+13.0
2008*
44,542
0.5%
0.12%
R+9.7

Stanislaus

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
43,557
93.4%
1.27%
R+1.0
1930
56,641
30.0%
1.00%
R+3.3
1940
74,866
32.2%
1.08%
R+0.4
1950
127,231
69.9%
1.20%
R+1.7
1960
157,294
23.6%
1.00%
D+4.5
1970
194,506
23.7%
0.97%
D+5.3
1980
265,900
36.7%
1.12%
D+1.4
1990
370,522
39.3%
1.25%
R+0.3
2000
446,997
20.6%
1.32%
R+4.4
2008*
510,694
14.2%
1.40%
R+5.4

Sutter

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
10,115
59.8%
0.30%
D+3.2
1930
14,618
44.5%
0.26%
D+9.2
1940
18,680
27.8%
0.27%
D+5.7
1950
26,239
40.5%
0.25%
R+9.2
1960
33,380
27.2%
0.21%
R+9.4
1970
41,935
25.6%
0.21%
R+9.2
1980
52,246
24.6%
0.22%
R+10.6
1990
64,415
23.3%
0.22%
R+15.0
2000
78,930
22.5%
0.23%
R+17.5
2008*
92,207
16.8%
0.25%
R+14.4

Tehama

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
12,882
13.0%
0.38%
D+1.0
1930
13,866
7.6%
0.24%
R+1.9
1940
14,316
3.2%
0.21%
R+0.6
1950
19,276
34.6%
0.18%
R+7.6
1960
25,305
31.3%
0.16%
D+1.7
1970
29,517
16.6%
0.15%
D+2.5
1980
38,888
31.7%
0.16%
R+3.9
1990
49,625
27.6%
0.17%
R+3.5
2000
56,039
12.9%
0.17%
R+15.3
2008*
61,550
9.8%
0.17%
R+16.2

Trinity

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
2,551
-22.7%
0.07%
D+2.3
1930
2,809
10.1%
0.05%
D+13.2
1940
3,970
41.3%
0.06%
D+7.9
1950
5,087
28.1%
0.05%
R+1.4
1960
9,706
90.8%
0.06%
D+9.2
1970
7,615
-21.5%
0.04%
D+4.4
1980
11,858
55.7%
0.05%
R+3.6
1990
13,063
10.2%
0.04%
D+2.5
2000
13,022
-0.3%
0.04%
R+10.9
2008*
14,317
9.9%
0.04%
R+3.1

Tulare

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
59,031
66.6%
1.72%
R+0.8
1930
77,442
31.2%
1.36%
D+0.6
1940
107,152
38.4%
1.55%
D+4.0
1950
149,264
39.3%
1.41%
R+1.4
1960
168,403
12.8%
1.07%
D+0.4
1970
188,322
11.8%
0.94%
R+3.5
1980
245,738
30.5%
1.04%
R+6.7
1990
311,921
26.9%
1.05%
R+8.2
2000
368,021
18.0%
1.09%
R+12.9
2008*
426,276
15.8%
1.17%
R+13.5

Tuolumne

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
7,768
-22.2%
0.23%
D+3.1
1930
9,271
19.3%
0.16%
D+6.2
1940
10,887
17.4%
0.16%
D+9.9
1950
12,584
15.6%
0.12%
R+3.7
1960
14,404
14.5%
0.09%
D+3.0
1970
22,169
53.9%
0.11%
D+1.7
1980
33,928
53.0%
0.14%
R+3.0
1990
48,456
42.8%
0.16%
R+1.3
2000
54,501
12.5%
0.16%
R+8.6
2008*
55,644
2.1%
0.15%
R+9.9

Yolo

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
17,105
22.8%
0.50%
D+1.2
1930
23,644
38.2%
0.42%
D+6.0
1940
27,243
15.2%
0.39%
D+5.8
1950
40,640
49.2%
0.38%
D+2.0
1960
65,727
61.7%
0.42%
D+7.3
1970
91,788
39.7%
0.46%
D+13.9
1980
113,374
23.5%
0.48%
D+6.4
1990
141,210
24.6%
0.47%
D+11.8
2000
168,660
19.4%
0.50%
D+9.1
2008*
197,658
17.2%
0.54%
D+13.3

Yuba

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
10,375
3.3%
0.30%
R+2.8
1930
11,331
9.2%
0.20%
D+11.0
1940
17,034
50.3%
0.25%
D+11.7
1950
24,420
43.4%
0.23%
R+3.1
1960
33,859
38.7%
0.22%
R+0.2
1970
44,736
32.1%
0.22%
R+1.2
1980
49,733
11.2%
0.21%
R+1.8
1990
58,228
17.1%
0.20%
R+8.8
2000
60,219
3.4%
0.18%
R+13.5
2008*
73,067
21.3%
0.20%
R+14.0

California: How Demographic Changes Impacted Partisan Changes (Part 1)

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