Regional Realignment, Part 10: The Pacific Coast

For purposes of this diary, the Pacific Coast is defined as Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington.  These states today, sans Alaska, are considered reliably Demcratic states for Team Blue.  This hasn’t always been the case in Presidential elections where two Republican Presidential candidates had strong ties to California (Reagan, Nixon).  

US Presidential elections Realignment

The following is a history of how each state supported the Democratic candidates:

1960:  Kennedy wins HI

1964:  Johnson wins all 5 states

1968:  Humphery wins WA and HI

1972:  McGovern doesn’t win any of these states

1976:  Carter wins HI

1980:  Carter wins HI

1984:  Mondale doesn’t win any of these states

1988:  Dukakis wins HI, OR, and WA

1992 thru 2008:  Democrats win all but AK

In fairness to the Democrats, the Republicans had 2 California Presidential candidates between 1960 thru 1984 (Nixon in 1960, 1968, and 1972, and Reagan in 1980 and 1984).  Also, the Democrats had 2 considerably weak Democratic candidates in 1972 (McGovern) and 1984 (Mondale).  I find it interesting that another presumably weak Democratic candidate (Dukakis) won 3 of these states in 1988.  

US House Representation Realignment

After the 1960 general election, the Democrats had approximately 60% of all house seats (and 64 of the 100 senate seats).  I have inserted below the results of certain general elections.

1960:  21(D), 22(R)

1964:  34(D), 18(R)

1966:  30(D), 22(R)  

1972:  34(D), 23(R)

1974:  40(D), 17(R)

1976:  41(D), 16(R)

1980:  32(D), 25(R)

1982:  38(D), 23(R)

1984:  37(D), 24(R)

1990:  37(D), 24(R)  

1992:  44(D), 25(R)

1994:  34(D), 35(R)

1996:  38(D), 31(R)

2000:  44(D), 25(R)

2004:  45(D), 25(R)

2006:  46(D), 24(R)

2008:  46(D), 24(R)

Fifty years ago, the Democrats and Republicans pretty much had an equal split in House Representation in this region.  After the JFK/LBJ administration and the Watergate years, the Democrats enjoyed a huge advantage of 41-16.  The Reagan revolution and a perceived weak Carter administration gave the Republicans some momentum, but by 1990, the Democrats were once again in the driver’s seat.  This region was decimated in 1994, temporarily giving the GOP a slight advantage in House representation.  By the end of the Clinton administration, the Democrats had the same advantage as it did in 1992.  Since 2000, the Democrats’ advantage has been nominal.

US Senate Representation Realignment

1960:  8(D), 2(R)

1964:  7(D), 3(R)

1966:  6(D), 4(R)  

1972:  6(D), 4(R)

1974:  6(D), 4(R)

1976:  6(D), 4(R)

1980:  4(D), 6(R)

1982:  4(D), 6(R)

1984:  3(D), 7(R)

1990:  4(D), 6(R)  

1992:  5(D), 5(R)

1994:  5(D), 5(R)

1996:  6(D), 4(R)

2000:  7(D), 3(R)

2004:  7(D), 3(R)

2006:  7(D), 3(R)

2008:  9(D), 1(R)

Besides the 1980’s, the Democrats have pretty much controlled the Senate representation in this area.  The dawn of the Reagan revolution gave the Republicans the upper hand in the 1980’s, but the 1990’s provided the Democrats with some much needed momentum.  Today, only Alaska has a Republican Senator within this region.

Conclusions:

The Democrats enjoy a strong advantage in this region as of today.  This region is much more Democratic than the nation as a whole, although that hasn’t always been the case.  To help prove this point, I wanted to compare the US House results in the election years of 1960, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008, comparing the national representation in the US House with the Pacific Coast.

Nationwide Democrats House Representation (Pacific Coast in parenthesis)

1960:  60% (49%)

1970:  59% (58%)

1980:  56% (56%)

1990:  62% (61%)

2000:  49% (64%)

2008:  59% (66%)

50 years ago, the Pacific Coast had more Republican representation than the US as as whole.  In 1970, 1980, and 1990, the Pacific Coast Democratic representation was almost identical with the nation. Starting with the 1988 Presidential election and building off the 1996 elections, the Pacific Coast has become more Democratic than the nation as a whole.

Besides Alaska, which is much more conservative (and liberatarian) than HI, CA, WA, and OR, the Pacific Coast is reliably Democratic.  Truth be told, an effective reapportionment in 2012 is much needed in CA.  The Democrats could easily pick up 4-5 seats, if not more, if the California districts were effectively Gerrymandered.  This region should be in the hands of the Democrats for many more years.  In 2010, we will have to play some defense in a couple of districts, most notably WA-3, CA-11, and HI-01.  However, I don’t see any other Democratic districts in which we are endangered.  In the Senate, Barbara Boxer has a fight on her hands.  I’m fairly optimistic that Boxer will prevail even with the GOP nationwide momentum.  Boxer is a politician that won’t go down without a fight.  Murray might be endangered, but I also like her reelection prospects.