Author: californianintexas

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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