In my last diary the blue statewide trend in California voter registration was quite clear.
But what about the parts of counties with multiple congressional districts?
Below the fold to crack open the walnut…………..
Tag: voter registration
California voter registration by County 2006-2010
As we patiently await draft Californian congressional maps to be released later this year it is appropriate to check out the trends in voter registration. Given that the boundaries will inevitably change; comparisons by County rather than by CD are illuminating to say the least.
Below the fold for a comparison between October 2006 and October 2010 (midterm to midterm).
| COUNTY | CURRENT CD/S | DEM 2006 REG | REP 2006 REG | GAP | DEM 2010 REG | REP 2010 REG | GAP | TREND | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alameda | 9,10,11,13 | 55.22% | 17.52% | D+37.70% | 56.81% | 15.71% | D+41.10% | D+3.40% | ||
| Alpine | 3 | 35.74% | 34.97% | D+0.77% | 38.2% | 33.42% | D+4.78% | D+4.01% | ||
| Amador | 3 | 34.91% | 46.46% | R+11.55% | 33.14% | 45.66% | R+12.52% | R+0.97% | ||
| Butte | 2,4 | 34.57% | 41.13% | R+6.56% | 34.71% | 39.23% | R+4.52% | D+2.04% | ||
| Calaveras | 3 | 33.94% | 44.79% | R+10.85% | 32.32% | 42.88% | R+10.56% | D+0.29% | ||
| Colusa | 2 | 35.58% | 46.5% | R+10.92% | 35.12% | 46.15% | R+11.03% | R+0.11% | ||
| Contra Costa | 7,10,11 | 48.12% | 29.61% | D+18.51% | 49.8% | 26.27% | D+23.53% | D+5.02% | ||
| Del Norte | 1 | 36.52% | 39.18% | R+2.66% | 36.65% | 37.55% | R+0.90% | D+1.76% | ||
| El Dorado | 4 | 30.71% | 46.51% | R+15.80% | 30.19% | 44.92% | R+14.73% | D+1.07% | ||
| Fresno | 18,19,20,21 | 39.46% | 45.29% | R+5.84% | 40.99% | 40.96% | D+0.03% | D+5.87% | ||
| Glenn | 2 | 32.54% | 47.33% | R+14.79% | 31.25% | 45.81% | R+14.56% | D+0.23% | ||
| Humboldt | 1 | 41.35% | 28.91% | D+12.44% | 42.59% | 26.83% | D+15.76% | D+3.32% | ||
| Imperial | 51 | 55.26% | 26.34% | D+28.92% | 51.68% | 26.66% | D+25.02% | R+3.90% | ||
| Inyo | 25 | 32.14% | 45.14% | R+13% | 32.28% | 44.3% | R+12.02% | D+0.98% | ||
| Kern | 20,22 | 35.7% | 47.4% | R+11.7% | 35.31% | 44.09% | R+8.78% | D+2.92% | ||
| Kings | 20 | 37.89% | 46.83% | R+8.94% | 36.15% | 45.36% | R+9.26% | R+0.32% | ||
| Lake | 1 | 43.29% | 32.03% | D+10.26% | 42.96% | 29.34% | D+13.62% | D+3.36% | ||
| Lassen | 4 | 28.93% | 46.62% | R+17.69% | 26.85% | 47.82% | R+20.97% | R+3.28% | ||
| Los Angeles | 22,25 – 39,42,46 | 49.74% | 27.02% | D+22.72% | 51.4% | 23.58% | D+27.82% | D+5.10% | ||
| Madera | 18,19 | 33.7% | 49.21% | R+15.51% | 35.28% | 45.08% | R+9.8% | D+5.71% | ||
| Marin | 6 | 51.73% | 22.44% | D+29.29% | 54.61% | 19.32% | D+35.29% | D+6.00% | ||
| Mariposa | 19 | 32.3% | 46.81% | R+14.51% | 31.07% | 44.92% | R+13.85% | D+0.66% | ||
| Mendocino | 1 | 46.27% | 24.86% | D+21.41% | 47.2% | 22.48% | D+24.72% | D+3.31% | ||
| Merced | 18 | 45.01% | 41.03% | D+3.98% | 46.27% | 34.74% | D+11.53% | D+7.55% | ||
| Modoc | 4 | 30.22% | 49.34% | R+19.12% | 26.76% | 49.24% | R+22.28% | R+3.16% | ||
| Mono | 25 | 31.1% | 38.64% | R+7.54% | 32.37% | 36.91% | R+4.54% | D+3.00% | ||
| Monterey | 17 | 48.23% | 30.8% | D+17.43% | 53.45% | 25.52% | D+27.93% | D+10.50% | ||
| Napa | 1 | 46.08% | 31.36% | D+14.72% | 47.2% | 27.21% | D+19.99% | D+5.27% | ||
| Nevada | 4 | 32.2% | 42.96% | R+10.76% | 33.66% | 40.04% | R+6.38% | D+4.38% | ||
| Orange | 40,42,44,46,47,48 | 30.07% | 47.9% | R+17.83% | 31.92% | 43.18% | R+11.26% | D+6.57% | ||
| Placer | 4 | 28.67% | 51.43% | R+22.76% | 28.89% | 48.23% | R+19.34% | D+3.42% | ||
| Plumas | 4 | 33.36% | 43.8% | R+10.44% | 32.37% | 43.16% | R+10.79% | R+0.35% | ||
| Riverside | 41,44,45,49 | 34.42% | 45.7% | R+11.28% | 36.29% | 41.87% | R+5.58% | D+5.70% | ||
| Sacramento | 3,4,5,10 | 42.61% | 34.54% | D+8.07% | 43.93% | 33.76% | D+10.17% | D+2.10% | ||
| San Benito | 17 | 45.05% | 33.86% | D+11.19% | 48.18% | 30.34% | D+17.84% | D+6.65% | ||
| San Bernardino | 25,26,41,42,43 | 37.59% | 42.41% | R+4.82% | 39.01% | 38.46% | D+0.55% | D+5.37% | ||
| San Diego | 49,50,51,52,53 | 34.16% | 39.52% | R+5.36% | 35.92% | 36.27% | R+0.35% | D+5.01% | ||
| San Francisco | 8,12 | 54.43% | 10.92% | D+43.51% | 56.26% | 9.53% | D+46.73% | D+3.22% | ||
| San Joaquin | 11,18 | 42.43% | 40.6% | D+1.83% | 42.66% | 38.96% | D+3.70% | D+1.87% | ||
| San Luis Obispo | 22,23 | 35.08% | 41.84% | R+6.76% | 34.96% | 39.89% | R+4.93% | D+2.83% | ||
| San Mateo | 12,14 | 49.42% | 24.46% | D+24.96% | 51.77% | 20.76% | D+31.01% | D+6.05% | ||
| Santa Barbara | 23,24 | 40.39% | 35.53% | D+4.86% | 42.37% | 32.14% | D+10.23% | D+5.37% | ||
| Santa Clara | 11,14, 15,16 | 44.9% | 26.84% | D+18.06% | 45.88% | 23.89% | D+21.99% | D+3.93% | ||
| Santa Cruz | 14,17 | 53.04% | 20.26% | D+32.78% | 54.83% | 17.72% | D+37.11% | D+4.33% | ||
| Shasta | 2 | 30.11% | 49.18% | R+19.07% | 28.44% | 47.25% | R+18.81% | D+0.26% | ||
| Sierra | 4 | 31.1% | 42.81% | R+11.71% | 29.11% | 42.6% | R+13.49% | R+1.78% | ||
| Siskiyou | 2 | 35.5% | 42.3% | R+6.80% | 33.86% | 40.96% | R+7.10% | R+0.30% | ||
| Solano | 3,7,10 | 48.61% | 29.12% | D+19.49% | 49.53% | 26.16% | D+23.37% | D+3.88% | ||
| Sonoma | 1,6 | 50.17% | 25.71% | D+24.46% | 52.13% | 22.74% | D+29.39% | D+4.93% | ||
| Stanislaus | 18,19 | 40.23% | 42.24% | R+2.01% | 43.38% | 36.78% | D+6.60% | D+8.61% | ||
| Sutter | 2 | 32.26% | 49.51% | R+17.25% | 33.38% | 46.28% | R+12.90% | D+4.35% | ||
| Tehama | 2 | 33.3% | 45.3% | R+12.00% | 31.43% | 44.33% | R+12.90% | D+0.90% | ||
| Trinity | 2 | 35.94% | 39.07% | R+3.13% | 35.46% | 35.54% | R+0.08% | D+3.05% | ||
| Tulare | 21 | 34.25% | 48.03% | R+13.78% | 34.54% | 45.49% | R+10.95% | D+2.83% | ||
| Tuolumne | 19 | 36.27% | 43.73% | R+7.46% | 33.42% | 42.63% | R+9.21% | R+1.75% | ||
| Ventura | 23,24 | 38.07% | 39.83% | R+1.76% | 39.76% | 36.97% | D+2.79% | D+4.55% | ||
| Yolo | 1,2 | 46.17% | 27.53% | D+18.64% | 47.85% | 24.64% | D+23.21% | D+4.57% | ||
| Yuba | 2 | 33.96% | 42.52% | R+8.56% | 33.43% | 40.04% | R+6.61% | D+1.95% |
Some observations:
In 2006 the Dems had a majority of registered voters in 6 counties, the Repubs in 1. In 2010 the numbers are 9 and 0 respectively.
In 2006 there were more Dems than Repubs in 23/58 Counties, in 2010 this has increased to 27/58.
Only 10 counties trended Repub between 2006-2010, 48 trended Dem. Of the 10 counties that trended Repub 7 of them are in the 2nd,3rd or 4th CD’s.
The biggest improvement between 2006 & 2010 came for the Repubs in Imperial at 3.90% and for the Dems it was in Monterey at 10.5%. No less than 24 counties improved for the Dems by more than Imperial did for the Repubs.
Repubs have a more than 10 point registration lead in 17 counties, Dems have the same in 21.
In four counties the voter reg gap is less than 200 voters!
Trinty – 6! (R)
Alpine – 35 (D)
Del Norte – 112 (R)
Fresno – 161 (D)
All of these Counties trended Dem between 2006 & 2010.
So what does this all mean?
As others have discussed at great length the future for the Republicans in California looks bleak. The areas of California that are trending Repub are almost entirely small inland counties with declining or very slowing growing populations. And whilst the Repubs still maintain sizable voter reg buffers in large counties like Orange and Riverside these counties are rapidly blueing.
For us Dems the news is looking great for obvious reasons. I expect by the 2012 General Election that the GOP will comprise less than 30% of registered voters in CA and that the Dems will be at least 45% – a huge 15%+ gap. Currently the respective numbers are 44/31.
California Registration Numbers Since 1990
I checked the California Secretary of State’s site and found that each statement of vote has registration statistics going back to 1910. I decided to use the presidential elections from 1988 on, since 1992 marked the realignment in California, Illinois, and many northeastern states that caused them to vote Democratic in every presidential election from 1992 on. Here are the numbers.
| Year | DEM | % | GOP | % | Other | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The 2008 election marked the end of a streak of decreasing numbers of Democratic registered voters since the bump they got in 1992. Why the Democrats’ share of the pie in 1992 fell from their 1988 numbers can be explained by the surge in unaffiliated voters, methinks, thanks to Ross Perot. Also, despite the fall in the Democrats’ numbers in proportion to the total number of registered voters, the Democratic presidential nominee has won California by stronger margins. This can be accounted for by many unaffiliated voters becoming disenchanted with the GOP’s rightward shift and voting Democratic in greater numbers, as well as more Republicans crossing over than Democrats. You will also notice that the GOP’s share of the pie has been steadily declining since 1988, with the boost they got from Arnold and the 2004 election only temporarily stopping the bleeding.
Here are the rates of change in the numbers of each parties’ registered voters. For 1992, I am showing the percent change in the numbers from 1988.
| Year | DEM | GOP | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
From here, we can see that the only times since 1988 that the Republicans surpassed Democrats in the rate of increase in the number of registered voters were 1996, where Republican optimism got a jumpstart from their 1994 landslides, and 2004, and in 2008 the rate of increase in the number of registered Democrats surpassed the rate of increase in the number of unaffiliated voters for the first time in a while. (I’m not sure of the last time this happened; I’d have to look it up.) It remains to see if 2008 was a one-time deal, or if we’ll be looking at similar numbers in 2012, with a faster increase in the number of registered Democrats than unaffiliated voters. Unaffiliated voters outnumbering Republican voters is not out of the question either, at least if current trends continue or speed up.
How good is your state’s “election readiness”?
Yesterday the creator of the Iowa Voters blog let Bleeding Heartland readers know that “The Brennan Center (with help from Sean Flaherty of Iowans for Voting Integrity) has released a major report on the status of election readiness.”
I recommend checking out this report to see how your state matches up. Iowa does fairly well. Thanks to the efforts of Secretary of State Mike Mauro, we adopted a law earlier this year banning touchscreen voting machines. Also, Iowa has same-day voter registration, which means very few people will have to use provisional ballots if they show up on election day and are not on the voter rolls.
In fact, the Iowa Voters blogger noted,
Iowa is one of eight states given credit for “best practices” in ballot accounting and reconciliation. See the third map.
On the other hand, we fall into the black space on the bottom map regarding audits of the machine readout. That’s Mauro’s next challenge. Someone needs to hand count some ballots after the polls close to see that the machines got it right in their hi-speed readings. Haste makes waste! Slow down and double check the damned things!
That challenge is for the government to face next legislative session. If we get good audits we can join the list of only six states that get shaded green on the top map (Alaska, Oregon, California, North Carolina, and our neighbors Missouri and Minnesota).
I agree that we need to have better audit procedures for our optical scanner counts, but I’m very relieved we won’t have to worry about some Iowa counties using touchscreen machines. It looks like the presidential race in Iowa will be a blowout for Barack Obama, but we could easily have Congressional or state legislative races that are close enough to require recounts.
Swing State Nation
Yesterday, we looked at the dramatic voter registration shift in Nevada, where Democrats have added far more voters to the rolls than Republicans in all three of the state’s congressional districts over the past two years. It occurred to me that we might want to expand this analysis to as many “swing states” as we could.
SEK over at The Edge of the American West has done yeoman’s work on this score, keeping tabs on the Democratic gains since the beginning of the year in all states with available data on party registration. Let’s take that approach a step further and compare the voter registration changes between today and 2006.
Nearly five years ago, DavidNYC defined a swing state as any state where the vote margin between both sides was ±10%. Let’s take David’s 2004 list of swing states (and add North Carolina and Arizona, for good measure) and see just how much movement there has been in voter registration in these states since November 2006. Unfortunately, not all of these states have voter registration, or publicly available data covering the last two years, so our list is much shorter than I’d like. But you blog with the stats you have, not the stats you want.
Just as we did yesterday, let’s present the data in terms of the margin of each party’s voter registration advantage in their respective states, with blue indicating a Democratic registration advantage and red indicating a GOP advantage.
| State | 2006 | 2008 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 166,133 | 110,806 | 55,327 |
| California | 1,291,594 | 1,809,466 | 517,872 |
| Colorado | 165,423 | 78,227 | 87,196 |
| Delaware | 67,494 | 86,573 | 19,079 |
| Florida | 283,856 | 465,617 | 181,761 |
| Iowa | 18,195 | 99,014 | 80,819 |
| Nevada | 15,309 | 76,053 | 60,744 |
| New Jersey | 260,066 | 652,210 | 392,144 |
| North Carolina | 611,790 | 743,463 | 131,673 |
| Oregon | 62,351 | 212,224 | 149,873 |
| Pennsylvania | 599,791 | 1,111,900 | 512,109 |
No doubt a super-charged presidential primary was a big factor in the hard blue turn in many of these states, but that contest only fanned the flames of an already present (and continuing) trend. These are definitely some numbers worth chewing on — and definitely ones causing heartburn for GOP strategists.
I’ve included links to my sources below the fold.
Update: I’ve revised the chart above to include inactive voters in the tallies for Arizona and Nevada, as well as update the Iowa numbers with the new September stats (Dems posted another net gain of 2,500 voters here).
AZ: 2006 | 2008
CA: 2006 | 2008
CO: 2006 | 2008
DE: 2006 | 2008
FL: 2006 | 2008
IA: 2006 | 2008
NV: 2006 | 2008
NJ: 2006 | 2008
NC: 2006 | 2008
OR: 2006 | 2008
PA: 2006 | 2008
PA-05: McCracken for Congress — Weekly Update — July 13th, 2008
DEP Rejects Permit Application for PA Waste / Boggs Township Landfill.
I’m pleased to report the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has rejected the permit application filed by PA Waste LLC to construct a 5,000 ton per day municipal waste landfill in Boggs Township, Clearfield County. As county commissioner, I’ve been working over the past 4 years, first with Rex Read and Mike Lytle, and now with John Sobel and Joan Robinson McMillen, to oppose the construction of this landfill in Clearfield County.
Elected leaders including State Rep. Camille George, county officials and many township and borough officials also worked to oppose this landfill. However, there are more important people to congratulate for this outcome. Since August of 2004 when it was first announced that the site in Boggs Township was being targeted for the development of a landfill, a group of committed citizens led by Darryl Lashinsky, Paula Norris, Randy Levin, Leo Knepp and others, met faithfully month after month to oppose the landfill.
The announcement on Friday, July 11th that PA Waste’s permit application had been rejected was a direct result of citizen involvement and their expectations that government would protect the interests of the citizens over the interests of a corporate entity. While PA Waste still has the right to appeal this decision or submit a new application at a later date, this is, at least for the time being, a small victory for the people of central Pennsylvania.
Some people will question how the Boggs Township landfill is an issue for a congressional campaign. With several communities in the 5th congressional district targeted for landfill development, our next congressman should be interested and involved in these issues. Additionally, I feel our leaders in Washington should be paying more attention interstate commerce laws and try to control the flow of garbage. Not only are states legally sending their environmental problems to other states, but, our nation’s fuel supplies are being depleted faster when thousands of trucks per day are moving garbage hundreds of miles to pristine rural areas like central Pennsylvania. This is an issue I’ve been involved in and I hope voters in the 5th district will consider this when choosing their next congressman.
Cook Report Changes Rating for 5th District Race:
Recently, the Cook Political Report changed the race in the 5th District from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican”. The Cook Report has a 7 position rating scale that runs “Solid Republican”, “Likely Republican”, “Leans Republican”, “Toss Up”, “Leans Democratic”, “Likely Democratic” and “Solid Democratic”. While we’re not in a “Toss Up” race yet, this is positive news for our campaign and proves if we continue to work hard and spread our message, voters are listening and giving strong consideration to where we stand on the issues.
As we move forward in the campaign I feel certain we will see additional positive gains in voter support and registration numbers. One area where we can count on solid results is in Centre County. They already have an impressive ground campaign underway, not only for Barack Obama, but for the entire slate of Democratic candidates. We can also be encouraged by the solid support and interest we are receiving in all 17 counties throughout the 5th district. Even more encouraging is that our efforts are getting recognition from a national entity like the Cook Report. Can you feel the momentum building?
Scheduled Events for the Upcoming Week:
Tuesday July 15th — Jefferson County Fair — 5 to 9 PM*
* – May make additional appearance at Jefferson County Fair if time allows.
Wednesday July 16th — Lycoming County Fair — 4 to 8 PM
Thursday July 17th — Clearfield
McCracken for Congress Dinner
5:30 to 7:30 PM — Lawrence Township Fire Company Social Hall — Mill Road Clearfield
Cost – $20 per person
Event catered by The Country Butcher — Door Prizes
Thursday July 17th — Clearfield County Democratic Committee Meeting — 7 — 9 PM
IBEW Building, Clearfield, PA
Friday July 18th — Tioga County
McCracken for Congress Picnic
4-8 pm – Hills Creek State Park, Crabapple Pavilion
Cost – $10.00 per person, $18.00 per couple, $25.00 per Family
Hot Dogs, salads, desserts and water, iced tea and lemonade to be served.
RSVP by July 16th to either Ann Gazda at 570-724-1449 / email gazda@epix.net or Bonne Kyofski at 570-827-3231 / email kyofski@epix.net.
Saturday July 19th — Curwensville Days Parade — 6 PM
Sunday July 20th — Lock Haven — Clinton County
McCracken for Congress Dinner
3:30 to 5:30 PM — Sons of Italy Hall — Downtown Lock Haven
Cost – $20 per person.
After dinner, although not an official part of the campaign event, people are encouraged to take part in the concert held at the riverfront amphitheatre which will feature a performance from a band featuring classic rock. NOTE — bring lawn chairs in case the stands are filled.
Please contact mccrackenforcongress@verizon.net for additional details on the above events.
Weekly Event Wrap Up:
During this past week we attended the following events:
Monday: DuBois Democratic Committee Meeting
Tuesday: Potter County Democratic Committee Meeting
Thursday: SEIU Interview in Harrisburg, Visit to Lycoming County Democratic / Obama Headquarters in Williamsport, Philipsburg Heritage Days / Democratic Booth
Saturday: Philipsburg Heritage Days Parade, Central PA Festival of the Arts — State College and a visit to Centre County Democratic Headquarters.
Mark B. McCracken
Your Candidate For Congress
————————————————————————————————–
This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth
Mark McCracken for Congress
ActBlue page