Tag: California

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

California Presidential PVI by County (1920 – 2008)

California has undergone many dramatic changes politically as well as demographically over the years. In the dawning decades of the 20th century, California consistently voted more Republican than the country as a whole thanks to the Republicans being the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives. During the Depression and World War II, California filled up with Okies and Arkies that pushed it sharply to being more Democratic than the country. After the war, and many more newcomers later, California voted about the same as the country most of the time until 1992. President Clinton’s focusing more on the state, especially after the Northridge earthquake in early ’94, gradually brought California into consistently voting more Democratic than the country.

Here are California’s PVI’s, beginning with 1920: R+5.4; 1924: R+15.8; 1928: R+14.4; 1932: R+2.4; 1936: D+3.6; 1940: D+4.3; 1944: D+3.1; 1948: D+0.4; 1952: R+2.0; 1956: D+0.1; 1960: D+0.9; 1964: R+1.3; 1968: R+1.7; 1972: D+1.8; 1976: D+1.4; 1980: R+3.1; 1984: R+1.6; 1988: D+1.5; 1992: D+3.6; 1996: D+3.8; 2000: D+4.2; 2004: D+6.1; 2008: D+7.4.

Kerry won by 10% and carried a minority, 22 of 58, of California’s counties (Alameda, Alpine, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Imperial, Lake, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Yolo).

Obama won by 24% and won a majority 34 counties, carrying all 22 Kerry counties and adding 12 more: Butte (plurality), Fresno (plurality), Merced, Nevada, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus (plurality), Trinity, Ventura. Obama broke some longtime Republican voting streaks in these counties. Here is the last time the new Obama-majority counties voted majority-Democratic.

San Diego – 1944

Nevada – 1964

Riverside – 1964

San Bernardino – 1964

San Joaquin – 1964

San Luis Obispo – 1964

Ventura – 1964

Merced – 1976

Trinity – 1976

Obama improved on Kerry in all 58 counties, though less so in the ultra-Democratic Bay Area counties (Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz). These less-than-dramatic improvements do not suggest the region is trending Republican; looking at their numbers (70-80% Democratic), these counties most likely just maxed out their Democratic numbers. Because I want to see an expanded Democratic playing field to shut out Republicans in as many areas as possible, I am pleased at the growth in Democratic numbers, especially in the Valley and inland Southland because these areas also experienced the fastest growth in population in the past decade.

Back in 2005-6, Arnold and other California Republicans proposed a measure to award electoral votes by congressional district, Maine and Nebraska-style. Going by the 2004 presidential results, Bush would have won 22 of California’s 53 districts, which would have neutralized Democrats’ winning Ohio or Florida. Ironically, this time, had the system been in place, Republicans would have netted only 11 electoral votes.

Here I will include the maps of the counties by PVI in each presidential election from 1920 to 2008. Below the flip are the tables showing the exact PVI of each county.

Dark Blue = D+20 and up

Blue = D+15-19

Medium-Light Blue = D+10-14

Light Blue = D+5-9

Very Light Blue = D+0-4

White = EVEN

Very Light Red = R+0-4

Light Red = R+5-9

Medium-light red = R+10-14

Red = R+15-19

Dark Red = R+20 and up

1920: http://i56.tinypic.com/mh85dh.gif

1924: http://i55.tinypic.com/205a0wm…

1928: http://i52.tinypic.com/6qia6t.gif

1932: http://i52.tinypic.com/e7hvkp.gif

1936: http://i52.tinypic.com/2e4f1vt…

1940: http://i51.tinypic.com/10d5gmg…

1944: http://i51.tinypic.com/xd5wk1.gif

1948: http://i55.tinypic.com/34i0cuu…

1952: http://i54.tinypic.com/72wuwl.gif

1956: http://i54.tinypic.com/2aeq992…

1960: http://i51.tinypic.com/169fgr6…

1964: http://i55.tinypic.com/34qmvpt…

1968: http://i51.tinypic.com/5o8hu0.gif

1972: http://i56.tinypic.com/ztuosi.gif

1976: http://i51.tinypic.com/b5r31e.gif

1980: http://i53.tinypic.com/2n18569…

1984: http://i56.tinypic.com/jzckcl.gif

1988: http://i56.tinypic.com/ruo09v.gif

1992: http://i53.tinypic.com/14szck7…

1996: http://i53.tinypic.com/2gsn861…

2000: http://i53.tinypic.com/24whh5i…

2004: http://i55.tinypic.com/28rf5lk…

2008: http://i55.tinypic.com/v46ixu.gif

1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956
*California
R+5.4
R+15.8
R+14.4
R+2.4
D+3.6
D+4.3
D+3.1
D+0.4
R+2.0
D+0.1
Alameda
R+9.6
R+19.7
R+16.6
R+6.0
R+1.4
D+1.4
D+2.6
D+1.2
D+0.3
D+3.8
Alpine
R+25.8
R+26.8
R+30.7
R+21.6
R+8.4
R+15.4
R+22.1
R+27.8
R+33.0
R+27.3
Amador
D+1.9
R+4.1
D+5.1
D+14.8
D+14.5
D+12.8
D+10.2
D+8.0
D+4.9
D+5.5
Butte
R+1.5
R+9.3
R+7.3
D+3.6
D+7.4
D+4.4
D+1.5
R+2.6
R+6.3
R+4.7
Calaveras
R+0.6
R+6.5
R+1.3
D+7.6
D+10.3
D+7.1
D+3.6
D+0.9
R+3.9
R+3.6
Colusa
D+7.1
R+2.4
R+1.1
D+7.3
D+10.7
D+7.0
D+4.1
D+1.8
R+2.1
R+0.0
Contra Costa
R+4.2
R+16.1
R+13.1
R+0.1
D+6.3
D+9.0
D+8.9
D+7.8
D+5.4
D+6.1
Del Norte
R+3.7
R+10.2
R+6.8
D+5.4
D+3.0
R+5.8
R+9.2
R+9.1
R+9.0
R+2.2
El Dorado
D+2.6
R+5.2
D+4.5
D+15.5
D+15.5
D+13.2
D+9.4
D+4.4
R+1.7
R+0.9
Fresno
D+3.4
R+4.3
R+4.1
D+8.7
D+15.0
D+15.6
D+12.7
D+9.6
D+7.4
D+10.2
Glenn
D+0.7
R+9.3
R+10.6
D+0.8
D+6.4
D+2.6
R+1.4
R+4.0
R+7.0
R+1.8
Humboldt
R+12.5
R+19.2
R+18.0
R+7.6
R+0.9
D+1.4
D+2.4
D+0.7
R+3.5
R+0.1
Imperial
R+1.4
R+11.4
R+13.3
D+0.5
D+4.8
R+1.6
R+4.9
R+7.1
R+6.7
R+2.8
Inyo
D+0.9
R+6.7
R+6.6
D+4.5
D+4.6
D+0.4
R+2.2
R+7.5
R+12.1
R+11.2
Kern
D+10.8
D+1.1
R+6.2
D+5.1
D+13.8
D+10.2
D+4.7
D+3.6
D+2.5
D+3.1
Kings
D+2.6
R+3.1
D+0.1
D+9.8
D+13.3
D+13.3
D+12.4
D+10.5
D+7.6
D+10.6
Lake
D+4.1
R+4.9
R+8.8
R+1.2
R+3.4
R+10.4
R+8.9
R+10.9
R+12.8
R+10.0
Lassen
D+0.6
R+8.6
R+4.0
D+7.6
D+15.5
D+16.2
D+13.4
D+12.4
D+12.1
D+13.4
Los Angeles
R+9.1
R+18.5
R+18.5
R+5.8
D+3.0
D+4.7
D+3.6
D+0.6
R+1.7
D+0.4
Madera
D+5.0
R+4.5
R+4.3
D+8.9
D+14.5
D+14.0
D+9.8
D+7.1
D+6.7
D+10.4
Marin
R+8.6
R+18.4
R+11.9
D+0.9
D+2.3
R+0.2
R+2.9
R+6.9
R+12.3
R+10.4
Mariposa
D+8.0
D+0.8
D+0.5
D+7.5
D+12.5
D+11.6
D+5.9
R+4.5
R+11.0
R+7.0
Mendocino
R+5.0
R+12.3
R+11.5
R+0.7
D+2.8
D+1.6
D+1.0
R+2.8
R+5.9
R+2.7
Merced
R+0.9
R+11.8
R+10.2
D+4.9
D+11.8
D+9.9
D+6.5
D+4.4
D+2.9
D+6.7
Modoc
D+4.3
R+1.0
D+0.4
D+7.1
D+7.6
D+4.9
D+3.8
D+0.2
R+3.3
R+1.0
Mono
R+4.7
R+12.4
R+9.0
D+0.8
D+4.6
D+0.7
R+8.2
R+17.5
R+21.0
R+19.0
Monterey
R+4.5
R+14.2
R+11.9
R+2.5
R+0.4
R+0.0
D+0.4
R+2.3
R+6.1
R+4.7
Napa
R+9.6
R+15.4
R+9.1
D+1.9
D+0.8
R+1.5
R+1.6
R+4.4
R+6.8
R+2.4
Nevada
D+0.3
R+13.7
R+5.9
D+6.4
D+8.5
D+11.1
D+6.7
R+0.5
R+5.8
R+5.7
Orange
R+14.2
R+19.0
R+22.3
R+14.6
R+7.2
R+8.8
R+11.1
R+13.0
R+15.2
R+12.5
Placer
D+5.3
R+10.4
R+5.4
D+11.6
D+14.6
D+14.2
D+11.3
D+9.1
D+6.7
D+8.1
Plumas
D+0.8
R+8.9
D+0.8
D+15.3
D+18.0
D+17.7
D+17.1
D+14.6
D+12.3
D+13.6
Riverside
R+13.2
R+17.7
R+21.3
R+15.8
R+11.8
R+9.6
R+7.6
R+9.3
R+10.3
R+7.5
Sacramento
D+0.6
R+12.5
R+6.4
D+9.9
D+14.7
D+15.5
D+13.4
D+10.6
D+7.2
D+9.4
San Benito
R+1.2
R+9.8
R+7.5
D+2.4
D+2.8
R+2.1
R+5.7
R+8.1
R+9.7
R+6.0
San Bernardino
R+6.4
R+12.9
R+18.7
R+11.5
R+4.1
R+0.9
R+0.3
R+1.8
R+2.6
R+0.8
San Diego
R+4.0
R+14.8
R+16.1
R+5.9
R+0.4
D+1.6
D+0.9
R+1.3
R+5.8
R+7.7
San Francisco
R+3.6
R+16.9
R+7.0
D+8.6
D+10.3
D+8.9
D+6.2
D+2.9
D+0.4
D+4.0
San Joaquin
D+3.3
R+9.0
R+10.0
D+2.1
D+9.4
D+4.9
R+1.5
R+2.3
R+2.1
D+1.2
San Luis Obispo
R+2.2
R+13.4
R+10.9
D+3.7
D+5.1
R+0.6
R+1.9
R+5.6
R+9.4
R+5.7
San Mateo
R+10.1
R+20.5
R+13.4
R+0.6
D+1.8
D+1.0
R+2.6
R+7.1
R+9.8
R+5.9
Santa Barbara
R+3.4
R+15.6
R+16.8
R+5.2
D+0.3
R+0.2
R+0.1
R+6.5
R+12.4
R+9.6
Santa Clara
R+8.4
R+17.4
R+14.5
R+6.9
R+5.8
R+4.1
R+2.9
R+4.7
R+6.4
R+3.1
Santa Cruz
R+4.6
R+15.5
R+16.1
R+5.8
R+5.4
R+8.1
R+7.4
R+10.7
R+12.9
R+9.2
Shasta
D+1.7
R+7.4
R+2.9
D+10.8
D+12.2
D+11.1
D+9.6
D+5.9
D+2.6
D+6.2
Sierra
R+0.9
R+13.1
R+3.6
D+10.4
D+14.4
D+13.6
D+9.3
D+4.3
D+1.9
D+4.2
Siskiyou
D+4.4
R+8.8
R+6.5
D+7.8
D+10.4
D+8.2
D+6.3
D+3.7
D+1.4
D+3.5
Solano
D+1.6
R+12.4
R+6.1
D+7.8
D+13.1
D+16.3
D+16.3
D+14.7
D+12.9
D+14.4
Sonoma
R+6.7
R+13.6
R+10.3
D+1.3
D+1.1
R+4.6
R+5.9
R+7.3
R+10.9
R+7.8
Stanislaus
R+1.0
R+13.1
R+14.8
R+3.3
D+2.1
R+0.4
R+2.0
R+2.2
R+1.7
D+4.1
Sutter
R+3.2
R+13.5
R+6.0
D+9.2
D+11.5
D+5.7
R+0.7
R+5.1
R+9.2
R+8.8
Tehama
D+1.0
R+10.2
R+11.6
R+1.9
D+1.5
R+0.6
R+0.7
R+3.8
R+7.6
R+2.8
Trinity
D+2.3
R+4.0
D+2.3
D+13.2
D+12.2
D+7.9
D+6.8
D+1.7
R+1.4
D+2.4
Tulare
R+0.8
R+4.9
R+7.0
D+0.6
D+6.5
D+4.0
R+0.9
R+2.1
R+1.4
D+1.5
Tuolumne
D+3.1
R+7.7
R+5.1
D+6.2
D+10.3
D+9.9
D+6.5
D+0.5
R+3.7
D+0.6
Ventura
R+13.1
R+18.6
R+16.5
R+5.0
D+1.7
D+1.9
D+4.2
D+5.0
D+3.4
D+5.2
Yolo
D+1.2
R+6.0
R+4.5
D+6.0
D+8.9
D+5.8
D+4.3
D+3.2
D+2.0
D+5.7
Yuba
R+2.8
R+12.8
R+3.3
D+11.0
D+13.4
D+11.7
D+7.2
D+1.6
R+3.1
R+1.8
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
*California
D+0.9
R+1.3
R+1.7
D+1.8
D+1.4
R+3.1
R+1.6
D+1.5
D+3.6
D+3.8
D+4.2
D+6.1
D+7.4
Alameda
D+4.7
D+4.7
D+7.2
D+13.7
D+13.6
D+10.3
D+15.0
D+19.1
D+20.7
D+20.6
D+21.6
D+25.8
D+27.1
Alpine
R+24.4
R+22.9
R+16.5
R+8.7
R+4.4
R+7.9
R+4.4
R+0.8
R+3.7
R+4.8
R+3.5
D+2.0
D+7.4
Amador
D+6.8
D+5.4
D+3.9
D+3.7
D+3.1
R+3.2
R+5.5
R+3.2
R+3.7
R+6.5
R+9.4
R+10.9
R+11.4
Butte
R+4.5
R+8.9
R+11.3
R+6.1
R+2.1
R+8.0
R+7.9
R+4.0
R+2.9
R+6.7
R+10.1
R+6.6
R+3.1
Calaveras
R+1.7
R+3.0
R+5.7
R+5.5
R+2.2
R+6.3
R+8.5
R+4.7
R+3.5
R+6.9
R+10.2
R+10.5
R+10.6
Colusa
D+1.4
R+1.2
R+3.1
R+1.9
R+1.6
R+7.0
R+8.1
R+6.8
R+9.5
R+13.5
R+16.1
R+17.3
R+14.9
Contra Costa
D+4.8
D+2.6
D+1.8
D+3.9
D+2.4
R+1.8
D+1.1
D+4.9
D+7.7
D+8.2
D+8.8
D+12.7
D+14.9
Del Norte
D+3.0
D+2.0
D+0.6
D+1.5
D+3.0
R+3.0
R+4.2
D+1.3
D+1.9
R+2.1
R+7.2
R+8.1
R+6.9
El Dorado
D+2.2
R+0.3
R+2.9
D+0.1
D+2.3
R+5.8
R+8.9
R+6.5
R+7.5
R+11.1
R+12.7
R+11.4
R+10.0
Fresno
D+9.9
D+4.9
D+3.4
D+6.1
D+4.7
R+0.4
D+1.9
D+3.8
D+0.4
R+4.2
R+5.7
R+6.1
R+4.7
Glenn
D+1.1
R+5.4
R+8.9
R+5.9
R+3.1
R+10.2
R+13.5
R+10.4
R+10.7
R+15.5
R+19.4
R+18.4
R+15.8
Humboldt
D+4.0
D+4.0
D+2.6
D+5.2
D+8.0
D+1.2
D+1.8
D+9.4
D+9.9
D+4.2
D+1.1
D+6.2
D+10.9
Imperial
R+1.2
R+6.7
R+9.1
R+5.5
R+2.1
R+3.5
R+4.2
R+2.7
R+1.0
D+2.6
D+5.2
D+4.7
D+7.0
Inyo
R+6.8
R+6.4
R+9.3
R+9.9
R+9.9
R+13.4
R+14.1
R+11.9
R+11.4
R+13.1
R+14.6
R+11.7
R+8.7
Kern
D+2.8
R+1.7
R+2.2
R+1.6
R+2.9
R+6.6
R+7.6
R+7.4
R+9.5
R+12.5
R+13.6
R+14.4
R+14.3
Kings
D+11.4
D+7.7
D+5.6
D+2.8
D+0.5
R+2.7
R+4.6
R+4.3
R+4.1
R+6.1
R+8.6
R+12.4
R+12.8
Lake
R+8.2
R+7.0
R+4.3
D+0.1
D+3.4
R+0.9
R+0.6
D+4.3
D+6.4
D+5.7
D+4.3
D+5.2
D+5.9
Lassen
D+12.3
D+6.9
D+4.1
D+6.0
D+6.5
R+0.1
R+4.0
R+4.5
R+6.3
R+11.2
R+18.2
R+20.7
R+21.0
Los Angeles
D+1.3
R+1.8
R+2.2
D+2.4
D+2.6
R+0.2
D+1.9
D+5.2
D+8.7
D+11.0
D+13.5
D+15.6
D+16.0
Madera
D+11.7
D+7.2
D+4.8
D+5.3
D+4.6
R+0.4
R+2.0
R+1.6
R+4.8
R+11.1
R+14.0
R+13.7
R+12.0
Marin
R+8.0
R+3.5
R+1.2
D+2.8
D+1.2
R+3.4
D+4.4
D+11.5
D+15.8
D+15.3
D+15.9
D+22.3
D+25.6
Mariposa
R+3.6
R+4.2
R+4.6
R+1.2
D+1.5
R+3.4
R+5.0
R+2.5
R+2.5
R+7.8
R+12.7
R+11.7
R+10.2
Mendocino
D+0.5
D+2.2
D+1.6
D+3.5
D+4.4
D+1.4
D+3.9
D+8.4
D+13.6
D+11.0
D+6.5
D+11.9
D+17.5
Merced
D+9.0
D+6.9
D+6.7
D+5.8
D+3.8
D+2.0
D+0.9
D+0.8
D+0.7
R+2.1
R+3.7
R+4.9
R+2.7
Modoc
D+1.1
R+2.4
R+4.9
R+3.7
R+2.0
R+9.7
R+13.9
R+11.0
R+9.2
R+12.8
R+21.7
R+24.3
R+22.8
Mono
R+16.5
R+17.1
R+18.9
R+14.0
R+9.8
R+13.9
R+15.1
R+11.6
R+6.9
R+6.9
R+7.8
R+2.6
D+2.2
Monterey
R+4.2
R+2.9
R+1.7
R+0.6
R+0.5
R+5.2
R+2.6
D+2.4
D+5.0
D+5.5
D+7.4
D+11.4
D+14.1
Napa
R+0.7
R+0.7
D+1.4
D+0.7
R+2.3
R+5.3
R+2.7
D+1.7
D+5.1
D+5.5
D+5.6
D+9.5
D+12.3
Nevada
R+3.1
R+4.4
R+5.6
R+1.5
D+0.8
R+6.6
R+8.0
R+4.8
R+5.6
R+9.9
R+11.6
R+6.4
R+2.0
Orange
R+10.4
R+14.2
R+17.4
R+13.7
R+12.4
R+17.3
R+18.0
R+15.5
R+13.1
R+12.0
R+10.4
R+8.8
R+7.1
Placer
D+8.8
D+5.3
D+4.1
D+6.5
D+6.0
R+2.0
R+5.8
R+5.8
R+7.7
R+11.2
R+13.0
R+12.3
R+10.8
Plumas
D+14.0
D+10.7
D+9.0
D+10.8
D+8.0
R+0.2
R+1.1
D+1.7
R+0.3
R+7.7
R+13.9
R+13.2
R+10.6
Riverside
R+5.6
R+5.5
R+5.9
R+2.8
D+0.1
R+5.8
R+7.6
R+5.6
R+4.3
R+4.3
R+4.9
R+5.5
R+4.9
Sacramento
D+9.5
D+5.5
D+4.9
D+8.3
D+7.0
D+2.0
D+2.0
D+2.5
D+2.0
D+1.0
D+1.1
D+1.6
D+3.7
San Benito
R+1.8
R+1.1
R+0.8
D+0.2
R+1.0
R+3.7
R+3.3
R+1.8
D+1.0
D+2.5
D+4.1
D+5.3
D+6.1
San Bernardino
R+0.8
R+3.3
R+4.7
R+3.1
R+1.4
R+5.9
R+8.2
R+6.7
R+4.7
R+3.4
R+2.7
R+2.9
R+2.6
San Diego
R+6.8
R+9.2
R+11.1
R+6.5
R+5.4
R+11.0
R+10.4
R+7.1
R+4.8
R+4.0
R+4.0
R+2.1
R+0.2
San Francisco
D+7.0
D+9.0
D+12.1
D+16.6
D+12.2
D+11.4
D+22.4
D+27.4
D+27.2
D+27.1
D+29.8
D+34.0
D+34.1
San Joaquin
D+0.0
R+1.3
R+1.0
D+0.5
D+0.8
R+3.7
R+3.4
R+1.1
R+1.2
R+2.6
R+2.4
R+1.7
R+0.4
San Luis Obispo
R+2.7
R+3.0
R+3.1
R+0.4
D+0.1
R+6.9
R+7.7
R+4.1
R+1.9
R+4.7
R+7.4
R+4.4
R+1.7
San Mateo
R+2.7
D+0.6
D+2.7
D+4.5
D+1.1
R+3.1
D+2.4
D+8.5
D+11.7
D+12.9
D+15.0
D+19.4
D+21.4
Santa Barbara
R+7.1
R+6.2
R+6.0
R+1.0
D+0.6
R+5.7
R+6.1
R+2.7
D+0.1
R+0.5
R+0.9
D+2.8
D+6.6
Santa Clara
R+2.2
R+0.5
D+1.9
D+5.2
D+3.1
R+2.4
D+0.5
D+4.8
D+8.0
D+9.6
D+11.3
D+14.8
D+16.7
Santa Cruz
R+8.0
R+6.3
R+3.8
D+2.5
D+6.6
D+2.5
D+7.5
D+14.9
D+17.9
D+16.1
D+16.0
D+22.4
D+25.9
Shasta
D+12.2
D+8.5
D+5.9
D+9.1
D+7.1
R+3.7
R+6.4
R+5.3
R+8.3
R+13.7
R+17.9
R+17.8
R+16.9
Sierra
D+4.9
D+4.1
D+3.2
D+6.9
D+8.6
D+1.4
R+0.1
D+1.5
R+1.5
R+10.0
R+17.0
R+16.7
R+14.6
Siskiyou
D+7.2
D+4.6
D+1.3
D+3.9
D+3.3
R+4.0
R+3.7
D+0.7
D+1.9
R+4.0
R+13.0
R+13.3
R+9.7
Solano
D+12.5
D+8.6
D+9.7
D+8.5
D+5.6
D+1.8
D+1.2
D+4.9
D+7.4
D+7.7
D+7.8
D+9.0
D+9.9
Sonoma
R+4.3
R+2.1
R+1.3
D+1.1
D+1.9
R+1.5
D+2.8
D+9.4
D+13.3
D+12.9
D+12.6
D+17.2
D+20.7
Stanislaus
D+4.5
D+2.4
D+3.4
D+5.3
D+5.8
D+1.4
R+0.3
R+0.2
R+0.3
R+2.5
R+4.4
R+6.3
R+5.4
Sutter
R+9.4
R+13.1
R+13.9
R+9.2
R+5.2
R+10.6
R+13.8
R+13.8
R+15.0
R+16.5
R+17.5
R+17.1
R+14.4
Tehama
D+1.7
R+0.6
R+1.9
D+2.5
D+5.1
R+3.9
R+7.5
R+4.3
R+3.5
R+8.2
R+15.3
R+16.8
R+16.2
Trinity
D+9.2
D+6.8
D+1.3
D+4.4
D+4.7
R+3.6
R+5.4
R+2.5
R+2.5
R+5.3
R+10.9
R+9.3
R+3.1
Tulare
D+0.4
R+2.8
R+3.9
R+3.5
R+3.6
R+6.7
R+6.1
R+5.9
R+8.2
R+11.7
R+12.9
R+14.0
R+13.5
Tuolumne
D+3.0
D+1.3
R+0.1
D+1.7
D+3.1
R+3.0
R+3.2
R+0.5
R+1.3
R+5.0
R+8.6
R+9.2
R+9.9
Ventura
D+3.9
R+1.2
R+3.8
R+4.6
R+4.9
R+8.8
R+11.1
R+9.4
R+5.4
R+3.4
R+2.6
R+0.7
D+1.0
Yolo
D+7.3
D+6.6
D+8.7
D+13.9
D+11.9
D+6.4
D+9.2
D+11.1
D+11.8
D+10.5
D+9.1
D+10.4
D+13.3
Yuba
R+0.2
R+2.9
R+3.9
R+1.2
D+2.4
R+1.8
R+6.0
R+6.9
R+8.8
R+11.0
R+13.5
R+15.5
R+14.0

California Redistricting: 48 Democrats in Compact Districts

In a previous diary, I said that I was not going to post this plan for California because I thought it’s a “dummymander” in terms of Democratic prospects … I still think that (at least when compared to the previous map I drew for the state) … However, when I looked at the plan again, it appears to guarantee no less a number of Democrats than the current (2002) plan.  So, while the plan here may be a “dummymander”, it is not a bigger “dummymander” than the existing plan.  In other words, if this plan were adopted, Democrats would still be assured of having at least as many seats in California as we have today — BUT with the added possibility (and in many cases, a probability) of an extra 14 Democratic seats.  So, I will post the map I drew after all.

This is my second attempt at California since the partisan data by precinct became available in Dave’s Application.  My first attempt is here ….

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

I decided to do the new map to see just how many Democratic districts you can create using a lower Democratic “threshold” — in this plan, I wanted each Democratic district to be at least 55% Obama (maximum 44% McCain), as opposed to the 62% Obama (maximum 37% McCain) I used in my first map.  Under the “55% plan” you can create 48 Democratic districts for California (as opposed to 43 Democratic districts under the “62% plan”.)

I still strongly believe that having the 62% Obama minimum is a better plan for California, as the “55% plan” might lead to the partial “dummymander” (a good number of the 55-57% Obama districts here would have voted for Bush in 2004, whereas every single one of the 43 Democratic districts created under the “62% plan” would have voted for John Kerry).  Nevertheless, the “55% plan” results in generally more compact districts, and of course, 5 more possible Democrats than the “62% plan”.  Also, even under the “55% plan” a total of 34 districts are at least 58% Obama, which is better than the current (2002) plan that has only 33 districts that are at least 58% Obama.  So, in that sense, in a worst-case scenario, we would still have 34 districts pretty much as solid Democratic ones, even if the other 14 districts that are 55%-57% Obama somehow went GOP (actually, there’s one 54% Obama – 44% McCain district that I left as such because that’s the max. Democratic percentage you could do in that area without messing with county lines / compactness; only two districts are 55% Obama, while the remainder are all at least 56% Obama).

The 5 GOP districts that remain under this plan all went 58% – 62% McCain: they are CA-2 (Wally Herger); CA-21 (Devin Nunes); CA-41 (Jerry Lewis); CA-42 (Gary Miller); and CA-52 (Duncan Hunter).

The plan produces more compact districts, in terms of keeping counties and communities intact.  It has only 112 “county-fragments” (please see my first attempt above for the lengthy explanation if you’re not sure what those are), as opposed to the current (2002) plan that has a total of 120 “county-fragments”.  (The 112 includes one tiny sliver of Santa Clara Co. that has only 130 persons but is needed to connect the Alameda and Stanislaus parts of CA-11.)  The 1992 plan that was a non-partisan commission-drawn plan based largely on geographic compactness also had only 112 fragments, and this was when California only had 52 districts, so the plan here with 53 districts is technically more geographically compact — in terms of keeping counties and communities intact — than the non-partisan commission-based plan of the 1990’s (of course, my goal is still to produce as many Democratic seats as possible, which was not the goal of the 1992 plan !).  

The “55% plan” also creates a total of 15 Hispanic majority districts and 4 Hispanic plurality districts (there are currently only eight Hispanic representatives from California), three Asian-plurality districts, one African-American-plurality district (currently there are none in California), and 13 additional seats that are minority-majority (with no particular racial / ethnic minority dominant) … so a grand total of 36 minority-majority districts for the state (68% of the 53 districts).  The population deviation per district is +/- 2,000 persons.  Demographic info. is shown only as far as the majority or plurality racial/ethnic group.

Under this new plan the districts of most Democratic incumbents remain very safe Democratic seats.  McNerney’s district becomes safer (goes from 54% Obama to 60% Obama).  The only exceptions are Blue Dogs Cardoza and Costa, whose districts go from 59% and 60% Obama, respectively to 54% and 55% Obama; but the Blue Dogs should be able to handle this.  Matsui, Baca and Loretta Sanchez also get districts that are only 56% Obama/42% McCain – but I think they should be able to handle those also with good campaigns.  Last, but not least, Howard Berman also gets a 56% Obama/42% McCain district that now includes a good part of the current CA-22 (Kevin McCarthy); a match-up between the two would likely produce a race with a massive infusion of money.  On the bright side for Berman, the district I create for him is not Hispanic-majority, and perhaps he would see a Hispanic Democratic primary challenge against him as a bigger threat that a potential match-up with a high-profile Republican ?  The trade-off to all this is ofcourse that many new Democratic districts are created out of current GOP districts – several of the new districts are ones where a Democrat is virtually assured of winning: for example, Gallegly (CA-24) and Dreier (CA-26) both become 61% Obama districts, while Calvert (CA-44) becomes 62% Obama.

Anyhow, here’s my “55% Obama plan”:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

District 1:

Incumbent: Mike Thompson (D)

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 35

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 68% white

Includes all of Napa, Lake, Glenn and Butte Counties, and part of Sonoma Co. – Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Rohnert Park

District 2:  

Incumbent: Wally Herger (R)

Current District:  Obama 43; McCain 55

Proposed District:  Obama 40; McCain 58

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 76% white

Includes all of Modoc, Shasta, Tehama, Lassen, Plumas, Sierra and Yuba Counties, and western part of Placer Co.

District 3:  

Incumbent: Dan Lungren (R)

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 54% white

Includes all of Colusa, Yolo and Sutter Counties, and part of Sacramento Co. including part of City of Sacramento

District 4:  

Incumbent: Tom McClintock (R)

Current District:  Obama 44; McCain 54

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 59% white

Includes all of Nevada, El Dorado, Amador, Alpine and Mono Counties, eastern part of Placer Co. and part of Sacramento Co. including part of City of Sacramento

District 5:  

Incumbent: Doris Matsui (D)

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 58% white

Includes part of Sacramento Co. – including Folsom, Citrus Heights and part of the city of Sacramento

District 6:

Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey (D)

Current District:  Obama 76; McCain 22

Proposed District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 75% white

Includes all of Del Norte, Siskiyou, Humboldt, Trinity and Mendocino Counties, and most of Sonoma and Marin Counties

District 7:  

Incumbent: George Miller (D)

Current District:  Obama 72; McCain 27

Proposed District:  Obama 68; McCain 31

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 41% white

Includes all of Solano Co. and northern part of Contra Costa Co.

District 8:  

Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi (D)

Current District:  Obama 85; McCain 12

Proposed District:  Obama 85; McCain 13

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 45% white

Includes most of San Francisco

District 9:  

Incumbent: Barbara Lee (D)

Current District:  Obama 88; McCain 10

Proposed District:  Obama 80; McCain 18

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 39% white

Includes part of Alameda Co. – Berkeley, Dublin, Livermore and most of Oakland, and part of Contra Costa Co. – Moraga, Orinda, San Ramon

District 10:

Incumbent: John Garamendi (D)

Current District:  Obama 65; McCain 33

Proposed District:  Obama 69; McCain 30

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 55% white

Includes central part of Contra Costa Co. and San Rafael in Marin Co.

District 11:  

Incumbent: Jerry McNerney (D)

Current District:  Obama 54; McCain 44

Proposed District:  Obama 60; McCain 39

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 54% white

Includes part of Alameda Co. – Pleasanton and part of Oakland, almost all of Stanislaus Co. and sliver of Santa Clara Co.

District 12:  

Incumbent: Jackie Speier (D)

Current District:  Obama 74; McCain 24

Proposed District:  Obama 74; McCain 24

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 47% white

Includes part of San Francisco and most of San Mateo Co.

District 13:

Incumbent: Pete Stark (D)

Current District:  Obama 74; McCain 24

Proposed District:  Obama 75; McCain 23

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 33% asian

Includes part of Alameda Co. – Fremont, Newark, Union City, Hayward, San Leandro, Alameda, and part of Oakland

District 14:  

Incumbent: Anna Eshoo (D)

Current District:  Obama 73; McCain 25

Proposed District:  Obama 71; McCain 28

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 42% hispanic

Includes part of San Mateo Co. – Menlo Park, Atherton, East Palo Alto, Portola Valley and part of Redwood City, part of Santa Clara Co. – Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and part of San Jose, and most of Merced Co.

District 15:  

Incumbent: Mike Honda (D)

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 42% asian

Includes part of Santa Clara Co. – Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga and part of San Jose

District 16:  

Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren (D)

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 29

Proposed District:  Obama 68; McCain 31

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 39% white

Includes part of Santa Clara Co. – Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Gilroy and part of San Jose

Photobucket

Photobucket

District 17:

Incumbent: Sam Farr (D)

Current District:  Obama 72; McCain 26

Proposed District:  Obama 65; McCain 33

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 65% white

Includes all of Santa Cruz Co. and San Luis Obispo Co., and coastal areas of Monterey Co.

District 18:  

Incumbent: Dennis Cardoza (D)

Current District:  Obama 59; McCain 39

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 44

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 47% Hispanic

Includes all of Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa and Madera Counties, and most of cities of Fresno and Merced

District 19:  

Incumbent: George Radanovich (R) (retiring)*

Current District:  Obama 46; McCain 52

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 61% hispanic

Includes all of San Benito Co., inland part of Monterey Co. (including Salinas area), and western part of Fresno Co.

* District is completely “relocated” to another part of the Central Valley

District 20:

Incumbent: Jim Costa (D)

Current District:  Obama 60; McCain 39

Proposed District:  Obama 55; McCain 43

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 55% hispanic

Includes all of Kings Co., western part of Kern Co. including part of Bakersfield, and part of Los Angeles Co. (Lancaster, Palmdale)

District 21:  

Incumbent: Devin Nunes (R)

Current District:  Obama 38; McCain 60

Proposed District:  Obama 36; McCain 62

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 50% white

Includes all of Tulare Co., eastern part of Fresno Co., and part of Kern Co.

District 22:  

Incumbent: Kevin McCarthy (R)*

Current District:  Obama 42; McCain 56

Proposed District:  Obama 55; McCain 44

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 39% white

Includes all of San Joaquin Co. and Riverbank in Stanislaus Co.

* District is completely “relocated” to another part of the Central Valley.

District 23:  

Incumbent: Lois Capps (D)

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 38

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 50% white

Includes all of Santa Barbara Co. and northern part of Ventura Co.

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

District 24:  

Incumbent: Elton Gallegly (R)

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 38

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 56% white

Includes southern part of Ventura Co., and part of Los Angeles Co. – Malibu, Santa Monica, Venice part of Los Angeles

District 25:  

Incumbent: Howard McKeon (R)

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 57; McCain 41

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 50%+ hispanic

Includes all of Inyo Co., and part of San Bernardino Co. – Ontario, Fontana, Adelanto, Victorville, Hesperia and Barstow

District 26:  

Incumbent: David Dreier (R)

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 56% hispanic

Includes part of Los Angeles Co., including El Monte, La Puente, Irwindale, Baldwin Park, Covina, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, LaVerne and Claremont

District 27:  

Incumbents: Brad Sherman (D)

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 60; McCain 38

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 43% white

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. – including part of San Fernando Valley and northern part of the county

District 28:  

Incumbent: Howard Berman (D)

Current District:  Obama 76; McCain 22

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 48% hispanic

Includes eastern part of Kern Co. (including part of Bakersfield), and part of Los Angeles Co. (including part of San Fernando Valley)

District 29:  

Incumbent: Adam Schiff (D)

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 45% white

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. – Burbank, Pasadena, and part of City of Los Angeles

District 30:  

Incumbent: Henry Waxman (D)

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 36

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 69% white

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. – Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Calabassas, Hidden Hills, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village, part of City of Los Angeles, and most of Santa Clarita

District 31:  

Incumbent: Xavier Beccera (D)

Current District:  Obama 80; McCain 18

Proposed District:  Obama 81; McCain 17

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 71% hispanic

Includes part of City of Los Angeles, Huntington Park, Cudahy and Maywood

District 32:  

Incumbent: Judy Chu (D)

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 60; McCain 38

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 44% asian

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. –  Monterey Park, Alhambra, South Pasadena, San Marino, Temple City, San Gabriel, Rosemead, Arcadia, Walnut, Diamond Bar, La Habra Heights

District 33:  

Incumbent: Diane Watson (D) (retiring)

Current District:  Obama 87; McCain 12

Proposed District:  Obama 82; McCain 16

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 59% hispanic

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. – Lawndale, Culver City, and parts of City of Los Angeles, Inglewood and Hawthorne

District 34:  

Incumbent: Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)

Current District:  Obama 75; McCain 23

Proposed District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 59% hispanic

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. –  Downey, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Vernon, Glendale and part of City of Los Angeles

District 35:  

Incumbent: Maxine Waters (D)

Current District:  Obama 84; McCain 14

Proposed District:  Obama 81; McCain 17

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 38% black

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. –  Palos Verdes peninsula, Santa Catalina Island/Avalon, and parts of Carson, Inglewood, Hawthorne and City of Los Angeles

District 36:  

Incumbent: Jane Harman (D)

Current District:  Obama 64; McCain 34

Proposed District:  Obama 65; McCain 33

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 53% white

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. – Torrance, Gardena, Lomita, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, and part of City of Los Angeles

District 37:  

Incumbent: Laura Richardson (D)

Current District:  Obama 80; McCain 19

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 37% hispanic

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. –  most of Long Beach, and part of Orange Co. – Westminster, Cypress, La Palma

District 38:  

Incumbent: Grace Napolitano (D)

Current District:  Obama 71; McCain 27

Proposed District:  Obama 68; McCain 29

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 77% hispanic

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. –  Norwalk, Whittier, La Mirada, Santa Fe Springs, Montebello, Pico Rivera, East LA, and part of City of Los Angeles

District 39:  

Incumbent: Linda Sánchez (D)

Current District:  Obama 65; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 54% hispanic

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. –  Lakewood, Cerritos, Paramount, Lynwood and South Gate, and part of Orange Co. – Buena Park, La Habra and parts of Fullerton and Anaheim

District 40:  

Incumbent: Ed Royce (R)*

Current District:  Obama 47; McCain 51

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 50%+ hispanic

Includes part of San Bernardino Co. – Chino, Chino Hills, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, and part of Los Angeles Co. – Pomona, La Puente

* District is completely “relocated” from Orange County to part of San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties

Photobucket

Photobucket

District 41:  

Incumbent: Jerry Lewis (R)

Current District:  Obama 44; McCain 54

Proposed District:  Obama 39; McCain 59

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 62% white

Includes central and eastern parts of San Bernardino Co. (Apple Valley, Yucca Valley, Twentynine Palms, Needles) and part of Riverside Co. (Calimesa, Norco, Murrieta, Temecula, Canyon Lake)

District 42:  

Incumbent: Gary Miller (R)

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 40; McCain 58

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 69% white

Includes part of Orange Co. – San Juan Capistrano, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Lake Forest, Vila Park, Yorba Linda, Brea, and parts of San Clemente, Fullerton, Anaheim and Orange

District 43:  

Incumbent: Joe Baca (D)

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 51% hispanic

Includes part of San Bernardino Co. – City of San Bernardino, Colton, Rialto, Highland, Loma Linda, Redlands, Big Bear Lake and part of Yucaipa

District 44:  

Incumbent: Ken Calvert (R)

Current District:  Obama 50; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 51% hispanic

Includes part of Riverside Co. – City of Riverside, Moreno Valley and part of Corona

District 45:  

Incumbent: Mary Bono (R)

Current District:  Obama 52; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 58; McCain 41

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 54% hispanic

Includes part of Riverside Co. – Perris, Lake Elsinore, Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City, Indio, Coachella, Blythe, Banning, Beaumont and San Jacinto

District 46:  

Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher (R)

Current District:  Obama 48; McCain 50

Proposed District:  Obama 57; McCain 41

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 42% white

Includes part of Los Angeles Co. –  Compton and parts of Carson and City of Los Angeles, and part of Orange Co. – Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Newport Beach

District 47:  

Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez (D)

Current District:  Obama 60; McCain 38

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 59% hispanic

Includes part of Orange Co. – parts of Santa Ana, Orange, Tustin, Garden Grove, Stanton and Anaheim

District 48:  

Incumbent: John Campbell (R)

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 56; McCain 42

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 47% white

Includes part of Orange Co. – Irvine, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, and parts of Santa Ana and San Clemente

District 49:

Incumbent: Darrell Issa (R)

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 58; McCain 40

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 61% white

Includes part of San Diego County – Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, Vista, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and part of San Diego (La Jolla, Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, UCSD area, Hillcrest)

District 50:  

Incumbent: Brian Bilbray (R)

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 58; McCain 40

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 43% white

Includes part of San Diego County – San Marcos, Escondido, and part of City of San Diego

District 51:  

Incumbent: Bob Filner (D)

Current District:  Obama 63; McCain 35

Proposed District:  Obama 59; McCain 40

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 56% hispanic

Includes all of Imperial Co., and part of San Diego County – southern part of San Diego, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, El Cajon

District 52:  

Incumbent: Duncan Hunter (R)

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 37; McCain 61

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 74% white

Includes part of San Diego County – Poway, Santee, and part of Riverside Co. – Hemet, Indian Wells, Palm Desert

District 53:  

Incumbent: Susan Davis (D)

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 59; McCain 40

Demographics, estimated 2006-2008: 51% white

Includes part of San Diego County – part of City of San Diego, Coronado, Lemon Grove, La Mesa

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

AR, CA, IA, ME & NV Results Thread

4:00am: Props 16 and 17 look like they’ll fail tonight, 51.8% No on 16 and 50.7% No on 17. If they follow the trajectory they’ve been taking over the course of the night, expect those numbers to go up. Harmer’s still nursing his 10 point lead over Goehring in CA-11. After nine hours, SSP is signing off!

3:51am: Fortunately for Gary Miller, California’s not a runoff state! He’s now just under 50%! Both props continue to slip now at over 2/3rd reporting; our punch cards say 51.7% No on 16, 50.6% No on 17.

3:45am: Have we crossed the Rubicon? Prop 16 looking headed towards failure with 51.4% opposed. No’s running ahead of yes by 107,000 right now, which in light of what we’re estimating to be 600,000 or so votes left isn’t trivial to overcome. Prop 17 has tipped the balance and is now projected to fail by 0.2%, but No’s 25,000 lead is much more tenuous.

3:30am: No love for Prop 15 (public financing of SoS campaigns); the AP’s finally called ‘No’ with 57%.

3:25am: Looking at Props 16 and 17 now with 57% reporting, both Props’ support continue to weaken. Prop 16 is now on track for 51.2% opposed, and Prop 17 passing by 0.5%. There are a few Prop 16 strongholds left, notably, San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside and Orange Counties, but there are plenty of smaller NorCal counties there to offset – half of Santa Clara, Yolo, and Alameda; three-fourths of Santa Cruz, and a third of Sonoma. Even Placer’s contributing to the No-on-16 effort,  where it’s failing 53-47 right now.

3:10am: It’s now past midnight Pacific Time, and the big action is left in Props 16 and 17. (Prop 15 hasn’t been called yet, but looks well on target for failure). Prop 16’s fate has changed quite a bit since an hour and a half ago, now looking on track for failure with 50.9% against. What’s changed? More anti-Prop 16 areas in Southern California are reporting: LA County, which had been supporting Prop 16 with 56%, is now down to 52% in support; Santa Barbara which was in support is now against. Prop 17 is doing better, looking on track for passage with about 50.4%.

3:00am: Is Busby the new Sodrel? Busby declared the winner in CA-50, setting up Busby v. Bilbray round 3.

2:56am: In an odd show of moderation by the California GOP, appointed incumbent Lt. Gov Abel Maldonado gets the nod for re-election over conservative challenger State Senator Sam Aanestad.

2:53am: CA-36 (D): Jane Harman has fended off Marcy Winograd for the second time with about 61% of the vote.

2:47am: Gary Miller’s 53% is good enough for the AP to declare him the winner. It’s better than Bob “28%” Inglis, but still weak.

2:45am: CA-36 (D) is looking similar to 2006 at 62-38 for Harman. Laura Richardson was also declared the winner next door in CA-37 with a surprisingly weak 65%.

2:41am: CA-19 (R) called for Denham. Marsden still trailing Goodwin 53-47 on the (D) side.

2:39am: Few more precincts rolled through in CA-42, Gary Miller is now to 53%, in one of tonight’s worst incumbent showings.

2:37am: Kamala Harris gets the Dem nod for Attorney General; matchup will be SF DA Harris vs. LA DA Cooley.

2:32am: Mary Mary quite contrary, how does your garden grow? More quickly now, it seems, enough that the AP has called the Dem Lt. Gov nod for Gavin Newsom and the GOP Att. Gen nod for Steve Cooley.

2:30am: The statewide races aren’t the only thing seemingly standing still. CA-11 is still 35-28 for Harmer, while CA-19 has moved a bit to 37-30 Denham over Patterson, with the odious Dick Pombo back at 20. Gary Miller continues to underwhelm in CA-42 at 54%. Also in a bit of a surprise, California Democratic Party-endorsed candidate Les Marsden is down 47-53 to Some Dude Loraine Goodwin. The only major movement is on the Prop 16 side, which is now slated to fail narrowly with 50.12% against.

2:10am: The sky is still blue, as well, it seems! 36% in now, same holding pattern: 57-31 Newsom for LG (D), 47-28 Maldonado for LG (R); 33-17 Harris for AG (D), and 49-32 Cooley for AG (R). Here at SSP Labs, we are now taking bets over whether Kamala Harris will clear the one-third mark. (Signs pointing to no and a finish around 32%). Prop 16 is now looking at a 50.4% passage.

1:58am: Things are looking a little comfier for David Harmer in CA-11, much to the NRCC’s pleasure, I’m sure. He’s at 36, with Brad Goehring at 27. Amador’s at 19 and Emken at 18.

1:55am: Watching California’s been like watching grass grow, but bring on the Miracle Gro! A cool 1,000 precincts just rolled in, bringing us to 29% reporting. But, alas, grass is still green, 58-30 Newsom for LG (D); 47-28 Maldonado for LG (R); 33-18 Harris for AG (D); and 50-31 Cooley for AG (R). Prop 16 still on track to pass with 51.8%.

1:47am: Prop 16’s back down narrowly in California by less than 2,000 votes. For what was assumed to be a Democrat-Republican issue, this is seriously breaking the usual patterns: the “new Orange County” of Placer County and conservative Kern County (Bakersfield) are voting this down, while normally Democratic SoCal areas like LA and Imperial County are voting yes. Some good old back-of-the-envelope math says passage is likely with 51.8%.

1:42am: Here’s an odd tidbit I missed: the SC-03 Republican runoff is going to be between state Rep. Jeff Duncan (as expected) and businessman Richard Cash (totally unexpected, with state Rep. Rex Rice finishing 3rd), but Cash actually wound up pulling ahead at the end. It was 25 Cash, 23 Duncan, 19 Rice, and 19 for John Grimaud (who’d planned to challenge Joe Wilson in the 2nd, but decided at the last minute that the 3rd would be better).

1:40am: Two special elections in CA today. One for Assembly District 43 (Glendale, Burbank) to replace now-LA City Councilman Paul Krekorian (D), where after 6 precincts, the Dem is up 54-46. AD-43 went for Obama 70-28. The other’s in Senate District 37 to replace now-Riverside Co. Supervisor John Benoit (R). Dems didn’t expect to have a shot, but the Dem nominee’s losing 57-32 in an SD that gave Obama 50.3%. The more exciting special election – to replace now Lt. Gov Abel Maldonado is in two weeks.

1:30am: Still a holding pattern in the four big CA statewide races left, though we’re at 22% reporting now. Newsom still up on Hahn 57-30 for Dem Lt. Gov; Maldonado up 47-28 though Aanestad’s doing well in Orange County. Dem AG remains 33-18-15-12, Harris-Kelly-Torrico-Lieu, and Rep AG is also still at 50-31-19 Cooley/Eastman/Harman. Prop 16 is leading narrowly now and could be extrapolated to it passing 52-48.

1:20am: Things are still a little slow in CA-42; with 6% reporting, Gary Miller’s at 55%, which I think is the 2nd most underwhelming House incumbent performance tonight (ahead of only Bob Inglis). Phil Liberatore is at 32.

1:10am: The last outstanding race in Arkansas looks like it’s been put to bed. In the R primary runoff in AR-03, the AP has called it for Steve Womack, 52-48, over Cecile Bledsoe. Another endorsement fail for Sarah Palin. At least Terry Branstad’s keeping her percentage up.

1:00am: In CA-47, it looks the Vietnamese vote splitting problem never materialized. Van Tran leads the GOP primary at 52, with Kathy Smith at 29 and Tan Nguyen at 19.

12:57am: The Cal SoS seems to be further along than the AP (up to 15% in), and they have a whole different take on CA-11. They have Harmer at 34, not that far ahead of Goehring at 30, with Amador at 18 and Emken at 17.

12:55am: Geez, add even another one to the list. In CA-41, Jerry Lewis (rounding out the trio of Inland Empire GOPers under ethical clouds for weird real estate deals) leads his opposition 66-34.

12:52am: In CA-44, Ken Calvert also looks poised to join the very large club of incumbents not breaking 70% in their primaries. He leads his opposition 69-31. Up in CA-11, establishment pick David Harmer has gained more ground; he’s at 48, with 21 for Emken, 20 for Amador, and 10 for Goehring. And in CA-19, establishment guy Jeff Denham also leads 41, with Patterson at 25 and Pombo at 20, with about 40% reporting.

12:46am: The four Lt. Gov and Attorney General races are still uncalled. For LG (D), Newsom’s up 57-31 on Hahn winning plenty of SoCal locales like San Diego. In the Republican primary, Maldonado’s keeping his edge over Sam Aanestad, who’s even losing stalwart conservative areas like Placer County. For Atty Gen (D), Kamala Harris is keeping a narrow 32-18 lead over Chris Kelly; Torrico in 3rd at 15 and Lieu in 4th at 12. Not enough cat fud in GOP primary; moderate Steve Cooley still up 50-31 on Eastman with Tom Harman back at 19.

12:44am: Former Assembly Speaker Karen Bass wins her primary in CA-33 with 85%, will likely be the next congresswoman from this D+35 district.

12:36am: Sue Lowden can now set up that bartering post she’s always wanted; NV-Sen called for Angle by the AP.

12:33am: No, rly. AP calls the Republican SoS primary for Damon Dunn. Orly Taitz can go back to filing groundless lawsuits as a private citizen. In between pulling teeth.

12:32am: AP has called Proposition 14 (top two primary system) as a ‘yes.’ Take that, third parties!

12:29am: Here’s one GOP moderate who survived a teabagger challenge with little trouble. Mary Bono Mack leads Clayton Thibodeau 74-26 with more than half in, in CA-45. In CA-42, only about 1% is in, but it points to Gary Miller — who we’d thought was most vulnerable to his teabagging opponent, seeing as how he (Liberatore) actually had some money — surviving, albeit unimpressively. Miller leads 58-28.

12:28am: In CA-50, it looks like it’ll be Francine Busby 3.0. With more than 10% in, she’s leading Tracy Emblem 64-36.

12:25am: Switching back to the East coast, there’s one New Jersey race still uncalled. In the GOP primary in NJ-06, 99.6% are in, and Little leads Gooch (the moneybags lady who was On the Radar) by about 100 votes.

12:22am: Joe Heck easily dispensed with the teabag remnants he faced in the GOP primary in NV-03, winning with 70%. There is, however, a barnburner between two guys I don’t know in the Dem primary in NV-02, for the booby prize of going up against Dean Heller: K. McKenna and N. Price are both at 45.

12:19am: Since we last looked, Sharron Angle really turned on the afterburners. Now she’s at 38, with Sue Lowden at 29 and Tark at 22 (oh, and carpetbagging investment banker John Chachas at 4). We’re closing on on half reporting. Angle has pulled into the lead (36-33) in Clark County, where over half the votes are.

12:16am: Bass masters her opposition. Karen Bass, former state Speaker, is at a whopping 85% against minor opposition to succeed Diane Watson in CA-33.

12:14am: In CA-26, David Dreier’s at 78% against minor opposition, much better than a lot of other insider Reps tonight. If anyone knows how to survive a teabagging, it’s him.

12:10am: AP calls CA-Sen for Carly Fiorina. 54 for her, to 26 for Campbell for 17 for DeVore. Campbell heads back to the pasture to resume frightening sheep.

12:09am: Only 2% in in CA-11, but David Harmer is breaking away. He’s at 39, with Tony Amador and Elizabeth Emken both at 24, and liberal huntin’ vintner Brad Goehring at 12.

12:07am: Here’s one more totally unexpected teabagging underway in dark red CA-02. With 10% in, Wally Herger (R) is at only 62% against Some Dude.

12:05am: Holy crap! CA-Sen (D) has been called for Barbara Boxer. The ghost of Paul Wellstone has struck down Mickey Kaus.

12:02am: Here’s a race that was on nobody’s radar screen: Laura Richardson (D in a safe blue district, but associated with foreclosures and a general sense of being out-to-lunch), is at only 65%, although against scattered opposition.

12:01am: Less than 5% reporting, but CA-36 (D) may turn out to be something of a non-event; Jane Harman leads Marcy Winograd 65-35.

12:00am: Onto the Cali House races. In CA-19 (R), with about 23% reporting, Jeff Denham leads Jim Patterson and Richard Pombo 44-23-20. Looks like that poll surge for Patterson didn’t pan out.

11:58pm: Back to South Carolina for a minute, where it’s been confirmed that in SC-01, we’re headed to a GOP runoff between CfG protege Tim Scott and legacy candidate Paul Thurmond. Sorry, “Tumpy.”

11:55pm: Initiatives! Prop 14 (top two primary) passing, 60-40. Peace & Freedom Party heads for dustbin of history. Prop 15 (public financing of elections) failing, 43-57. Prop 16 (electric company tyranny) passing, 53-47. And Prop 17 (auto insurance) also passing 55-45.

11:53pm: AP calls CA-Gov (R) for Meg Whitman. $80-odd million and counting; how much will she spend by November?

11:50pm: For LG, it’s Newsom 52, Hahn 35, and for the GOP, it’s Maldonado 48, Aanestad 28. For AG, Harris leads at 28, with Kelly at 19, Torrico at 15, Lieu at 14, Delgadillo way back at 8. And among GOPer AGers, Cooley 52, Eastman 30.

11:48pm: And in the Senate, Carly Fiorina is leading Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore 58-23-17. Barbara Boxer leading Mickey Kaus (does that rhyme with Mickey Mouse? never noticed that till now) 78-5.

11:46pm: Quick non-California update: AR-01 called for Chad Causey. Not much love for public hanging, even in West Memphis (home of the West Memphis 3!).

11:45pm: We’re getting close to 5% reporting in California statewide, so let’s turn our attention to the Golden State. Meg Whitman is beating Steve Poizner 64-26, outpacing the polls a bit. Y’know, Jerry Brown is too, actually; he leads Richard Aguirre 83-4.

11:40pm: This may turn out to be the weirdest story of the night, about Alvin Greene, the 32-year-old unemployed ex-military guy who lives with his dad and who now happens to be the Dem nominee for Senate in South Carolina (instead of expected candidate Vic Rawl, a Charleston Co. Commissioner). Somehow he came across $10K to file, and has seemed to have run a phantom campaign ever since then. How did he get here? We’ll no doubt hear more in coming days.

11:35pm: And now the news that’ll have everyone saying “Who?” AP calls ME-Gov (D) for Libby Mitchell. She’ll face Paul LePage in the duel of the unknowns.

11:34pm: We’ll start with the bad news; AP calls IA-Gov (R) for Terry Branstad. But only 50-40 over Vander Plaats.

11:24pm: The night is winding down, but CA and NV are just getting cranked up.

AR, CA, IA, ME, NJ, NV, SC & SD Results Thread

11:33pm: Party’s moved next door.

11:31pm: AR-02 has been called by AP for Elliott, now 54-46. She’ll face Tim Griffin… probably not as good a matchup for Dems as Wills.

11:29pm: Angle’s back in the lead in NV-Sen! 35, to Lowden’s 33, with 21 for Tarkanian. 14% in. I’m sure we’ll see lots of back and forth gyrations in this one as different counties report. Lowden has small lead in Clark, while Angle has a much bigger lead in Washoe.

11:27pm: AP has called GOP primary in NJ-12 for Scott Sipprelle, rich guy, over teabagger opposition, but only 54-46. Rush Holt probably not very scared. GOP primary in NJ-06 is still 50-50, with Diane Gooch trailing by 100.

11:25pm: Add a couple more New Jersey races to the list of races where no-name teabaggers held moderates down to so-so numbers. Leonard Lance only racked up 56% in NJ-07, and Chris Smith in NJ-04 held to 69%. Both were ‘yes’ votes on cap & trade.

11:21pm: All the Arkansas House races are super close. In AR-01, it’s Causey 51, Wooldridge 49, with 94% in. In AR-02, it’s Elliot 52, Wills 48, with 91% in. And in AR-03, it’s Womack 50, Bledsoe 50, with Womack up by about 200, although that’s only with 75% in.

11:15pm: ME-Gov (R) called for Paul LePage. Looking like he’ll take on Libby Mitchell in the fall.

11:12pm: Only 1% reporting, but the AP has already called NV-Gov (R) for ex-judge Brian Sandoval. Even the RGA supported him over Jim Gibbons.

11:10pm: Oh yeah, poll closed in California ten minutes ago.

11:01pm: In Iowa, the AP calls IA-03 (R) for Brad Zaun, who will take on Leonard Boswell. In IA-02, Mariannette Miller-Meeks of the dreaded ophthalmologists will rematch against Dave Loebsack.

11:00pm: The AP calls AR-Sen for Blanche Lincoln.

10:51pm: A smattering of precincts and early votes coming in from Nevada, including Clark County (Las Vegas). Gibbons is losing big time to Sandoval in NV-Gov, 57-23. Chicken Lady ahead of Angle 36-33 with Tarkanian at 20.

10:48pm: Ganja break OVER! Maine is now up to 38% in. Libby Mitchell has extended her lead to 34-26 over Rowe, and Paul LePage is cruising.

10:43pm: How baked must they be in Maine right about now? Been at 12% since… whoa… are those Cool Ranch Doritos?

10:40pm: Chad Causey looks like he might hold out over Tim “The Hangman” Wooldridge in AR-01. Meanwhile, Joyce Elliott now has a lead over Robbie Wills in AR-02. And in AR-03, teabagger fave Cecile Bledsoe is beating Steve Womack 54-46. Bledsoe is both a teabagger queen and sort of the establishment choice – I dunno, though, it was a weird race.

10:37pm: We’re pretty confident in calling ND-AL for state Rep. Kristi Noem, who beat the more-or-less establishment choice, SoS Chris Nelson. You only need 35% to avoid a runoff in SD, and Noem has a 41-36 lead with most of the votes in.

10:32pm: Halter took a brief lead for a moment there, but it’s back to where it was.

10:27pm: AR-Sen is 51-49 Blanche, but Halter is still behind where he needs to be, according to our model. If you want a fuller explanation of how our model works, click here.

10:23pm: With 12% reporting, Terry Branstad is up just 51-40 over Bob Vander Plaats in IA-Gov (R).

10:13pm: Can’t wait to see those NV-Sen results start to roll in (soon, I hope). Meanwhile, our friends up in Maine seem to be on the first ganja break of the evening.

RESULTS:

What to watch for tonight in California

Cross posted at http://frogandturtle.blogspot….

On May 18th, everyone called that day the Super Tuesday for primaries. They apparently were not thinking about this Tuesday, June 8th. Today, about a dozen states are holding their primaries. Some states like Virginia only have primaries for House and State legislature while states like Arkansas have very contested Senatorial primaries. The state I will examine is my home state, California. Today, we have important primaries for many of our statewide seats. California had the potential to have even more. First, Jerry Brown sealed the Democratic nomination once Newsom dropped out of the primary although polls showed he did not have a strong chance. Although no one has dropped out of the Gubernatorial and Senatorial Republican primaries, Fiorina and Whitman are leading by more than 20 points in most polls. In March, Whitman was leading by 40 points and in early May, her lead was in the single digits. She came ahead again by writing herself another check so she has spent the most money of any candidate ever. Fiorina earned her money after running Hewlett Packard to the ground and she is now using that to defeat Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore. I see Chuck DeVore signs all around but he is not winning, he just has very enthusiastic supporters. The races I will examine are both Attorney General Primaries, the Lieutenant Governor priamry and Prop 16. I will discuss what to watch in each of them and here are the three most important factors: turnout, turnout and turnout.

For the Democrats Attorney General primary, the candidates are San Francisco Attorney Kamala Harris, Facebook’s former privacy officer Chris Kelly, Rocky Delgadillo from the Los Angeles area, Pedro Nava from Santa Barbara and Ted Lieu. The three main candidates are Harris, Kelly and Delgadillo although polls show the race is between Kelly and Harris. A recent Survey USA poll showed Harris leading by 6 points. For Harris to win, she needs to win big margins in the Bay Area. Kelly should win big in the Los Angeles area although Harris received the LA Times endorsement. Delgadillo though might steal votes from Kelly, especially among Hispanics. The Survey USA poll has Kelly and Delgadillo tied in the Inland Empire. While watching the returns, ask yourself these questions: is Harris getting the margins she needs in the Bay Area and the Central Valley? Is Kelly winning in the Inland Empire or is he tied with Delgadillo? Most importantly, is Kelly crushing Harris in Los Angeles or is it a three way tie?

In the Republican Attorney General primary, Steve Cooley from Los Angeles goes against Orange County State Senator Tom Harman and teabagger John Eastman. Cooley is the more moderate candidate and he is establishment backed. This resembles many previous primaries this year where most people voted for teabaggers. The problem was that the teabagger divided the vote, allowing the establishment candidate to receive the nomination. This may happen in this election because a recent Survey USA poll showed Cooley leading by five points. Although Cooley is popular in the Los Angeles area, Eastman should win Orange County because he is from there. The Survey USA poll shows Harman leading in Northern California even though he has no strong connection to the area. Remember to ask yourself these questions while the results arrive: how high is the Los Angeles area turnout? Is Harman actually winning in the Bay Area and the Central Valley or is Eastman splitting the vote with him? Most importantly, who is winning the Inland Empire?

The Lieutenant Governor primaries are less active. For the Republicans, moderate Abel Maldonado is leading against Nevada County conservative Sam Aanestad. Maldonado has his Central Valley state Senate open with a close race brewing. This is another blog post for another time though. The Democrats have a more interesting race. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom faces Janice Hahn, the sister of a former Los Angeles mayor. Although the Hahn family is popular in LA, the LA Times endorsed Newsom. Although Newsom should probably win by getting high turnout from the Bay Area, Hahn may get close if there is low turnout. Newsom needs to win big margins in Northern California while keeping down her margins in Southern California. Although the state’s main political divide is Coastal vs. Inland California in the general election now, the primaries still have the NorCal vs. SoCal divide. While the results come in, ask yourself these questions: Is Hahn winning LA County by more than 30 points? Is Newsom winning the Bay Area by more than 30 points? If Hahn is winning the Inland Empire, is she winning it in the double digits? Most importantly, how high is the Bay Area turnout?

Prop 16 is the last race I will examine but it is very intriguing. PG&E put Prop 16 on the ballot and they are spending $46 million so it will pass. The ads claim it is about the taxpayers right to vote but they “forget” to mention it has to be 2/3 of the taxpayers. If passed, PG&E has its competition eliminated and it can raise electricity rates. If a county does not like that and wants to start a new electricity provider, it will not be able to. PG&E will start spending to prevent 2/3 of the people from supporting a new one and PG&E should get at least 1/3 of the voters to support PG&E. A Survey USA poll had the No side leading by 4 points. The poll also showed that minorities are split on their opinions of Prop 16 as well as LA County. Also, a good number of Republicans are against Prop 16 but many Democrats are for it. I would expect San Diego and Orange Counties to go strongly for Prop 16 because many people there care about taxes. The poll also showed the Central Valley mostly opposing Prop 16. You should remember these questions to ask yourself while the results come in: is the Central Valley actually opposing Prop 16? How high is the margin and the turnout in the Bay Area? Most importantly, which side is winning LA County?

Want more election analysis? Visit me at http://frogandturtle.blogspot….

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

MoveOn Punked by Chris Kelly over Facebook Privacy

I believe I used a Prodigy email address to sign an online petition calling on congress to “censure President Clinton and move on” back in 1998. As I’m sure you know, out of those efforts rose the organization MoveOn, which sent emails to my Yahoo account for years and to my gmail for the last six years or so. It has been one of my favorite organizations, through their ups and downs, for a decade.

Which is why I simply can’t fathom the blunder they made yesterday, thrusting themselves into the California Attorney General’s race to fluff former Facebook Chief Privacy Officer (best oxymoron ever) Chris Kelly. In the final days of the campaign, no less.

MoveOn’s fluffing of Kelly began yesterday morning when staffer Marika Shaub posted a link on MoveOn’s FB Group, “Facebook, respect my privacy!” Shaub urged the 180,000 members to share a note from Chris Kelly with all of their Facebook friends and later MoveOn sent an email to an unknown number of members of MoveOn’s giant list with Chris Kelly’s message (I received it twice).

As I long-time Moveon member and devoted supporter, I was shocked that MoveOn’s current leadership seems to have so little understanding of the dynamics and history of the battle for privacy. It was only back in 2007 that MoveOn went to war with Facebook, scoring a major victory for privacy by leading the organizing to shut down the infamous “Beacon” program. MoveOn was attacked repeatedly in the press by…Chris Kelly — who was not defending privacy, but defending Beacon. In fact, Kelly made so much money eroding privacy at Facebook that he’s dumped over $12,000,000 into his attempt to buy the California Democratic Party nomination for Attorney General.

If, like MoveOn apparently, you have forgotten how Chris Kelly fought MoveOn to defend Beacon, follow me after the jump. If you remember the history better than MoveOn, feel free to check out how Chris Kelly’s campaign is already using MoveOn as a validator — against attacks on Beacon, in the LA Times.

Here’s a reminder from The New York Times Chris Kelly fighting MoveOn to defend Beacon:

MoveOn’s demands could be satisfied by making the Beacon feature “opt in.” Right now, users who don’t want the information displayed need to opt out after purchases at each participating external site.

However, Chris Kelly, Facebook’s chief privacy officer, said MoveOn is “misstating the way this process works.”

He said the purchase appears only in the news feeds of confirmed friends and on the individual’s profile (users have control over who can see their profiles), not to the “world.” Mr. Kelly also pointed out that two ways to opt out, at the point of purchase on the external Web site, via a box that pops up, but fades away in under a minute and the next time they sign into their accounts. If users ignore the notification, the purchase information will be displayed, but nothing happens until the user signs in.

Chris Kelly was mocked for this over on ABC News’ site:

The argument made by Facebook in support of this is disingenuous, and uses that old trick I learned in my PR days of isolating one error in the opponent’s claim and using that to dismiss their entire argument. In this case, Chris Kelly, Facebook’s “chief privacy officer” (one of those new corporate titles that’s going to come back and bite companies) told the New York Times that MoveOn is “misstating the way this process works.” In particular, he said, the purchase is only shared with confirmed friends and on the user’s own profile, not to the “world.” At the same time, he does confirm, that if the user ignores the notification and fails to opt out, the purchase information will be automatically displayed.

And this coming from the Chief Privacy Officer of Facebook.

Chris Kelly’s attacks on MoveOn to defend Beacon made the hop across the pond, getting picked up by The Times:

A Facebook spokesperson said that MoveOn.org was “misrepresenting how Facebook Beacon works”.

He said: “Information is shared with a small selection of a user’s trusted network of friends, not publicly on the web or with all Facebook users. Users also are given multiple ways to choose not to share information from a participating site, both on that site and on Facebook.”

Earlier this year, Facebook shrugged off privacy fears when Chris Kelly, the group’s chief privacy officer, told The Times: “We have always said that information [submitted by users] may be used to target adverts.”

“Shrugged off privacy fears”?

Of course, Chris Kelly was mocked, MoveOn was right:

So far, about 13,200 out of over 55 million members have joined MoveOn’s protest group and Facebook is standing by the statements of chief privacy officer Chris Kelly, who told The Wall Street Journal that the company has been transparent with users and that it welcomes feedback from those who have concerns. According to the Journal, Kelly acknowledged that the company could change its policies based on customer reactions but that so far he says reaction has been “fairly muted.”

While the Beacon scandal was the most extreme example, the fact of the matter is user privacy was continually eroded at Facebook during the time Chris Kelly was in charge of privacy. Play with this interactive chart, click on the different years to watch what happened to privacy at Facebook.

Chris Kelly got amazing rich eroding privacy at Facebook, which MoveOn honorably fought. Until yesterday, when out of incompetence over the history of their own campaign and cluelessness over progressive politics in the largest state, they came to the aid of Chris Kelly during the final days of his $12 million vanity campaign.

Californians don’t want an Attorney General doing for Justice what Chris Kelly did for privacy. It would be nice if MoveOn were leading the charge against Chris Kelly, instead of giving him cover to defend himself against ads criticizing Chris Kelly for his role in the Beacon scandal…when he fought MoveOn.

Already this is being mentioned as an issue for November is California Democrats agree to allow Kelly to buy the nomination. Hopefully, that won’t be an issue after Tuesday.