US with French parties

[Hash]

Nevada

Las Vegas proper would likely be a PS stronghold, thanks in part to a large unionized work force (NV has one of the highest unionization rates) and also Hispanic/black areas in North Las Vegas. I don't know much about the various neighborhoods of sprawl, but I suspect affluentish suburbs like Spring Valley, Summerlin and parts of Henderson would vote rather solidly UMP. Boulder City votes, of course, very solidly UMP. Mushrooming not-too-affluent exurbia, of which there is, iirc, plenty of in Nevada are the interesting parts. I would think that they'd be a very strong FN area. I find them similar to the small lower middle-class artisans/petit commercants which are so strongly for the FN. Plus, they're largely whites living in a state with a growing Hispanic population. Places like Pahrump (an exurb) and Eureka (some old mining town which is now growing, it's in the middle of nowhere) would probably have a very strong FN vote.

Reno would vote PS solidly, and Carson City would lean UMP. I know all of 17 people live outside Washoe and Clark Counties, but the old mining areas (copper, silver etc) would have been solidly PS/PCF in the distant past but with those mines closing (or declining), there would be a solid FN protest vote and they'd generally be establishing as UMP areas especially in places which are transforming into mushrooming 'exurbs' or places with a strong military contingent. Mormons in Lincoln County vote UMP solidly.

Nevada would be a reliably UMP state in 2007, and Sarkozy would have won it by a bit more than the national average. But in 2002, it'd have voted Le Pen (in the first round, obviously) with something like 23-26% or so, which would make it one of the FN's best states with Florida and maybe Arizona. But that was before the housing bubble exploded, and given all that, the UMP would now be polling the plague in a lot of Nevada and would have lost badly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the FN would have taken one a very high vote (19-21% or so, maybe). 

1995 map:

[Hash]

I will bow down to popular pressure and restart this a bit (dunno when exactly), but in the meantime here's a map showing a National Assembly with 577 seats.

If you want to do some maps based on it, that'd be great. Respect county boundaries as much as possible, but you can be looser on deviations (no more than 10%). No VRA-stuff necessary o/c

[Hash]

Alabama's 9 districts



1ere (Mobile): blue, dev -242 > solid UMP
2eme (Enterprise-Dothan): green, dev -186 > lean UMP, strong MPF
3eme (Selma-Tuscaloosa): purple, dev 865 > lean UMP/MPF, PS base
4eme (Montgomery): red, dev -588 > tossup PS/UMP
5eme (Birmingham Centre): gold, dev -290 > lean PS
6eme (Florence-Birmingham Nord): teal, dev -464 > lean MPF, strong UMP and PS
7eme (Alabaster-Birmingham Campagne): gray, dev -456 > solid UMP
8eme (Gadsen): cornflower blue, dev 843 > tossup MPF/UMP
9eme (Huntsville-Decatur): cyan, dev 516 > tossup UMP/PS

South Dakota



1ere (Sioux Falls): blue, dev -313 > lean UMP
2eme (Pierre-Aberdeen-Rapid City): green, dev 313 > solid UMP

Idaho



1ere (Boise): blue, dev -699 > lean UMP
2eme (Lewiston): green, dev 916 > lean UMP
3eme (Pocatello-Idaho Falls): purple, dev -216 > solid UMP

[Hash]

Arizona. Really did my best, but it's hard to balance compactness and equality...

I've kind of decided to go with equality rather than absolute compactness myself, which isn't really the French way but meh.

Anyways, I'm working on building a national 577 constituency map based on the individual states' districting. So get to work people!

Montana



1ere (Missoula-Butte): blue, dev 271
2eme (Helena-Great Falls-Billings): green, dev -272

Your SD map is almost the same as mine.

And that's a problem because...?

[Hash]

Washington, updated



1 (Spokane): blue, dev 10.481 R 57.5%
2 (Walla Walla-Wenatchee): green, dev 288. R 64.3%
3 (Yakima): purple, dev 18.990. R 63.4%
4 (Vancouver): red, dev 10.501. R 54%
5 (Pacific): gold, dev -6.469. D 51.4%
6 (Olympia): teal, dev 3.347. D 50.2%
7 (Bellingham-Mount Vernon-Puget Sound): gray, dev -2.772. D 50.5%
8 (Everett): weird colour, dev -6.509. D 51.2%
9 (Tacoma): cyan, dev 9.598. D 53.2%
10 (Burien-Kent-Covington-Vashon): pink, dev -13.220. D 53.8%
11 (Seattle Centre): light green, dev -7.836. D 82.1%
12 (Bellevue-King): cornflower blue, dev -12.474. D 53.9%
13 (Seattle Nord-Shoreline-Edmonds): brownish, dev -3.921. D 66%

[Hash]

I'll restart this for a little while. California is going to be particularly long and tough.

Northern California

Upstate California (inland)

Rural, isolated and conservative, inland upstate California would, nowadays at least, be pretty solidly UMP. There might be some rump rural conservative FN support in the more isolated places. There would be a few rumps of boboish type PS and Green support in touristy places like Trinity County, Mount Shasta and Nevada County. There would have been a pretty marked trend to the right since the 1960s due in part to the decline of the timber industry and the shifting voting patterns in old timber-based counties due to the left's environmentalism. Mitterrand would have won much of the inland far north in 1965, for example.

North Coast

Besides Del Norte County, the entire coastal region north of Sonoma County would be solidly left-wing, with a marked trend to the left since the late 80s. It would be a largely bobo-type vote, with old hippies, artsy liberals, pot growers, affluent yippies in the Wine Country and similar types making up the bulk of PS-Green ranks. Arcata, Eureka, Ukiah and Noyo would be solidly left-wing, with some of the strongest Green votes in the country. Obviously, in 2009, the PS would have polled utter crap outside perhaps of Eureka and Fort Bragg which might keep a PS machine tradition dating back to lumber days. The left-wing vote then would have gone largely to the Greens, who would have swept Mendocino and Humboldt Counties. In presidential elections, it would probably lean towards the PS for obvious reasons.

The UMP would poll crap with Sarkozy, and there would probably have been a major trend to the left in 2007.

Sacramento Valley

Sacramento proper, especially the more Hispanic parts (Parkway), would be solidly PS in a way which needs not be described. Its suburbs, with a few exceptions for the more diverse inner suburbs, would be solidly right-leaning. Suburban growth would likely have moved places like Placer and El Dorado County (except touristy places around Lake Tahoe, which would be PS-Green) to the right in recent years, and they would be solidly UMP.

The rural areas of the Sacramento Valley, flat and rural agricultural areas, would have been solidly right-wing even perhaps in the days when the more mountainous working-class timber counties in the far-north were left-leaning. Chico is a rather large college town and would vote accordingly.

Napa, Yolo and Lake Counties - which I don't know much about - seem to be largely continuations of what we found on the North Coast. Davis is a college town and would vote like college towns vote. Woodland is largely Hispanic, and would be solidly PS.

Bay Area

North Bay

Sonoma and Marin Counties are affluent and liberal, and while in a not-so distant past (Giscard 74 and 81) they would have been right-wing strongholds, they would be ever more left-wing these days. Larger, more ethnically diverse cities which are also slightly less affluent - like Santa Rosa, San Rafael or Novato - would be more solidly PS. Affluent areas, especially places like Mill Valley or Tiburon would be slightly less left-wing, with a rump UMP support, but still rather left-leaning with a very strong Green vote, especially in 2009.

Solano County seems pretty boring to me. The less affluent and more diverse (blacks, Mexicans, Filipino Asians it seems) cities of Vallejo, Fairfield and Vacaville (though less diverse) would be solidly PS. The more affluent areas would be similar to Marin or Sonoma, though not as Green and more right-leaning.

East Bay

Things are rather interesting in the Oakland-Alameda area and in Contra Costa. Working-class areas in Contra Costa such as Richmond (shipyards) and Pittsburg (steel), which are now largely Hispanic, would be solidly PS and likely have been solidly PCF up until the 70s or so. The mayor of Richmond is actually a Greenie, but the city's demographics (poorer, non-white) do not lend to the place having a particularly strong Green vote. The right would always have been dead here. Concord and Walnut Creek are nondescript places and would be solidly left-wing. More affluent places such as Danville or San Ramon would probably still lean to the right (UMP) but with a bit of a left-wing trend in recent years.

TBC (Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, SFO, San Mateo and Silicon Valley)

[Hash]

Northern California (continued)

East Bay

Berkeley, a huge college town and overwhelmingly liberal, would be a left-wing stronghold for reasons which need not be explained. Traditionally, the Greens would win some of their best results in the country in Berkeley, though I suppose in presidential elections the PS would dominate the field otherwise. In the 1960s, the PSU would have done very well, and Berkeley would have provided the LCR with one of its few bases in the country up until 2002-2007, when the old hippie Trot vote started being lost to the Greenies.

Oakland, which is a multicultural city with a strong working-class tradition (manufacturing, shipyards etc) would have been a PCF stronghold until not too long about (89? 95?) and would still be otherwise pretty solidly left-wing these days, though the PS would be the dominant party by far (though a few cantons, primarily the black ones, might elect PCF councillors). The growing Hispanic population would lean solidly PS. The Greens would poll well, but overall Oakland seems to be too poor and too diverse for there to be a strong Green vote as there is in Berkeley. That being said, Piedmont and the Oakland hills - which stand out from the city by their affluence and high education levels - would have a solid Green vote similar to that of Marin County with residual UMP strength (basically they'd be the only areas with a UMP vote which isn't laughably low).

Racial tensions and white flight in Oakland seems to have been a 50s phenomenon, so there would be no FN  vote to speak of in Oakland, even in 1984.

On a random note which I just thought of: Bayrou would have done quite well (second place behind Royal) in Marin/Sonoma Counties and similarly affluent liberal areas in the Bay Area, taking some of a bobo-yuppie vote which is too wealthy to be comfortable voting PS (which doesn't seem to exist in France, but would exist in these areas). The UDF would probably not have been particularly strong in these places (though Balladur would have beat Chirac in 95), but there would be a strong MoDem vote in 2007-2009.

San Leandro would be a PS stronghold, though it was apparently segregated/white flight land up until not that long ago, so you might have seen a strong FN vote in 1984. Hayward seems to have a working-class tradition and is pretty heavily Hispanic and Asian (Filipino) and would be, predictably, solidly PS, but with a Green vote around CSU East Bay. Union City would be solidly PS. Fremont (and Newark?) has an old car manufacturing base, and is pretty ethnically diverse and would be, again, solidly PS.

The affluent exurbs/outer suburbs of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton would likely lean slightly to the right (except for perhaps the more non-white parts) but Sarkozy would have done pretty badly as a right-winger in these places in 2007. I don't know if he'd have done badly to the point of Royal winning them (which I kind of doubt), but at any rate there would a pretty sharp trend to the left and Bayrou would have done very well.

South Bay: Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County

Before getting into Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, we should perhaps try to clarify the problem of Asians. Asians in France - if they vote to begin with - don't care much about politics but are presumably pretty solidly left-wing because, afaik, they're not as affluent and well-educated (except long-term Asian immigrants) as Asian-Americans. The Chinese in France live in pretty lower-income multicultural neighborhoods, which is not really the case in the US. Asian-Americans could be reliably right-wing because of their wealth, high educational achievement and residual social conservatism/religious conservatism (Koreans) or anti-communism (Vietnamese, Chinese in the past). Or they could be reliably left-wing, especially in recent years, because of them being close in terms of jobs and education to left-wing yuppies-bobos and reaction against the right's stance on immigration (especially Sarkozy) and, depending on how stuff is played out in the South, the alliance with Phil de Villiers' MPF. I think we can agree that Sarkozy would not be well perceived by Asian-Americans (immigration policy, faux populism). Chirac, otoh, might have had a much better image (remember how Chirac loves Japanese stuff, from sumo to banks in Tokyo to launder taxpayer money). While treating Asians as some homogeneous entity is wrong, I would assume that they would have shifted from more or less right-wing in the 70s-80s (for anti-communist reasons in part) to more left-leaning in the 90s and transforming into solidly left-wing post-2007.

Chinese-Americans would have followed this shift pretty closely, as would Indian-Americans. Koreans and Japanese are the least affluent (but still more affluent than average) so they might have been more solidly left-wing even in the past. Some Korean Americans are Christian fundamentalists, but they vote Democratic in OTL, so it's hard to say if they'd vote PS/left for economic reasons or be tempted by the right for moral issue reasons (maybe Christine Boutin would do well with them!). Filipinos are surprisingly affluent and pretty conservative, so they might be more right-leaning. The Vietnamese are anti-communist and would be the most right-leaning group to this day.

Overall, the Silicon Valley would be pretty solidly left-leaning. While not identical to Marin County's affluent bobo 'gauche caviar' type of leftieness, it would be a pretty similar young professional/highly educated intellectual kinda-bobo/yuppie type of leftieness mixed in with Asians and Hispanics.

Assuming that Asians especially Chinese, Indians and Filipinos are pretty leftie in this context, places like Milpitas, northern San Jose and Cupertino would be pretty left-leaning, though not in a way which needs particular description. As would, probably, the bulk of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Campbell. Certainly less affluent Hispanic neighborhoods such as Alum Rock, Seven Trees and Sunol-Midtown would be even more solidly PS.

Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Mountain View, Los Altos and especially Palo Alto/Stanford would have been similarly solidly left-leaning, but with a strong Green vote and, in 2007, some very good results for Bayrou and the MoDem. The right might have residual strength if it is particularly moderate, but the UMP's last holdouts in the Silicon Valley would largely be in the more hilly regions which surrounds the Santa Clara Valley.

The Peninsula: San Mateo County

San Mateo, like Marin (and possibly Santa Clara) would have been pretty reliably right-wing for most of the 60s, 70s and early 80s before shifting sharply to the left in recent years.

In some places, such as Menlo Park, voting patterns would be similar to those in adjacent affluent white/Asian Silicon Valley communities in Santa Clara County. However, East Palo Alto, while strongly PS, is quite dissimilar in that it is diverse (in the past, black, now Hispanic) and largely poor. Redwood City is similarly heavily Hispanic and hardly affluent compared to its neighbors, thus it would be one of the safest PS cities in the county.

On the other hand, wealthier places such as San Carlos, Belmont, Foster City, Burlingame and San Mateo and Millbrae to a lesser extent (they're not as affluent and a bit more Hispanic) would have been right-wing up until not too long ago but pretty safely left-leaning today in a yuppie/bobo/gauche caviar way which is getting pretty common in this description of the Bay Area. There would be, you know, a Green vote and a good Bayrou vote and yaddi yadda.

The one exception might be Atherton, which is exceptionally affluent and is much less solidly Dem in RL. I suppose it might have kept a small UMP lean.

San Bruno, South SF and Daly City would be solidly PS as well, but because they are rather less affluent and more ethnically diverse (Hispanics in South SF, Filipinos in Daly City etc) it would not be the same kind of leftiness as the rest of the county.

The Pacific coast (El Granada, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay etc) and southern San Mateo would be more or less left-leaning (leftiness type: affluent liberals) but would maintain a not-too-shabby rump UMP vote of maximum 40-43%.

City of San Francisco

The basics are that San Francisco would be a solidly left-wing city, and one of the PS machine cities in the country. The right would barely have a base, and the left would almost be evenly divided between the Greens and the PS while in the 60s there would have been a pretty strong base for small left-wing parties such as the PSU and, more recently, the LCR. San Francisco was historically a pretty working-class town with a strong labour movement and labour tradition. Presumably it would have been a PCF stronghold, at least at a local level, until the 70s or so.

Hippie/artsy/hipster/gay/bobo whatever districts such as Haight-Ashbury, the Castro, Hayes Valley, Mission (and Mission Bay) and Bernal Heights (Lesbian Heights) would be solidly left-wing with a huge Green vote (the highest in the country, presumably) and would usually give the left-wing candidate in presidential elections some of their highest margins in the country. It would be amusing to see how poorly Boutin/de Villiers types would poll there, haha. The Noe Valley, Saint Francis Wood, Presidio, Laurel Heights, Nob Hill, South Beach and Russian Hill would be largely similar in their politics, though with a slightly lower young hippie Trot (LCR-type) vote and a higher Bayrou 2007 vote (Bayrou wouldn't have done all that well in the Castro etc)

Lower-income and slightly more diverse areas in the downtown area such as Tenderloin would be heavily PS with a lower Green vote.

The Chinese vote would likely be solidly PS (though perhaps not as humongously overall leftie as in the Castro etc), and by consequence Chinatown, the Sunsets and Richmond would be heavily PS with a rather lower Green vote and probably no residues of the old PCF strength.

Southwestern San Francisco would be solidly left-wing as well, but of a much different type of leftieness than that found in Haights-Ashbury or the Castro. Poor black working-class neighborhoods such as Bayview-Hunters Point would be solidly PS, with a weak Green presence and the last residues of the old PCF machine (the canton of Bayview might elect a PCF councillor). For similar reasons, Visitacion Valley, Excelsior, Portola, Oceanview and part of Ingleside/Merced Heights would be politically similar. There might have been a not-too-shabby FN vote in some parts back in 1984, but today it is largely black (Bayview-Hunters Point) or less affluent Chinese/Asian (with residues of Irish and Italian working-classes). The PCF would poll best in SW SF.

[Hash]

Northern California (continued)

Santa Cruz County

A bit outside the Bay Area, but Santa Cruz in part shares the general political feel of the Bay Area. Santa Cruz, a big uni town with an additional liberal/alternative side, would be solidly left-wing with a strong Green vote and maybe a nice result for Bayrou in 2007. Ben Lomond, Scotts Valley and Boulder Creek would be similar politically though Scotts Valley might be a tad more right-wing.

Further south, near the Salinas Valley, Watsonville (and Freedom, Interlaken etc) is heavily Hispanic and pretty poor, so it would be solidly PS but with a weak Green presence. Turnout would be lower, and politics are starting to resemble those we'll find in the Central Valley (north San Joaquin Valley).

Central Valley: the northern San Joaquin Valley

We left the Central Valley, the Sacramento Valley to be fair, roughly in Sacramento's right-wing suburbs. We're entering the poorer, more Hispanic agricultural part of the Central Valley. Agriculture - largely fruits and vegetables - is traditionally the main economic activity, and predictably those farms have hired (for quite some time) a lot of Mexican farmworkers and there are a lot of hired illegal immigrants too. There are also weird Eastern European, Azorean and Asian (Filipino, Cambodian, Hmong, Paki) communities.

A general rule is that the cities (Stockton, Modesto, Merced and Fresno) which are either largely Hispanic or have a large Hispanic population which actually votes would be more or less heavily PS with little Green strength outside the few uni/college campuses. These are largely urban poor, diverse and blue-collar districts with food processing in Modesto and Fresno and a large harbour in Stockton on the San Joaquin River.

In a lot of cases, some rural areas might be heavily Hispanic but this rarely shows up politically. I'd guess that either turnout is atrociously low (which it is) or that there are a lot of illegals or unregistered farm workers. I would assume that Hispanic voter registration/turnout is higher in urban areas. At any rate, whites of all types with a few exceptions (the few white liberals?) would be heavily right-wing. You might have a few conservative Hispanics who vote for the right in rural areas, but it is not likely to be statistically important. Thus, rural areas are conservative and heavily UMP.

Fresno, the heavily Hispanic parts of it at least (which accounts for a lot) would be solidly PS, while its whiter and more affluent suburbia more heavily UMP. Scattered Hispanic small towns in Fresno County (Firebaugh, Mendota, Reedley, Orange Cove, Selma, Sanger) would be largely PS with maybe a small conservative Hispanic vote for the right (UDF/UMP).

The Central Valley was - iirc - originally settled by Southerners and voted Democrat until the 60s or so, so presumably the region would have been pretty big for Mitterrand in 1965.

San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera and Fresno Counties (Fresno to a lesser extent) are all high-growth exurban counties, of a not too-affluent type so with a lot of huge mortgages and foreclosures. This whole environment of not extremely affluent high-growth exurbia (periurbanisation in France) is very conducive to a strong FN vote, especially in circumstances of high foreclosures, immigration, criminality and unemployment. White areas would likely see a strong FN vote, especially in 2010 and 2011.

Further south, Tulare (big milk industry) and Kings are largely Hispanic but voter turnout is uber-low, especially in those rural Hispanic precincts. Basically, they'd be solidly UMP despite it all, with the PS concentrated in a handful of 80-90%+ Hispanic precincts and Hispanic parts of Tulare, Visalia and Hanford.

Sierra Nevada

Outside the San Joaquin Valley, getting into the Sierra Nevada, the rural counties here are more heavily white (less agriculturally reliant on Mexicans?) and very conservative. They would likely be UMP strongholds, with PS strength mainly in towns with Hispanics (Madera) or towns of some size and touristy places like Yosemite (with a big Green vote).

The one exception, and it is a recent one, would be Alpine and Mono Counties. They're sparsely populated but they have some increasingly important ski resort/touristy-service communities such as Mammoth Lakes (Mono) and Kirkwood (Alpine) which would make them pretty leftie these days (though it is a very recent thing) with a big Green vote and an overall social liberal feel.

Monterey Bay, Salinas Valley and the Big Sur

The Hispanic areas outside of Watsonville (Pajaro, Castroville) would be solidly PS, as would most of Salinas which is a largely low-income Hispanic town (though with wealthy suburbs which seem Hispanic as well). The Salinas Valley, which is very agricultural (salads etc) is heavily Hispanic as well (Mexican agricultural workers probs), but turnout is pretty low and PS strength would be limited in the valley to cities like Soledad, Greenfield and King City.

Monterey, Carmel, Pacific Grove, Marina and the sparsely populated Big Sur coastal stretch is all pretty liberal (and white) and would be the final extension of the Bay Area's dominant upper middle-class young affluent leftie social liberalism. It would lean to the PS except for a few UMP enclaves in uber-rich places (Del Monte), and would have a strong Green vote (and Bayrou-2007, yaddi yadda).

TBC: Bakersfield, San Luis, Santa Barbara, LAX, Riverside, San Diego, OC etc

[Hash]

So people whine for this to come back, and when it does nobody reads it? Cool stuff, bros.

Southern California

Southern Central Coast: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara Counties

Continuing the patterns found along the northern Central Coast in NoCal, the coastal areas of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties would lean to the left, but, in SLO's case, this wouldn't make a sizable impact.

San Luis Obispo, home to Cal Poly, would lean to the left (with a Green presence), as would coastal communities such as Los Osos, Arroyo Grande and Santa Maria (largely Hispanic low-income and blue-collar), though those latter places wouldn't have any Green vote to speak of.

Santa Barbara, a tourist town and a college town with a particularly left-wing campus (UCSB), would be heavily left-leaning with a very strong Green presence. The student community of Isla Vista would obviously be heavily left-wing as well, while the affluent white-collar high-tech areas of the Goleta Valley would be more swingy, perhaps with a slight lean to the right (albeit declining).

Inland SLO and Santa Barbara Counties are largely agricultural (wine and cattle in SLO, fruits/veggies in SB), though Santa Barbara has a small oil and gas sector in the northern mountainous parts. Compounded with those inland places being largely white, they'd be traditional UMP strongholds.

San Joaquin Valley (south): Kern County

Kern County completes the Central Valley, and would largely share its political inclinations as well. Besides a few heavily Hispanic small towns (Delano, McFarland, Wasco), the rural parts of the valley would be rock-solidly conservative with huge UMP margins. Pretty standard-fare, but the agricultural aspect of the Central Valley is changed a bit (and it means that the mood is even more right-wing) by the presence of the big oil and gas sector here (and the military in the Mojave Desert). The Sierra Nevada and Mojave Desert parts of Kern would be solidly right-wing too.

Bakersfield, the downtown and eastern/SE parts of the city, has a large Hispanic population and those precincts would be heavily left-wing. But Bakersfield (and especially its suburbs, which I would gather are hell on earth) would be a solidly UMP city with a very strong FN vote as well. There would be some pretty bad racial voting, with the whitey parts being solidly UMP/FN.

Kern is very high-growth not-too-affluent country with high foreclosures and idiots who buy things they can't effing afford, so the comments made about the northern San Joaquin Valley and the likelihood of there being a particularly high FN vote applies very well here. Presumably, the FN would have done real well in 2010 here.

Ventura County

Ventura County would lean to the right overall, however, Oxnard, a largely Hispanic blue-collar town whose economy relies on the Port of Hueneme would be heavily left-wing. Ventura would be kind of swingy, perhaps with a slight UMP lean. Inland, Ventura's low-income farming communities in the Santa Clara River valley, which are largely Hispanic, would probably lean left depending on Hispanic turnout. The UMP's base would be in upscale residential areas, especially in the affluent and white Conejo Valley - the towns of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks particularly.

Los Angeles County: Santa Monica Mountains

This is a particularly famous, affluent and heavily white areas. Similar to the Bay Area, but with the added influence of the entertainment industry, the region mixes affluence with social liberalism and, in most cases, gauche caviar politics. It is once again tough to determine whether the social liberalism and environmentalism which makes these regions largely Democratic would be enough to make then lean to the left in this "Franco-American" context. It is still rather hard to see most of these regions being enamored by Sarkozy (or Royal, of course) in 2007.

Agoura Hills, largely affluent, would probably conserve a small lean to the UMP but with a sizable Green/Bayrou/bobo PS vote based on its important cultural scene and other general factors. Malibu has a sh**tload of rich people, but a lot of those rich people are affluent bobos, meaning that they would presumably give the area, in recent years, a small leftie lean, again with strong Green and Bayrou presence. Of course, both of these places would have gone solidly for Giscard in 1974 and again in 1981.

Topanga is a bohemian enclave and would vote solidly left-wing/Green. Calabasas and especially Hidden Hills are extremely affluent and slightly less boboish, and would presumably be rather moderately right-leaning, though Bayrou would likely have done very well there in 2007.

Los Angeles County: Westside and Santa Monica

Affluent neighborhoods such as Pacific Palisades, Brentwood and Westwood are continuations further south of the common ol' affluent liberalism pattern. They'd be rather swingy traditionally, but with a more pronounced trend to the left in recent years - Royal would probably have won those places narrowly in 2007, probably some kind of historic first for a PS presidential candidate. Westwood might be the exception as UCLA's presence might make it more leftie (profs?), but UCLA students largely live in Mar Vista, Palms and Culver City. Bel Air is even more affluent, so presumably more strongly right-wing.

Santa Monica is already slightly less affluent and more ethnically diverse (by wealthyland standards!), and the economy is already more service-reliant. Yet, it remains socially liberal and well-off, so it would retain the political feel of its neighbors while being more strongly left-wing (and historically leftie compared to the rest) with a strong Green presence. Marina del Rey is slightly posher than its surroundings, so it presumably continues the patterns of Pacific Palisades et al.

Mar Vista, Palms and Del Rey would be heavily left-wing - they're less affluent, more ethnically diverse and have a younger student population (Mar Vista, Palms) or a large number of renters rather than owners (Palms). The PS would be stronger, while the Greens would retain a presence. Bayrou's influence, perceptible in the affluent neighborhoods and Santa Monica, would be much reduced here. The same would likely apply for Culver City, though I don't see the Greenies as strong.

Venice Beach, on the other hand, is almost a hippie commune, and would have been leftie for decades, with a huge Green vote, following in the pattern of a strong PSU vote in the 60s. The PS is strong too, more in the lower-income parts.

West LA, Sawtelle, Rancho Park and Cheviot Hills are all pretty well-off quiet suburban professional neighborhoods, rather nondescript, and would likely be traditionally left-wing since the 90s with the PS as the dominant party. Century City is less suburban, but would vote similarly. Beverlywood and Pico-Robertson are similarly suburban and professional, though they both have a larger Jewish population (non-Hasidic oc), with a rising Hispanic presence. They would be traditionally left-wing as well.

Beverly Hills will be covered in the next post.

TBC: the rest of LA County

[Hash]

I've been reading it. It's a good writeup; I'll have some comments later.

Hopefully they're good and I didn't screw up anywhere!


Southern California (continued)

Beverly Hills

Beverly Hills, which is generally rather affluent and liberal, would lean to the left, but there would be a political division between the uber-rich mansions north of Santa Monica Boulevard, which would vote pretty solidly UMP, and the less affluent (but still rather well-off and white) 'flats' south of said road, which would vote more left-wing with the PS and Greens as the main parties on the left.

Los Angeles County: Central LA and Hollywood

West Hollywood, which has a huge gay "godless libruls" population, is practically some hippie or bobo-leftie enclave, and would vote very heavily left-wing with, presumably, a huge Green vote (and the PSU in the 1960s), though the PS would also do quite well (perhaps with the Jewish population). The Hollywood Hills are affluent and liberal, so they would follow the patterns of equally affluent hilly places described in the last post.

Carthay and Fairfax/Beverly Grove are largely white and rather well-off (not uber-rich, but not poor either) and they also have a fairly large Jewish population. It is hard to see them voting for anybody else than the PS, though perhaps with an important Green vote and maybe (maybe) a not too negligible UMP rump.

Mid-City is a very mixed neighborhood, both in terms of race (blacks, Hispanics, whites) and income. There are some middle-class black and white neighborhoods, while getting further towards downtown, the Hispanic areas are not as well-off. Despite the diversity, it would still be a heavily left-wing neighborhood overall with the PS, by far, as the dominant political force.

Mid-Wilshire as a whole is another mish-mash of different ethnicities and incomes. Mid-Wilshire proper is fairly white and middle-class, and would be of nondescript PS-voting nature. Further towards downtown, Arlington Heights, Harvard Heights and Pico-Union are largely Hispanic - the latter two especially, whose Hispanic population is rather unusual in that it is quite a fair bit Guatemalan or Salvadoran. They would, of course, be heavily PS. We are getting closer to LA's "pure" nature as a solidly Socialist city with no sizable Green or right-wing vote. They are, of course, socially conservative, but it would carry little impact in voting behaviour. Westlake is largely Hispanic as well, and has a large Central American element as well. It would be heavily PS.

Koreatown is getting increasingly Hispanic, but a good number of its areas remain largely Asian - Korean, of course, in large part. Koreatown is pretty poor now (especially the Hispanic areas), and lots of Koreans left following the 1992 riots which had a particularly bad effect on the neighborhood's economy. There might be a larger conservative law-and-order vote in the Korean community, which would likely have voted for Sarkozy, but for the most part both the Korean and Hispanic areas would vote largely PS.

Hancock Park and Windsor Square (parts of Larchmont as well) are far more affluent (in a few precinct's cases, very affluent) and less diverse (more white). While still likely being left-leaning since the 90s, there would be a sizable UMP rump.

Hollywood is actually not too affluent, and the Hispanic neigborhoods (large Central American element too) further east are quite deprived, and would be solidly PS. The whiter parts of Hollywood might have a slightly larger UMP rump, but would have a left-wing lean since the 90s at least. East Hollywood is largely low-income and Hispanic - with a small Thai and Armenian population, and it would be solidly PS.

Los Feliz, Silver Lake and Echo Park are more affluent, whiter (parts of Silver Lake and Echo Park are more Hispanic, and Echo Park is not all that affluent) and are largely hip/artsy/bobo type of neighborhoods. They would be heavily left-wing as well, like their neighbors, but would have a large Green vote which makes them stand out from their neighbors.

We are now in the downtown core of LA. Chinatown, which is more or less largely Asian (obviously Chinese), is rather poor (with some gentrification or artsy types) given that a lot of wealthier Asians have moved elsewhere (Monterey Park). It would be heavily PS.

Downtown LA is the city's business and cultural heart, but those who live there - while very ethnically diverse (Mexicans, Koreans, Japanese, blacks, whites) are largely low-income. It would be a PS stronghold, but the Green vote wouldn't be particularly high (except a few places).

Los Angeles County: South LA

South LA would be one of the most left-wing areas in the country: it is only 2% white and it is very much a working-poor area with high criminality and so forth.

South Park has seen gentrification with more luxury condos, but it and Historic South-Central, Central Alameda and Florence-Graham are basically parts of Mexico by their demographics, and they're also very poor. They would be the ultimate PS strongholds, with no Green or right-wing (UMP/UDF) presence.

Getting further south, into Watts, Willowbrook and other smaller neighborhoods (Green Meadows, Broadway-Manchester, Vermont Vista) are more ethnically mixed (Hispanics and blacks) but overall they're very deprived inner-city areas with crime problems and so forth. Watts is a pretty well-known place for such reasons. There might be racial tensions played out politically at a cantonal level, but overall there would be little ethnic differences in voting: this area is rock-solid PS.

Further west, Westmont and Gramercy Park are heavily black though the former has a growing Hispanic population. They are not as poor (though not very affluent still), but they'd still be rock-solid PS, as would Manchester Square and Vermont Knolls, which are also largely black and low-income.

Around Chesterfield Square, Harvard Park, Vermont-Slauson, Vermont Square and so forth are poor largely Hispanic areas with a black minority, and they would vote heavily PS. There would be some Green strength around USC in University Park, but the area in general is as solidly and homogeneously PS as they come.

Hyde Park, Leimert Park, Crenshaw and the Baldwin Hills are largely black, but they're slightly wealthier than surrounding neighborhoods (including West Adams, which used to be fairly middle-class black area but now appears to be largely Hispanic and lower-income). The middle-class black areas would be solidly PS as well. Ladera Heights and View Park-Windsor Hills are the most affluent black neighborhoods in the city, but it is unlikely that they would be any more right-wing as a result: the only difference might be a larger Green vote and maybe a not-too-bad result for Bayrou in 2007.

Los Angeles County: South Bay and the Palos Verdes

We're jumping around a bit and we're soon encountering new types of communities.

Inglewood proper is still largely income and closely divided between older black communities and newer Hispanic immigrants. The blacks would probably dominate politically, but overall there would again be little surface voting pattern differences. Inglewood would be a PS stronghold. Lennox, a small unincorporated neighborhood, is poor and Hispanic. No cookie for guessing how it votes. Hawthorne, Lawndale and Del Aire are more Hispanic and in some cases the black populations are quite small, but there's no use in breaking them down: all pretty solidly PS, though in Lawndale and Del Aire we might start seeing a bigger UMP vote in the whiter precincts. Hawthorne and Lawndale are more middle-class too.

Gardena is more diverse, with a fairly large Hispanic element but a small black element and a large Japanese population as well. The Hispanic and black areas would be the most solidly PS areas, which would give Gardena its strong left-wing lean, but the Japanese areas would be more swingy, thus a bit more right-wing though probably would have voted for Royal narrowly in 2007. That being said, remember what I said about Chirac winning the Japanese vote in the past.

Westchester, which includes LAX, is whiter and wealthier and includes a uni (Loyola Marymount), would be more swingy but probably with a narrow lean to the left in recent years. Wealthy neighborhoods north of the airport might vote UMP on a more consistent basis, though. Playa del Rey would be more left-wing, though seemingly of a bobo-left nature.

El Segundo is white and pretty well-off, and despite a large Chevron refinery, what drives the economy is the big aerospace industry in El Segundo and surrounding cities. As a defense-driven white middle-class suburban community, it would likely lean UMP without being a right-wing stronghold.

Manhattan Beach is a very affluent beachfront community with exorbitant property prices. It is socially liberal, though not as much as Venice Beach, which is basically a hippie commune. Manhattan Beach might be shifting away from the populist-right brand of the UMP under Sarkozy, but would likely have voted for Sarkozy in 2007 and, while being swingy, still have a slight UMP lean. Bayrou would have done very well. Hermosa Beach would be more leftie as it seems a bit more bobo.

Redondo Beach would be politically similar to Manhattan Beach, though it is not as affluent and the defense industry is more important. It would thus be more swingy, but Sarkozy would probably have won in 2007 - albeit pretty narrowly.

Torrance is largely white and Asian (largely Japanese), and its economy is driven by a mix of oil refineries, automaker sale offices and the aerospace industry. The Japanese parts would vote like those in neighboring Gardena, that is, more or less tied in 2007 and more Chiraquien in the past. The white affluent areas would be traditionally right-leaning. I don't know much about this place, but it seems to be a place where Sarkozy would have appealed well to the middle-class white suburbanites.

The Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling Hills etc) is extremely affluent (and white), with a fair number of gated communities. Also, in contrast to the more socially liberal places such as Bel-Air, the Palos Verdes doesn't appear to be particularly socially liberal. It would be a UMP stronghold with little left-Green presence.

TBC: the rest of LA County

[Hash]

Southern California (continued)

Los Angeles County: Compton, Harbor, Long Beach and Santa Catalina

Compton is an inner-city, low income and ethnically mixed community with a criminality problem but some slow 'gentrification' of sorts. Hispanics actually outnumber blacks now in Compton, though blacks dominate politically and Compton is usually associated with being a black community. As we found in South LA's more mixed neighborhoods, this ethnic difference is unlikely to result in any perceptible difference in voting patterns. Compton would be a PS stronghold, in the real sense of the word "stronghold".

Harbor Gateway and West Carson and largely Hispanic with a large Filipino population, at any rate they seem to be lower middle-class areas. Solidly PS, of course. Carson is a working-class city with large industrial activities (factories, oil refineries) and a diverse ethnic makeup: Hispanics, blacks and Filipinos. Black and Hispanic areas would be solidly PS, but Filipino areas lining the Interstate 110 would be slightly less left-wing, though still with a marked left-wing bias.

Harbor City and San Pedro are more mixed (especially in terms of income), though largely Hispanic (some whites near Torrance and the Palos Verdes). Wilmington, on the other hand, is heavily Hispanic and deprived in terms of income. All three would likely be PS strongholds, Wilmington especially so.

Long Beach is a mix of different communities and, as a result, some different voting behaviours. Long Beach's Hispanic communities downtown and on the east and west sides as well as in North Long Beach would be solidly PS. Filipinos, again, slightly less left-leaning, but Cambodians would probably be very left-leaning, like the Mexicans. There are some liberal 'bobo' type whites, I think, around Belmont Shores/Belmont Heights/Alamitos Heights and Cal State, and they would lean to the left with a strong Green vote. However, the white upper-income areas (I suppose the residents work in the aerospace industry) on the border with the OC and near Lakewood would be about tied up in 2007, with a shift to the left after having been more or less right-wing in the not so distant past.

Lakewood is largely white, suburban and middle-class/old WWC with defense probably a major employer. Save for Hispanic areas around the Hawaiian Gardens and slightly more diverse areas elsewhere, Lakewood would probably be an old PS area, but with a more recent lean to the right. Sarkozy would have done particularly well here.

Santa Catalina Island, and its sole settlement, Avalon, are fairly affluent places living off tourism and would seem fairly white though Avalon, surprisingly, is now Hispanic plurality. From what I know of Santa Catalina, it would be left-leaning with a large Green vote.

Los Angeles County: Southeast

Paramount, Lynwood, South Gate, Huntington Park, Maywood, Bell, Bell Gardens, Commerce and Cudahy are some of the most heavily Hispanic areas in LA, and while not dirt-poor, they're not breaking affluence records any time soon. They would heavily PS, presumably with some type of corrupt Mexican political boss-run type of machine. Vernon is a huge employment hub for the whole area with manufacturing and food processing plants, but nobody seems to vote there (24 people in 2010).

Downey is kind of weird in that it is pretty largely Hispanic (though not as big as in neighboring places) but also a bit more affluent and more conservative in its voting habits OTL. I don't know much about it, but based on what actually goes on there, there could be a strong UMP vote in the more affluent precincts despite them being more affluent.

Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, West Whittier, Pico-Rivera and Montebello are all heavily Hispanic, but more middle-class suburban types of neighborhoods. While the right (UDF?) might have more of a base than in poorer Hispanic neighborhoods, overall it would pretty much be a more or less strongly left-leaning area.

South Whittier has more second and third-generation Hispanics, and as a result is more right-wing though overall it would remain left-leaning, with the PS beating out the UMP in all but the worst years for the left.

Bellflower and Artesia, while plurality Hispanic, have a large white and Asian population respectively, which makes both of them slightly less left-wing than the little inner-city Mexicos, though not enough to make them lean to the right. The PS would retain a strong edge.

La Mirada is a high-growth suburb closer in its politics to the OC than LA County, and while there is very rapid Hispanic growth far outpacing white growth, it remains an upper middle-class white suburban county, thus traditionally a right-wing place, though changing demographics obviously favour the PS. There is a pretty important Evangelical uni here, so it might give the MPF its only base in California.

Cerritos is a heavily Asian-American (Korean, Filipino primarily with some Chinese) upper middle-class suburban community, and would probably have a slight lean to the left while retaining a solid enough UMP base to allow the right to win in its good and best years. On balance, in 2007, it would likely have split narrowly in the PS' favour.

Los Angeles County: Eastside and Northeast LA

East LA and Boyle Heights are two of the most Hispanic parts of LA, they are also poor inner-city/working poor neighborhoods. As with similar neighborhoods in the South and Southeast, they'd be rock-solid PS. El Sereno and Lincoln Heights are not as heavily Hispanic but they are similarly deprived. Once again, the hills start bringing less Hispanics, more wealth and more left-liberalness, but overall the Eastside would be a rock-solid PS area of the city.

In the Northeast, the hilly area of Eagle Rock is ethnically diverse but its defining features is its relative affluence and its artsy/young professional population. It would be left-leaning, but the PS would not be as hegemonic: there would be a strong Green vote. Neighboring Highland Park, Montecito Heights, Glassell Park and Atwater Village are perhaps more heavily Hispanic and not as well-off with pockets of deprivation, but they generally continue the left-liberal leanings of Eagle Rock. It would vote similarly as well.

Los Angeles County: Glendale and Burbank

Glendale is a fairly well-off middle-class suburban community, largely white and home to the corporate HQs of Nestlé USA. What sets Glendale out a bit is its large Armenian population - about 30% of the city's population iirc. Aznavour is the only French-Armenian I know, so it's not a great base about French-Armenian voting behaviour. I would assume they would be more or less leaning in the PS' favour. WASPish affluent places in the hills would be more right-wing.

Burbank is similarly well-off and white, though perhaps not as suburban given the size and importance of the entertainment industry (Walt Disney Studios, Warner Brothers). It would be a left-leaning city, with the left concentrated in the Armenian areas near Glendale and white liberal area on the border with LA City, as well as Hispanic areas near North Hollywood and Sun Valley. There would be pockets of UMP support in whiter hilly affluent areas.

That's it folks, until January 9-10 at the earliest. To be continued with the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, and the rest of California.

[Hash]

Should I even bother with this? I had been given the opinion that a lot of people cared about this, but now I'm getting the total opposite.

[Hash]

Southern California

Los Angeles County: The San Fernando Valley

The San Fernando Valley is fairly easy to understand. The flats in the valley are poor and Hispanic, the hills are affluent and white(r). This has not always been the case, in fact the flats used to be white middle-class suburbia, though with a working-class tradition. Because of low housing prices in the flats, Hispanics who are largely low-income have replaced the whites.

North Hollywood, Sun Valley, Van Nuys, Panorama City, Arleta, Pacoima, Sylmar, San Fernando, North Hills and Mission Hills are all largely Hispanic neighborhoods and all pretty low-income. The most heavily Hispanic areas - Panorama City, Pacoima, Arleta and San Fernando - are also the poorest places in the valley and places like Pacoima have seen criminality and the like. There is a long working-class tradition, especially in Van Nuys which had a GM plant until not that long ago. All these places, to varying levels, would be PS strongholds. A large Asian Filipino presence in parts of North Hills and Mission Hills make those two areas slightly less left-wing.

The NoHo Arts District (which is close to the hills) in North Hollywood stands out from the rest as it is largely white, more affluent and far more socially liberal. There has been gentrification there and it has contributed to a large artsy element. While still solidly left-wing, the Greens would poll very well. Which makes it stand out from left-leaning but poor, Hispanic and conservative areas in the flats.

The entertainment industry is centered around Studio City and also has a significant influence on Valley Village (large Jewish population), Valley Glen, Sherman Oaks and parts of Van Nuys. The entertainment industry seems to make these white and affluent neighborhoods very socially liberal, so they would presumably be solidly left-wing again with a large Green vote. Encino, on the other side of the highway (405) seems pretty similar if not a bit less left-wing.

West of the 405, there is an area defined on the north by a railway line and on the south by Victory Boulevard (corresponding to the neighborhoods of Lake Balboa, Reseda, Winnetka and Canoga Park) which is now largely Hispanic (though still ethnically mixed, with a significant white and Asian population) and lower middle-class. With a few negligible exceptions, this area would be a PS stronghold.

Northridge is fairly interesting. The immediate area around the uni (CSU Northridge) would be liberal and strongly left-wing, with a strong Green vote, but in the rest of the neighborhood there are (white) pockets of affluence. Granada Hills, Chatsworth, Porter Ranch and West Hills are all pretty white (save for Porter Ranch which has a large Korean population) and very affluent. Basically forming a hilly ring around the poorer flats, these neighborhoods would be UMP-leaning swing vote places with a marked shift to the PS in recent years. The Greens would do fairly well too. Shadow Hills, north of Burbank, can be added to this list. But Woodland Hills, while still white and affluent, is more liberal because of the entertainment industry, and as such would be more left-leaning. Tarzana is similar, but the large Iranian population would make it more right-wing than Woodland Hills.

[Hash]

Southern California

Los Angeles County: The Verdugos and Pasadena

Sunland-Tujunga is a largely white, middle-class suburb with a small Armenian presence (it is close to Glendale). It seems fairly non-descript, and would appear to be left-leaning overall. La Crescenta-Montrose is affluent with a fairly big Asian (Korean) presence, so it would probably be swingy or slightly right-leaning. La Cañada-Flintridge is white and extremely affluent, and it would be a UMP stronghold.

Pasadena is one-third Hispanic, but the whites are fairly liberal because of the big arts/cultural scene in the city. Obviously, the Hispanic neighborhoods downtown would be PS strongholds, but for the most part the white areas of Mid Central, East Central, West Central and South would also be solidly PS but with a Green presence. They're not very affluent, but they're rather liberal. Affluent places like Linda Vista and North East would lean to the right, however.

Altadena has a large black population, but the white areas are liberal as well. The whole city, which is small, would be left-wing all over.

Los Angeles County: San Gabriel Valley

South Pasadena is mixed Asian-white, is pretty affluent and would, from what I gather, lean to the left.

Alhambra is largely Asian, with some Hispanics living closer to inner city LA. It is largely middle-class and Asians are largely Chinese, so in general Alhambra would lean to the left, with the Hispanic areas being of course the most left-wing areas but the Asian areas still generally left-leaning too.

Monterey Park is a heavily Asian (Chinese, historically Taiwanese) middle-class suburban community. The politics here would be determined by how this type of suburban middle-class Chinese community would vote, but it would likely lean to the PS.

Rosemead is now majority Chinese, result of a major growth in the Asian population. It is not as wealthy as surrounding Asian communities, and as a result would be more left-leaning than its surroundings. South San Gabriel seems to be a similar story. San Gabriel is a wealthier but still heavily Chinese suburb, it would also lean to the left.

San Marino is an extremely affluent Asian neighborhood, and seems to have been the destination of Taiwanese who left Monterey Park. It would be right-leaning, a mix of the anti-communism of the Taiwanese and the massive affluence of the place.

Arcadia and Temple City are middle-class Asian suburbs. Politically, they would be rather mixed, with the wealthiest precincts being largely right-leaning and the other areas more undecided. Arcadia would be more right-wing than Temple City because it is more affluent. Voters here are socially moderate and economically right-wing, making them perfect swing votes.

That description applies to the white neighborhoods of Monrovia, but the downtown core of that middle-class suburb is now heavily Hispanic as are parts of next-door Duarte. South El Monte, El Monte, Baldwin Park, Irwindale, Vincent, Asuza, Citrus, Avocado Heights, Industry, La Puente, West Puente Valley, Valinda and South San Jose Hills are all more or less heavily Hispanic. El Monte, Baldwin Park and Irwindale are blue-collar working-class employment hubs, and are the poorest of these areas. The other neighborhoods, lying further eastwards, are more middle-class suburbs. In general, all those places would be PS strongholds. Downtown Whittier is also heavily Hispanic, and would vote similarly. More affluent (hilly) and white precincts of Whittier would lean to the right.

West Covina is pretty Hispanic, but there is a strong Asian and white presence as well. Voting would be on racial bases, the Hispanic areas being PS strongholds, the white areas leaning to the right and the Asian areas more mixed. Covina is pretty similar, only with a smaller Hispanic population and very few Asians. Again, white areas would go for the right, Hispanics for the left.

Glendora and San Dimas are white and very affluent suburban communities, so they would be pretty solidly UMP.

Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, Walnut and Diamond Bar are affluent Asian suburban communities. They would be pretty mixed in their voting patterns, being full of swing voters. They would probably lean to the left these days, but have been more right-leaning under Chirac. La Habra Heights is white and affluent, so it's predictably a right-wing stronghold.

Pomona is largely Hispanic, and there are pockets of deprivation in the most heavily Hispanic neighborhoods. But Pomona, La Verne and Claremont also have a number of uni campuses and colleges, adding liberal students and faculty to the mix. This is especially true in Claremont, which is white but very liberal. The two elements would make Pomona and its immediate neighbors solidly left-wing, but with a significant Green presence.

...

I will personally kill the first person who derails this thread into some boring discussion of stuff irrelevant to this.

[Hash]

Southern California

Los Angeles County: Lancaster, Palmdale and Santa Clarita

North of the Los Angeles National Forest is some high-growth exurban (peri-urbain in French) country, rather similar to Kern County. Lancaster and especially Palmdale have large, growing Hispanic populations, meaning that politically they would likely lean to the left. But voting patterns would be similar to Bakersfield: heavily based on racial lines. The whites are exurban not-super affluent conservatives. If Palmdale is a PS city, it would be because of Hispanics. Lancaster's politics would be polarized on racial lines, with Hispanics voting for the PS and whites voting UMP (in years such as 2007) or FN (in years such as 2012). Because this is the same kind of exurban not-too-affluent country that we found around Bakersfield.

Santa Clarita is kind of similar, but with a lesser Hispanic presence and slightly more liberal whites.

Orange County: Northern OC

The OC is affluent conservative suburban country. Experiencing rapid growth in the post-war era from an influx of whites from liberal cities or from the Midwestern states, these affluent suburbanites became known for their ferocious anti-communism and ultra-conservatism. As a result, the OC has long been a conservative stronghold. In our context, Orange County would have similar politics. It would have been a stronghold of the right from its earliest days. It would have preferred the conservative Gaullist right (despite its statism of early days), and would have preferred Jacques Chirac to Giscard in 1981. Despite its affluence, anti-communism would likely have helped the FN in its early years - 1984, 1986 and 1988 - and Le Pen's party would have polled very well in those days of a more 'right-wing' FN electorate. However, it hardly seems like the type of place Marine Le Pen would do really well in, given her image. While Nicolas Sarkozy and his meritocratic, law-and-order populist conservative message in 2007 would have made him the best right-wing candidate for OC whites in decades (OC whites would have reservations about moderate-social Chirac of 1995), recent demographic trends would not be to the UMP's advantage. The OC is getting less conservative as left-voting Hispanics move in to give the county a one-third Hispanic population.

Let us still begin by looking at what would be traditionally left-leaning in this conservative stronghold. Pretty obviously, the Hispanic areas would be pretty left-leaning despite the cultural conservatism of most Hispanics. The Hispanic areas are usually lower middle-class suburban areas, though places like Santa Ana and Stanton have blue-collar backgrounds. Santa Ana is heavily Hispanic (78%) and is pretty poor in parts. It would form the solid backbone of the PS in OC, but the Hispanic vote would be less one-sided than in LA County. The UMP (or UDF) would maintain a minority following within the Hispanic community.

Anaheim is also Hispanic majority, and follows well-established voting patterns. The heavy Hispanic areas are reliably Socialist, the plurality Hispanic or ethnically mixed parts closer to Garden Grove and Stanton would have more open voting patterns while being traditionally PS leaning these days. Anaheim and Santa Ana would be the most left-voting parts of the OC, but Hispanic growth in parts of Stanton, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Placentia, Orange and Contra Mesa would have opened the political game in those cities a bit. Stanton, Buena Park and La Habra by their larger Hispanic populations would have voted for Royal in 2007, while the other cities would still have voted for Sarkozy. The white areas of places such as Fullerton, Orange or Contra Mesa are conservative and affluent.

Yorba Linda - Nixon's birthplace - is a very affluent, white conservative suburb in North OC's hills. Villa Park and North Tustin/Tustin Foothills are similarly very affluent and very conservative white suburbs. Those places would be some of the most solidly UMP areas in the OC.

Jumping around to the coast, Huntington Beach and the neighboring communities of Sunset Beach, Seal Beach, Cypress and Fountain Valley are all white, middle-class residential suburbs. Some coastal neighborhoods are particularly affluent. Boeing and the aerospace industry have long been important to Huntington Beach and other neighboring communities. In general, they would be solidly UMP.

Westminster and Garden Grove (to a lesser extent) are not as affluent but still middle-class residential suburbs. But their particularity is that they have a large Vietnamese community. Settling and working in the OC, Vietnamese-Americans in the OC are particularly conservative for reasons related to anti-communism. One can assume that in our context they would be solidly UMP as well.

Next: southern OC (Irvine etc)

[Hash]

Southern California

Orange County: Southern OC

Newport Beach is a very affluent white suburban community with lots of old people. There is little question that it would be a UMP stronghold.

Irvine, on the other hand, is another story. The campus of University of California Irvine gives the city a large academia-liberal feel, complemented to some extent by an important Asian population (largely Chinese, Korean or Filipino). The Asian parts would tend to be left-leaning, the whiter areas more right-leaning, while the university would be a left-wing stronghold with a large Green vote. Bayrou would have performed well in 2007 in Irvine, in contrast to pretty mediocre performances elsewhere.

Laguna Beach is the OC's other major liberal enclave. It is a pretty artsy/hip/environmentalist/left-liberal community, with a big gay community and strong local environmental movement. Even more so than Irvine, Laguna Beach would be a left-wing stronghold, the only such stronghold for the left in the southern OC. Again, the Greens would perform very strongly.

Aliso Viejo and some parts of the surrounding hills are more white-liberal, but for the most part the very affluent suburbs/retirement havens of Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente would be UMP strongholds besides a few random Hispanic precincts. They do not seem as culturally conservative as other parts of the OC, so there might have been a stronger vote for Bayrou in these communities in 2007.

San Bernardino County: Inland Empire

A sort of extension of LA County's San Gabriel Valley, the IE in SB County extends to take in the cities of Ontario, Fontana and San Bernardino. Increasingly suburban by highway linkages of all sorts to LA County, there is still an important local economy: old manufacturing, warehousing, distribution facilities, more blue-collar service jobs, technology and defense. The IE here is all high-growth exurbia, which is not too affluent - there are pockets of deprivation in Ontario, Fontana and San Bernardino - but has attracted lower income or middle-class families, often Hispanics by cause of low land and property prices. Of course, this is also foreclosure country.

Ontario, Fontana and San Bernardino as well as smaller communities such as Montclair, Colton, Rialto, Bloomington, Muscoy and even parts of Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Redlands have become heavily Hispanic. The mix of lower-income, blue-collar Hispanics in this setting would make them, obviously, solidly left-wing. Turnout, however, is remarkably low in the IE, and even lower with Hispanics, making them less powerful actors than their demographic weight could indicate.

Politics and voting patterns would be pretty racially based. White areas, which are also more affluent, would be conservative. The white parts of Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands and Chino would be solidly right-wing. Chino Hills is very affluent, but a large Filipino population might make it less right-wing than its surroundings.

On the other side of the San Bernardino Mountains, development is more limited and population is sparser. Mountains and dry deserts make development difficult. In the Victor Valley, the cities of Hesperia, Apple Valley and Victorville are high-growth exurban communities. Victorville is heavily Hispanic, so it has a logical left-wing lean but Hesperia and Apple Valley are solidly right-wing. For the most part, the small towns of Yucca Valley, Twentynine Palms or Needles, as well as the bulk of the desert and mountains of eastern SB County are heavily right-wing, with a strong FN vote.

San Bernardino County is perfect ground for the FN, but it is doubtful it could prosper as much as it could because the not-too-affluent high-growth exurbs are basically heavily Hispanic, and those people wouldn't vote FN in a million years.

Next: Riverside County, San Diego and Imperial County

[Hash]

Comments?

SD and Imperial should be up tonight. I'll move to Oregon this weekend.

[Hash]

Nobody gives a sh**t, but okay.


Southern California

Riverside County: Inland Empire

As in San Bernardino County, voting would be pretty racially polarized. The lower middle-class and blue collar Hispanic suburbs/communities of Corona, Rubidoux, Moreno Valley, Perris, Lake Elsinore and most of Riverside would be solidly left-leaning areas. The University of California campus in Riverside's Eastside would provide a more liberal electorate, but overall it would be a rather conservative Hispanic PS vote which would predominate. The election map in its details would resemble, as it does irl, a racial map. Likewise in the San Jacinto Valley.

Norco is an interesting very white and pretty affluent community squeezed between two Hispanic areas, including low-income Corona to the south. It would be solidly UMP. The UMP would also find strength in the exurban communities, largely white and high-growth middle-class, lining I-15 (Temecula, Murrieta, Wildomar). The FN would also poll well.

Riverside County: Coachella Valley

The Coachella Valley in Riverside County includes formerly agricultural areas transformed into high-growth peri-urban communities or retirement communities. Originally places like Palm Springs, Palm Desert or La Quinta were overwhelmingly white conservative retirement communities, filled with pretty well-off right-leaning retirees. However, the region around Palm Springs has seen pretty solid growth with a sizable Hispanic presence.

Palm Springs would have shifted to the left in recent years after having been a RPR stronghold for a long time. There is a very large gay and lesbian community and the city has otherwise attracted more liberal young professionals. Palm Springs might yet have voted for Sarkozy in 2007, but there would have been a strong shift leftwards. The Greens would have done well in 2009.

Palm Desert and La Quinta remain whiter and more affluent, and the conservative retiree bloc is more political powerful. These communities would still lean solidly to the right.

The southern reach of the Coachella Valley near the Salton Sea has remained a predominantly agricultural region, entailing a large population of Hispanic farm workers. Indio, Coachella, Mecca and all the places surrounding the Salton Sea are very, very heavily Hispanic areas and while turnout is low in these parts, those who do vote would vote heavily PS.

Nobody lives in the desert east of the Coachella Valley, but those who do seem to be right-wing. Except around Blythe, which seems to be an Hispanic agricultural community.

San Diego: City of San Diego

San Diego County's Hispanic population - surprisingly small given its proximity to Mexico - lives concentrated along the Mexican border with Tijuana, the coastal neighborhoods of Chula Vista and National City. These places are largely low-income, blue-collar communities, and Chula Vista is boring suburb. Hispanic communities now extend to Lemon Grove and central San Diego neighborhoods such as Barrio Logan, Grant Hill, Ridgeview-Webster, City Heights, Encanto or East San Diego. The poorer neighborhoods, in San Ysidro, Chula Vista, or SE San Diego would be solidly PS. But Lemon Grove, eastern Chula Vista and parts of La Presa and Spring Valley are relatively well-off Hispanic middle-class communities, and would tend to be less solidly PS and would have a larger UMP presence.

The city's downtown core, largely white, and the neighborhoods of Hillcrest, Normal Heights, Mission Hills and Mission Valley (also white and middle-class) are artsy neighborhoods with a predominantly young, educated professional population. Hillcrest has a large gay community, which extends into the other neighborhoods as well, while Normal Heights is a bobo neighborhood. These neighborhoods are very liberal, and would be solidly left-wing especially in recent years. The PS, while strong, would face competition from the Greens and MoDem.

Coronado, on the opposite side of the bay, is a white neighborhood driven by the military (North Island Naval Complex) and has a good number of veterans. It would be a pretty solidly right-wing area. Nearby, on Point Loma, the affluent neighborhood of La Playa, Roseville-Fleetridge and Loma Portal would be right-leaning or at least swing-voting. These are fairly affluent white neighborhoods, though not necessarily deeply conservative.

Ocean Beach is a tad poorer, quite a bit younger and is a bit of a hippie beachfront community.  Pacific Beach and Mission Beach, opposite Ocean Beach (across Mission Bay, which includes SeaWorld), are rather similar. They attract surfers, yuppies and college students. Like downtown neighborhoods, similarly young and liberal, these three areas would be solidly left-wing especially in recent years. The PS, while strong, would face competition from the Greens and MoDem.

Clairemont and the sub-neighborhoods of Linda Vista, Bay Park and Bay Ho are older white suburban neighborhoods though the median age is not particularly old. The University of San Diego in Clairemont surely contributes to the younger liberal population, but overall Clairemont's areas would be a swing-voting area which would be closely disputed.

La Jolla is a very affluent neighborhood, with very high property prices. Further north, it is also home to UCSD, which likely conditions the neighborhood's politics and demographics considerably. La Jolla peninsula proper seems very affluent, and besides a few more artsy spots it would probably be a solidly right-wing area though with a liberal slant. The area around UCSD is younger and obviously more liberal, so there is no question that it would be PS-Green stronghold.

Serra Mesa, Kearny Mesa and Mission Trails seem like fairly non-descript white middle-class suburbs, with defense likely a major employer for residents here. Serra Mesa does seem a bit less affluent, so it might be more left-wing, but this would probably be boring swing territory between UMP and PS with little third party presence.

Miramar is a military base, and its residents are military so pretty right-wing. Mira Mesa has a large Asian (Filipino and Vietnamese) population, working in defense-related industries. It might be more left-wing by cause of Asian presence, but my guess is that the area would be a fairly right-leaning area.

Incorporated exurban areas like Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Peñasquitos or the San Pasqual Valley are largely white and very affluent. Besides a few random precincts, this seems like a UMP stronghold.

San Diego inner suburbs

La Mesa and El Cajon are suburban and white, but seem to be slightly less affluent and professional than their neighbors. Downtown El Cajon seems quite lower middle-class, actually. They would be fairly swing voting places, with a narrow PS lean.

Besides those two places, San Diego's eastern suburbs are pretty much all hilly, white, affluent and professional. The high-tech and defense industry are main employers, and these places have remained pretty affluent because of that diversified economy. Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Winter Gardens, Lakeside and Santee would be UMP strongholds.

Further north, Poway is a pretty affluent white exurb with a more rural feel, but politically it would be a UMP stronghold as well. All the places further inland are not very populated, but being largely white, rural and not too badly off, it would be UMP stronghold as well.

TBC.

[Hash]

Southern California

Northern San Diego County

North of San Diego, the beachfront communities of Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas are affluent upper middle-class communities and popular tourist destination and surf spots. Perhaps proximity to the sea and concern for pollution partly explains why these communities are some of the most socially liberal areas outside of the city San Diego. Wealth would indicate a UMP lean, but very pronounced social liberalism and environmentalism would probably make these places more left-leaning (PS, Green). Carlsbad is similarly affluent, but is more suburban, a larger employment center and perhaps a bigger tourist desination (Legoland). It would be slightly more divided in its politics.

Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido are fairly lower middle-class suburbs or communities, driven both by the defense industry and other smaller service jobs. They also all have heavily Hispanic downtown cores, which would be the most left-wing areas in those places. Otherwise, the white outskirts in all cases are far more affluent and conservative. Oceanside still has a coastal liberalism to it in white neighborhoods, but Escondido is very conservative. Nearby Poway, a semi-rural exurb of San Diego, driven by defense, is very conservative as well.

The rest of the county is otherwise high-growth white affluent exurbs or rurban places. Predictably very conservative, a UMP stronghold.

Imperial County

Located in the Imperial Valley, a major irrigated agricultural area located south of the Salton Sea (Coachella Valley) and basically between the New River and the Alamo River. This irrigated agricultural valley is shared with Mexico, so the Imperial Valley has long been influenced by Mexico and has attracted a huge Mexican population for pretty obvious reasons. Imperial County, heavily dependent on irrigated crops, is also extremely poor and has huge unemployment rates.

Turnout is horrible, but the heavily Hispanic communities of El Centro, Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria and Westmorland would be PS strongholds, enough to make Imperial a PS stronghold. It is doubtful that the social conservatism of Hispanics could affect that considerably, but this is still California's most socially conservative county or close to it. Christine Boutin's socially conservative and economically moderate/'humanist' campaign in 2002 might have carried a special appeal in Imperial in 2002.

I'll summarize CA as a whole in my next post.

[Hash]

California

In 1974, California would have voted solidly for Giscard, buoyed by big margins in the Bay Area's wealthier counties (Marin, San Mateo), a decent showing in the inner Bay Area and Alameda, strong performances in coastal and alpine areas, a landslide in the OC and San Diego, and decent showings elsewhere in SoCal. Mitterrand would have been limited to ancestrally Socialist-leaning areas in the Central Valley and timber counties in coastal and inland NoCal, in addition to PCF strongholds in Alameda, Contra Costa and SF. In 1981, it is likely that Giscard would have repeated his feat.

A distinct shift to the left would have begun in 1995, with strong results for Jospin in the runoff in the Bay Area, LA's growing Hispanic suburbs and throughout coastal California. Chirac would still have won, in part thanks to holding on to decent enough results in the Bay Area's wealthiest communities and a strong Asian vote for Chirac, especially in the OC.

In 2007, Royal would likely have won the state on a coalition resembling that of California Democrats: SoCal's multicultural areas, coastal liberalism and the Bay Area. In large part, especially in NoCal, her victory would come on the heels of strong vote transfers from Bayrou, fresh from a very strong performance in California in the first round. Nicolas Sarkozy was a bad candidate for the affluent liberal suburbanites, of which there are tons of in California, especially in NoCal. He certainly would do better in Marin and San Mateo than real-life Republicans, but he would have lost both counties by pretty decisive margins. Sarkozy would have done better in SoCal, where he was really the perfect candidate for middle-class white exurbanites in high-growth exurbia. Similar to PACA, Le Pen's 2007 result in California would be down considerably from his 2002 result, which would likely have been the strongest in years for the FN. The FN vote would evaporate from the OC, Inland Empire and Bakersfield. But the UMP's weakness in SoCal would be because of the growing Hispanic population, a demographic which Sarkozy would have had little appeal to at all.

The 2007 results in this scenario are a bit tough to work out, but something like 52-53% for Royal seems fair.

Given that the last cantonal and regional elections were fought in leftie landslide years, California's local government at a departmental and regional level would be solidly left-wing. The general council depends a lot on how the cantons would be worked out and how bad the rural over-representation would be. The PS would probably have gained control of California in 2004, further solidifying control in 2008 and 2011 - a year in which the FN would have returned to its former prominence. In the 2010 regionals and 2011 cantonals, the UMP would have been limited to inland rural areas of NoCal, the whiter parts of the Central Valley and the wealthier white parts of SoCal. The FN, on the other hand, would have done so well in SoCal that in 2011 it might have gained a few cantons in Kern County or the Inland Empire.

At the municipal level, California's largest cities would pretty much all lean to the PS. Los Angeles would certainly have been a PS stronghold for years at a municipal level, and internal divisions might be based more on ethnicity than anything else. San Francisco would have been governed by the PCF until the 1970s or so, but nowadays its local politics would be dominated by the PS. The Greens, unlike in LA, can certainly afford to mount a direct challenge to the PS in SF, and would have done so. It is likely that the 2014 municipal elections in SF would feature an epic showdown between PS and Greens. San Diego would be the most closely fought of the main municipal races, and would probably have been governed by the RPR between 1983 and 2008, being gained by the PS in a not-so-close race in that left-wing year. San Jose would be a PS stronghold at a municipal level.

Municipal politics in Fresno and Bakersfield would be heavily racial-based, and the results would depend on municipal boundaries and which areas they include or exclude. Still, Bakersfield would pretty certainly be the largest city governed by the UMP in California, though the FN would have gotten into the runoff in 1995 and maybe 2001. Sacramento, by its current boundaries, would be reliably left-leaning at a local level. Long Beach would see some close races, while Oakland would be a PS stronghold after having been the Red Belt's buckle until 1989 if not 1995.

2007

1995*

* Oklahoma revised, I have going to Chirac narrowly in 1995.

[Hash]

Here's a really short teaser of Oregon, because I'm too lazy/busy to do more for now.

Oregon

Oregon's politics in the past few years have been heavily influenced by the environmental movement, which has played a significant role in shifting voting patterns in many parts of the state, and has been able to "take control" of one political party, thereby affecting its electoral base significantly. In this scenario, the PS would likely not have been "taken over" by the  environmental movement or at least not entirely.

Southern Oregon

Coastal Southern Oregon is timber country, especially Coos County. The timber industry has long been the dominant economic activity in this region, but it has been in a period of decline for a good number of years and the region's economic makeup has changed quite a bit. Curry County, especially the coast around Port Orford, has seen an influx of pretty wealthy and relatively liberal Californian retirees. Curry and Coos have both been touched by an industry which is very powerful along the coast: tourism. Basically, the coastal regions of both counties (and parts of Douglas County) are tourist-oriented, while the inland areas are still relatively dependent on timber. Coos County especially has remained something of a unionized working-class lumber county, but quite conservative on social issues and very much opposed to the state's powerful environmental movement.

Coos would have been a PS stronghold, but Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be a fairly good candidate for Coos County's more conservative working-class, even if unionized. Coos is not too badly off and certainly not a decrepit working-class ghetto, so there would be no sizable FN vote. Coastal regions of Coos County are now more tourist-oriented, so they would vote PS, but for different reasons than Coquille and the inland lumber parts. Curry and Douglas, as well as inland Josephine County (Grants Pass) have a strong timber industry, but workers are not unionized, meaning that they would have a more pronounced right-wing Gaullist tradition. The influx of wealthy Californians in Curry and tourism around Grants Pass would have further helped the UMP's cause.

Even further inland is polarized Jackson County. Its main town, Medford, is actually a very right-wing town, but the other main town, Ashland, hosts a liberal arts college (SOU) and a Shakespeare festival, so it is predictably a hippie town. Medford would be UMP stronghold, as would the bulk of rural areas, but Ashland would be a left-wing stronghold comparable to Berkeley, SF or Seattle. The Greens would obviously fare very well in Ashland, as would the PS in presidential elections.

[Hash]

Oregon

Willamette Valley

Eugene is an ultra-liberal college town (University of Oregon) with all that entails in terms of student and faculty. The uni has pretty much made it into an all around academia type of place, in contrast to next-door Springfield which is a far more conservative blue-collar working-class community historically dependent on the timber industry. Suburban communities are small but seem to be growing.

Politically, Eugene would be a left-wing stronghold with a huge Green vote. Springfield would traditionally have been the most PS-leaning of the two but a candidate like Sarkozy would have enjoyed a certain appeal in a place like Springfield. The rest of Lane County includes old working-class mill towns like Oakridge, former mill towns transitioning into suburbia and along the coast Florence is an affluent retiree/tourist resort. The UMP would have made headway in rural Lane County in recent years, especially in places like Junction City.

Slightly northwest of Eugene is Corvallis, another liberal college town (OSU). OSU used to be a fairly conservative campus by campus standards, but it is very much a liberal stronghold today. The added presence of a high-tech and biotech industry likely helps make Corvallis even more liberal. Its voting habits would be largely identical to that of Eugene. Outside Corvallis, the PS would find support in older mill towns like Philomath but also newfound support in rather affluent Corvallis suburbs. Sarkozy would have done well in places like Adair City or Alsea, in addition to the UMP's traditional base around affluent conservative suburban West Albany.

West Albany lays across from Albany, a pretty blue-collar town with a big manufacturing base and a non-unionized service industry. The rest of Linn is conservative working-class timber country. These workers do not seem to be unionized, meaning that there would be a more right-wing slant in local politics compared to counties such as Coos or rural Lane. The PS would have a base, largely in Albany I think, but Sarkozy would have performed well in 2007.

Along the coast, both Lincoln and Tillamook Counties have been influenced by the rise of the tourism industry, which adds to a blue-collar base in rural Lincoln and a strong dairy industry in rural Tillamook. The tourism industry has brought service jobs, fairly affluent seaside residents and its share of hippies. Lincoln is the most tourism-driven county, while Tillamook remains slightly more dependent on its dairy industry. Lincoln would be a PS stronghold and tourism would ultimately not change much to that. Tillamook would be more hesitant in its voting patterns, being a key swing county.

The state capital of Salem is to the right of most large cities in Oregon, but the public sector (stare government) is the largest local employer. While its surroundings, including largely Hispanic Woodburn, would lean to the right, Salem would have a small PS lean.

Polk and Yamhill Counties are two agricultural and/or timber-dependent counties in the Upper Willamette Valley. Despite Monmouth in Polk County being a college town, its campus is pretty conservative. Yamhill County increasingly attracts Portland metro area commuters. Viticulture is an important industry in Yamhill and Polk counties. A mix of exurbanization and the wine industry would make these two counties UMP strongholds.

Way up north at the mouth of the Columbia River is Clatsop County, a reliably Socialist stronghold. Astoria is an old working-class community (harbour with fishing, shipbuilding, canneries; nearby lumbering) but its harbour has since gone into a post-industrial tailspin which it has struggled to recover from. Astoria and other Pacific coast communities such as Cannon Beach or Seaside have found a solution in tourism, and Cannon Beach is a particularly affluent resort community. The environmental movement is strong in Clatsop County. Astoria has a large and historically politically influential Finnish community, which would likely have made the place a PCF stronghold until not too long ago. At any rate, with the exception of Warrenton, Astoria and Clatsop County would be a PS heartland.

Columbia is a major timber-producing county, leading to a blue-collar population which might have been politically influenced by a local Scandinavian (largely Finnish) population in places like Clatskanie. It does not seem to have been influenced much by exurban growth in the Portland metro area. Unionized, blue-collar and historically left-leaning, Columbia would be a PS stronghold.

Metro Portland

Portland would be the PS' home base in Oregon. Similar to Seattle, it is only slightly less affluent and liberal than Seattle. There is a strong blue-collar tradition in Portland, concentrated around the Port, but it is a largely white professional city today. It has been successful in attracting high-tech industries and other white-collar employers.

The city's old industrial hinterland west side has seen major urban renewal with the typical transformation into condos, lofts or artsy places attracting fairly upwardly-mobile yuppies. The Pearl District is the best example of such transformation. The west side also includes Portland State University. This would be a PS stronghold, with a strong Green vote.

Eastern Portland (on the east side of the river) has a more working-class tradition. There remains some old gentrified inner-city neighborhoods (King, Woodlawn) home to the bulk of Oregon's black community, next door to affluent Alameda-Irvington or gay areas near Sabin. The old working-class King has seen gentrification with a hippie community around Alberta Arts District, while Alameda-Irvington attract affluent young professionals. The PS would been very strong in working-class King and Woodlawn, but would face Green competition around Alameda-Irvington.

Northern Portland is a more residential lower middle-class/historically blue-collar neighborhood. There is a college campus (University of Portland) and the Port of Portland is in the working-class and ethnically diverse St. Johns area. Southeast Portland was also a fairly working-class neighborhood, but the Sunnyside/Hawthorne-Belmont has seen gentrification, becoming Portland's Haight-Ashbury. The other areas in the Southeast are fairly middle-class urban residential areas. The bobo places would have a strong Green vote, while the rest of the city would be fairly non-descript PS strongholds.

Further west, Gresham seems to be a middle-class suburb with a blue-collar tradition. I don't know much about it, but it would appear to be a politically divided though historically PS-leaning place where Sarkozy would have done particularly well in 2007.

Portland's suburbs include some fairly blue-collar areas. Milwaukie, just south of Portland, has historically been a working-class area, though currently experiencing urban renewal. South along the Willamette, Oregon City is also a town with a strong working-class (paper mills/lumber industry) tradition. Both would likely form the PS' base, but outside Oregon City and Milwaukie, the rest of Clackamas County is either rural or middle-class conservative suburbia. Some of this middle-class suburbia has a blue-collar past, and appear to be areas where Sarkozy would have done well in 2007.

Lake Oswego is an affluent suburb of Portland located on the west bank of the Willamette. Politically, this is likely an area which would have shifted to the left in recent years. The shift to the left would have been quite heavy in the Silicon Forest region around Beaverton and Hillsboro, both of which have attracted high-tech companies or tech giants such as IBM. Places such as Cedar Mills and West Haven-Sylvan are very affluent suburban communities. The high-tech industry has attracted the kind of people who would likely prefer the PS over Sarkozy's UMP. More rural communities lying on the outskirts of all this would still lean UMP.

Central Oregon

This is a region east of the Cascades, but whose politics are not identical to those of eastern Oregon. Hood River especially is quite unlike eastern Oregon, the city of Hood River itself is basically full of rich Portlanders, young professionals and hippies who all like to windsurf. There is a high-tech industry in Hood River, whose working-class past is basically history. Nearby Wasco County is home to those who can't afford either Portland or Hood River. It is a working-class place (there's a big dam on the river and a smelter near The Dalles), but apparently Google has moved there. Hood River would be left-wing, with a strong Green vote.

Deschutes County is Bend, which is a very fast-growing inland community which has attracted tourists but also tons of wealthy Californian retirees. Its politics are moderated by tourism, which entails a more left-wing base with tourism workers, but retirees from California would seem to be enough to make Bend and Deschutes a UMP base. Jefferson County has also seen an increase in tourism.

[Hash]

No comments on Oregon? The rest should be up tomorrow.

[Hash]

Oregon

Eastern Oregon

Fairly clearly, the bulk of this region would be UMP strongholds. The Columbia Plateau region in northeastern Oregon has an economy based on wheat, hydroelectricity and a limited timber industry. Wilderness tourism and hunting is also important. The SFIO or PCF would have been strong in northeastern counties such as Wallowa back when timber was still important. Pendleton is a regional trade center, while La Grande in Union County is a college town (EOU). This would be a UMP region, with a sizable CPNT vote perhaps boosted by the unpopularity of federal land ownership and state environmental regulations.

The arid land of the High Desert and Harney Basin are cattle-grazing and livestock ranching countries. Malheur County, which serves as the hub of the High Desert and is closely connected with Idaho, has a large Basque population. This would be the most solidly right-wing region in Oregon and perhaps the whole Pacific NW.

Conclusions on Oregon

Oregon would have been a PS-leaning state for quite some time. Giscard could have carried it narrowly in 1974, but it would probably would have voted for Mitterrand in 1981, 1988 and for Jospin in 1995. The Willamette Valley and southwestern Oregon's unionized timber counties would be the base of the PS. However, the local PS would have to deal with a very powerful Green Party in the state, which could have won up to 20%+ of the vote in 2009 by 'stealing' traditional urban middle-class PS voters in the Portland Metro and in some coastal counties or the uni counties.

At the municipal level, Portland would be a PS stronghold and that for quite some time, although it may have elected PCF mayors in the 1950s. Eugene would also be a PS town, but the Greens would be in a position to elect one of their own. Salem would be more closely fought between UMP and PS, with the PS winning out in 2008.

[Hash]

OK, so I might get back to doing this, time permitting.

Washington

Seattle

Seattle has a working-class past but a far more white-collar present, which makes it a rather interesting city. It would probably be a PS stronghold these days, but the right could have controlled the city's town hall for a good number of years prior to 1977. There was also a pretty active left-wing union movement during its shipbuilding days, which would likely have resulted in the PCF being the largest left-wing party until the 60s.

As I've gotten into the habit of doing, I'll run through the neighborhoods (in general) in a north-south fashion, so here goes.

North Seattle is a white and fairly middle-class residential area. Large swathes of it appear to be non-descript urban middle-class areas, with the areas lining Lake Washington or Puget Sound being slightly more affluent. It would most likely be more or less solidly PS, though with a UMP which can poll far better than actual Republicans do. In the southeast, along Lake Washington, the neighborhoods of Windemere, Laurelhurst and Hawthorne Hills are some of the most affluent places in Seattle. They are liberal, but I would think that they would have a traditional inclination to the right, and while Sarkozy might have won in those neighborhoods in 2007, Bayrou would have performed extremely well in the first round.

A bit west of these affluent strongholds, the neighborhood of Ravenna and the whole University District is younger, less affluent and considerably more left-wing, influenced by the faculty and students of the University of Washington. Alongside neighboring Wallingford, Green Lake and especially Fremont - which are artsy counterculture hip areas - this whole area would be solidly left-wing with a very strong Green vote in most years, and a PS vote for President. Fremont has been called a soviet republic by some, and while it wouldn't vote PCF, it might have had a strong vote for Besancenot in 2002 in 2007. Ballard, which historically had a large Scandinavian population, seems to be similarly hip and liberal. It would likewise be a left-wing stronghold.

On the other said of those bays separating the two parts of Seattle, we encounter Magnolia, an upper middle-class neighborhood which would presumably be more or less safely PS, with a decent UMP core vote. Separated by working-class PS stronghold Interbay, Queen Anne is a similarly affluent middle-class neighborhood, though slightly less affluent and more inner-city artsy liberal in Lower Queen Anne. It would vote like Magnolia.

In the downtown core, Capitol Hill would be the city's top bobo left stronghold. It has a large gay population, complementing a general artsy/bobo kind of place. Usually a Green stronghold, it would vote PS in presidential and perhaps legislative elections. Cascade and Lake Union are slightly less artsy, but would be generally quite similar.

Montlake and especially Broadmoor and Madison Park are extremely affluent areas, Broadmoor is even a gated affluent community. Broadmoor would be a UMP stronghold, while Montlake and Madison Park would still lean UMP though with a much stronger centrist vote, expressed through a strong result for Bayrou in 2007. Along Lake Washington, Denny-Blaine and Leschi are also affluent neighborhoods, though the PS would be stronger.

The downtown core has a mix of lower-income areas, higher-income spots and artsy places. Belltown and the waterfront are pretty boboish neighborhoods, though the waterfront is much more of a gentrified and growingly affluent area with condos. Given the labour radicalism of longshoremen, the waterfront's docks would likely have been hotbeds of social agitation when they were still booming. The UMP might have pockets of support in some affluent spots, but there would be a strong bobo PS and Green vote overall.

The Central District area has historically been the heart of Seattle's black community, and historically a low-income inner-city area. But it has seen a decline in its black population, gentrification and the replacement of low-income blacks with middle-class bobo young professionals. Madrona has seen similar shifts. PS strongholds in the past, they would still be very left-wing, but with a stronger Green presence than in the past.

Seattle's South End is more ethnically diverse, less affluent and historically far more working-class.

The Rainier Valley is an ethnically diverse area, with a large Asian (Filipino, Chinese) and black population mixed in with a few working-class whites and an increasingly large presence of young professionals, in areas such as Columbia City. Generally working-class or lower middle-class, it is not very affluent and crime has been a problem. Politically, the area would be a PS stronghold, but with a strong Green vote in places such as Columbia City.

Along the lakeshore, Rainier Beach is a fairly low-income working-class area with a large black and Asian population, as is Dunlap. Seward Park is whiter and wealthier. Like the Rainier Valley, the PS would be very much in dominance here.

Beacon Hill is the centre of Seattle's Asian population, largely Filipino or Chinese. While more liberal than other Asian areas, it is still a fairly lower middle-class area. The PS would dominate the political field in Beacon Hill, likewise in the city's Chinatown/International District closer to downtown.

The old Industrial District has seen gentrification in parts (SoDo is an artsy neighborhood), while other industrial and working-class neighborhoods such as Georgetown or South Park have remained fairly lower middle-class. The PS would be dominant. Delridge is a similar story, largely white (with black or Hispanic pockets) and a residential lower middle-class area.

West Seattle, along Puget Sound, is whiter and wealthier. Alki, Seaview and North Admiral are pretty affluent upper middle-class residential neighborhoods. The UMP would likely retain significant strength, but there would be a strong centrist vote and an ever-increasing PS vote.

Seattle-King County Suburbs

Bellevue is King County's main suburb. It is a booming upper middle-class financial and retail hub with a large base of tech companies, driven by Microsoft which is based in next-door Redmond. It also has a sizable foreign-born and Asian community. It is socially liberal but more moderate on fiscal issues, meaning that it would traditionally have been a right-wing base (not stronghold, though) but Royal would likely have performed very well (as would Bayrou). The tech aspect and the Asian community would make it less right-wing than its affluence would indicate. The UMP would have done pretty awfully in Bellevue since 2008. The adjacent very affluent city of Medina would be a UMP stronghold, while I guess Mercer Island would be like Bellevue.

Going towards Renton, Newcastle is an old mining community but now is an upper middle-class suburban community, leaning UMP. Renton, however, has a far more blue-collar population and far poorer than surrounding communities. It also has a significant black population, shared with next-door low-income suburban Skyway-Bryn Mawr. Boeing is by far the largest employer, giving Renton a big base of blue-collar aviation workers. It would be a PS stronghold.

Burien is a leafy middle-class suburban community and seems to be fairly liberal and professional in its population makeup. I don't know what else to say besides that it would be a swing voting community, likely going for Royal in 2007 and solidifying its left-wing leanings since then. Normandy Park is more affluent, and would probably lean to the right.

SeaTac and Tukwila are less affluent and less suburban. SeaTac includes the airport, the corporate headquarters for Alaska Air Group. Boeing is a major employer in both communities. Tukwila especially has struggled with poverty and urban decline in the past. Both would be reliably left-wing, PS-voting regions. I would wager Kent, further south, but a commercial and manufacturing hub for the likes of Boeing, would also be left-leaning most of the time, with a small FN base and not insignificant UMP presence.

Des Moines is a middle-class suburb, and would lean PS. Auburn seems to a fairly middle-class residential suburban community, though there are both pockets of deprivation and more affluent exurban type planned communities. Federal Way provides much employment with timber giant Weyerhaeuser, which is based there. Federal Way is also, in general, more affluent than either Auburn or Kent. The PS would dominate in Auburn and Federal Way, but the UMP would retain more of a presence in Federal Way. The FN would have a small presence in Auburn and Federal Way.

The outskirts of places like Renton, Kent or Auburn (Covington, Cascade-Fairwood, East Hill-Meridian) are pretty much affluent high-growth kinda-exurban developments, I suspect most of them would lean slightly to the right, but could have voted PS in 2012. The FN would be somewhat relevant, but would not poll very strongly. Rural southeastern King County would be UMP territory.

The Snoqualmie Valley in King County is an old working-class (timber) area which has been transformed into affluent suburbia or touristy country with a share of hippies. Strongly PS in the past, it would still be reliably left-wing but with a solid base for parties such as the Greens or Bayrou.

Getting back into actual suburbia, the very affluent communities of Sammamish and Issaquah would be swing voting areas, with the UMP retaining the advantage in Sammamish but the PS likely a bit stronger in Issaquah. Suburban high-tech capital Redmond would lean - and trend - to the left, with a fairly strong centrist and Green presence. I would wager that highly educated middle-class suburbs such as Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kirkland, Kenmore, Woodinville and Kingsgate would lean to the left as well, increasingly so in recent years.