County Trend Map

[Sbane]

I understand that from a difference in percentage perspective, those blue bay area counties are closer to the national average, but it's not like they could swing another 10 points Democratic, there's just not room to, so it's silly to have them as trending Republican.

Very true. It was the bay area suburbs that swung in this election but the big cities just didn't have space to move left. For example SF almost didn't swing at all. Alameda County swung mainly because places like Fremont, Pleasanton and Dublin swung towards the democrats. I doubt Oakland could have given much more than 88%(2004) to the democrats and Berkeley already touched 90% in 2004. Another example is that CD-10 swung to the democrats quite a bit while CD-9 or 13 didn't.

[Sbane]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

Which one? The trend in the bay area isn't what you think.

[Sbane]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

Which one? The trend in the bay area isn't what you think.

The democratic share of the vote could hardly go any higher than it had already been.

Yeah... it's not the bay area but it's still on the coast. It's constantly 75% Dem so I'm not complaining.

Santa cruz eh? Those people hated Bush so the swing already occured in 2004. In fact they voted to impeach Bush long before the rest of America caught on. This year they just couldn't move left since there are a lot of rich people who will always vote republican due to economic reasons.

[Sbane]

I was bored so I looked up Santa Cruz in the 2004 Supplement to the Statement of Vote.

Bush by Supervisor District...
1st 26.0, 2nd 30.2, 3rd 13.9, 4th 28.5, 5th 28.9 (3rd is most of Santa Cruz city plus the coast west of that.)
by CD (portions within Sta Cruz only, o/c)
14th 31.4, 17th 22.1. The 14th has 31.1% of the total vote but 39.2% of the Republicans.
by State Senate District
11th 19.9, 15th 33.2. The 15th has 33.2% of the total vote but 50.6% of the Republicans. As you might figure, the main thing the 17th CD and 15th SD have in common is that they don't include the city.
by Assembly District
27th 24.5, 28th 28.2. The 28th portion is quite small and based on Watsonville.
by city
Santa Cruz 14.1
Watsonville 26.2
Capitola 25.1 (small city near Sta Cruz. Mostly in 2nd Supervisor District. Seems a lot of the land just east of Sta Cruz is built up, actually, but only this small bit is incorporated)
Scotts Valley 41.4 (small city, inland from Santa Cruz on Highway 9. 5th Supervisor District)
unincorporated 28.3 (most of the county)

The basic trend is that the city and the university votes overwhelmingly democrat. The rest of the county, mostly populated by wealthy commuters from San Jose, less so.

[Sbane]

I was bored so I looked up Santa Cruz in the 2004 Supplement to the Statement of Vote.

Bush by Supervisor District...
1st 26.0, 2nd 30.2, 3rd 13.9, 4th 28.5, 5th 28.9 (3rd is most of Santa Cruz city plus the coast west of that.)
by CD (portions within Sta Cruz only, o/c)
14th 31.4, 17th 22.1. The 14th has 31.1% of the total vote but 39.2% of the Republicans.
by State Senate District
11th 19.9, 15th 33.2. The 15th has 33.2% of the total vote but 50.6% of the Republicans. As you might figure, the main thing the 17th CD and 15th SD have in common is that they don't include the city.
by Assembly District
27th 24.5, 28th 28.2. The 28th portion is quite small and based on Watsonville.
by city
Santa Cruz 14.1
Watsonville 26.2
Capitola 25.1 (small city near Sta Cruz. Mostly in 2nd Supervisor District. Seems a lot of the land just east of Sta Cruz is built up, actually, but only this small bit is incorporated)
Scotts Valley 41.4 (small city, inland from Santa Cruz on Highway 9. 5th Supervisor District)
unincorporated 28.3 (most of the county)

The basic trend is that the city and the university votes overwhelmingly democrat. The rest of the county, mostly populated by wealthy commuters from San Jose, less so.

merely votes very heavily Democrat.

LOL. Santa Cruz is a lovely place.

[Sbane]

It should be pointed out that Watsonville is anything but affluent. It's also heavily Mexican, with the attendant low turnout.

2000 results for comparison... supervisor districts (not sure if they were redrawn... certainly not extensively redrawn, though)
1 Gore 60.5 Bush 29.0 Nader 9.3
2 Gore 59.6 Bush 32.4 Nader 7.2
3 Gore 66.7 Nader 16.6 Bush 16.3
4 Gore 66.4 Bush 29.7 Nader 3.5
5 Gore 57.1 Bush 31.8 Nader 9.8

cities
Santa Cruz Gore 66.5 Bush 16.4 Nader 16.3
Capitola Gore 63.3 Bush 27.5 Nader 8.5
Watsonville Gore 70.5 Bush 26.1 Nader 3.0
Scotts Valley Gore 49.9 Bush 44.0 Nader 5.2

No swing in Watsonville (well, no change to Bush's percentage.)

Yup Watsonville is just full of strawberry and apple farms. And whites and asians do not pick strawberries. Most of the people living in the Santa cruz mountains are affluent and above all tree hugging liberals.

[Sbane]

In that there wasn't a slight swing towards Bush between 2000 and 2004 unlike the rest of California?

No, just in that, only looking over the percentages without an eye to turnout, you would completely overlook the fact that Watsonville is at all different from the white commuterland parts. (In 2000, the lower Nader tally betrays that something is up)

It seems like Watsonville was the only area that didn't swing between 2000 and 2004. In that way it was more similar to areas like the central valley and socal rather than the bay area. I would expect a pretty good swing towards Obama this year.