I'm becoming a California Republican

[All Along The Watchtower]

Just for pity's sake (I live in the SF Bay Area).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's days like these I need to get the Gary Coleman pic and risk Captain Profanity's death points.

[Хahar 🤔]

no

[Yelnoc]

lol

[All Along The Watchtower]

no

Yes

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just for pity's sake (I live in the SF Bay Area).

Emo.

[NVGonzalez]

no

Yes

Sucks that you won't be able to troll your GOP primaries.

[anvi]

Have fun, man!

But I wouldn't do it for pity, myself.  If somebody offers me a secure job in California, I'll register as a Pubbie.  I can get by with being an unusually lefty Republican, vote every four years from a state where my vote will make no electoral difference, and get California in trade.  That's an outstanding deal as far as I'm concerned.  It's a hell of a lot better than being an independent from Illinois, that's for sure.

[memphis]

I'd be interested in seeing data on how non-Hispanic white people vote out there. Doubt they're even close to Democratic onslaught people imagine.

[Sbane]

I'd be interested in seeing data on how non-Hispanic white people vote out there. Doubt they're even close to Democratic onslaught people imagine.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=CAS01p1
In 2004 Whites voted 51-47 for Bush and in 2008 about 52-46 for Obama. And in 2010 they voted 52-42 for Fiorina over Boxer. So they are more Democratic than Whites around the country but I am guessing about the same as all non southern Whites. California Whites are more Republican than Whites in places like WA, OR, MN etc.

[memphis]

I'd be interested in seeing data on how non-Hispanic white people vote out there. Doubt they're even close to Democratic onslaught people imagine.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=CAS01p1
In 2004 Whites voted 51-47 for Bush and in 2008 about 52-46 for Obama. And in 2010 they voted 52-42 for Fiorina over Boxer. So they are more Democratic than Whites around the country but I am guessing about the same as all non southern Whites. California Whites are more Republican than Whites in places like WA, OR, MN etc.

I was thinking the Bay Area specifically.

[Sbane]

I'd be interested in seeing data on how non-Hispanic white people vote out there. Doubt they're even close to Democratic onslaught people imagine.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=CAS01p1
In 2004 Whites voted 51-47 for Bush and in 2008 about 52-46 for Obama. And in 2010 they voted 52-42 for Fiorina over Boxer. So they are more Democratic than Whites around the country but I am guessing about the same as all non southern Whites. California Whites are more Republican than Whites in places like WA, OR, MN etc.

I was thinking the Bay Area specifically.

Whites are very Democratic. Socal is different, and is much more populous. Even in my town which is the "conservative" part of the Bay Area, Obama won 60-38, with a population that is about 70% white. And since most of the non-whites are Asian or Hispanic, I would say more than 80% of voters are White with most of the rest being Asian. And this is in the Republican part of the Bay Area.

[memphis]

I'd be interested in seeing data on how non-Hispanic white people vote out there. Doubt they're even close to Democratic onslaught people imagine.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=CAS01p1
In 2004 Whites voted 51-47 for Bush and in 2008 about 52-46 for Obama. And in 2010 they voted 52-42 for Fiorina over Boxer. So they are more Democratic than Whites around the country but I am guessing about the same as all non southern Whites. California Whites are more Republican than Whites in places like WA, OR, MN etc.

I was thinking the Bay Area specifically.

Whites are very Democratic. Socal is different, and is much more populous. Even in my town which is the "conservative" part of the Bay Area, Obama won 60-38, with a population that is about 70% white. And since most of the non-whites are Asian or Hispanic, I would say more than 80% of voters are White with most of the rest being Asian. And this is in the Republican part of the Bay Area.

It's just so hard to think the numbers through with so many illegals, who are counted by the census, but not reflected in voting, and also so many ethnic groups well-represented. Take a look at Contra Costa county. McCain won 30%. But it's only 48% non-Hispanic white to begin with. Where I'm from, you can just assume Obama wins all of the non-white vote and do the math pretty easily. It would mean that McCain clearly won the white vote. But you guys have so many Asians and Hispanics too. Makes it very hard to compute. Santa Clara is an even better example. McCain gets 29% in a county that's just 35% white. Somebody is voting for the GOP out there. My experience is that it's always the white people, but I'm accustomed to a very different dynamic. It's not that I'm saying McCain won whites in the Bay Area, I just think it's not as lopsided as popular perception would lead one to believe.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd be interested in seeing data on how non-Hispanic white people vote out there. Doubt they're even close to Democratic onslaught people imagine.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=CAS01p1
In 2004 Whites voted 51-47 for Bush and in 2008 about 52-46 for Obama. And in 2010 they voted 52-42 for Fiorina over Boxer. So they are more Democratic than Whites around the country but I am guessing about the same as all non southern Whites. California Whites are more Republican than Whites in places like WA, OR, MN etc.

I was thinking the Bay Area specifically.

Whites are very Democratic. Socal is different, and is much more populous. Even in my town which is the "conservative" part of the Bay Area, Obama won 60-38, with a population that is about 70% white. And since most of the non-whites are Asian or Hispanic, I would say more than 80% of voters are White with most of the rest being Asian. And this is in the Republican part of the Bay Area.

It's just so hard to think the numbers through with so many illegals, who are counted by the census, but not reflected in voting, and also so many ethnic groups well-represented. Take a look at Contra Costa county. McCain won 30%. But it's only 48% non-Hispanic white to begin with. Where I'm from, you can just assume Obama wins all of the non-white vote and do the math pretty easily. It would mean that McCain clearly won the white vote. But you guys have so many Asians and Hispanics too. Makes it very hard to compute. Santa Clara is an even better example. McCain gets 29% in a county that's just 35% white. Somebody is voting for the GOP out there. My experience is that it's always the white people, but I'm accustomed to a very different dynamic. It's not that I'm saying McCain won whites in the Bay Area, I just think it's not as lopsided as popular perception would lead one to believe.

There are certainly neighborhoods of the bay area such as the Berkeley hills and Mill Valley, where you can see that Obama got somewhere around 85% of non-Hispanic whites.

[Sbane]

I'd be interested in seeing data on how non-Hispanic white people vote out there. Doubt they're even close to Democratic onslaught people imagine.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=CAS01p1
In 2004 Whites voted 51-47 for Bush and in 2008 about 52-46 for Obama. And in 2010 they voted 52-42 for Fiorina over Boxer. So they are more Democratic than Whites around the country but I am guessing about the same as all non southern Whites. California Whites are more Republican than Whites in places like WA, OR, MN etc.

I was thinking the Bay Area specifically.

Whites are very Democratic. Socal is different, and is much more populous. Even in my town which is the "conservative" part of the Bay Area, Obama won 60-38, with a population that is about 70% white. And since most of the non-whites are Asian or Hispanic, I would say more than 80% of voters are White with most of the rest being Asian. And this is in the Republican part of the Bay Area.

It's just so hard to think the numbers through with so many illegals, who are counted by the census, but not reflected in voting, and also so many ethnic groups well-represented. Take a look at Contra Costa county. McCain won 30%. But it's only 48% non-Hispanic white to begin with. Where I'm from, you can just assume Obama wins all of the non-white vote and do the math pretty easily. It would mean that McCain clearly won the white vote. But you guys have so many Asians and Hispanics too. Makes it very hard to compute. Santa Clara is an even better example. McCain gets 29% in a county that's just 35% white. Somebody is voting for the GOP out there. My experience is that it's always the white people, but I'm accustomed to a very different dynamic. It's not that I'm saying McCain won whites in the Bay Area, I just think it's not as lopsided as popular perception would lead one to believe.

Well, look at the overall exit polls. Whites make up about 43% of the total population but about 60% of voters. The Bay Area is whiter than the state so I wouldn't be surprised if the voters there are 65-70% White. Whites certainly do vote more Republican than the Bay Area overall, but it's probably not as extreme as in areas with a high Black population because Hispanics and Asians don't vote 90-10 Democrat. And the Bay Area's Black population is probably around 5-6% (about the same as the state). Even if we assume that Hispanics voted about 80% Obama and Asians 75% Obama, you can see Whites needed to vote at a very high rate for Obama to get to the overall total of 74% Obama in the Bay Area.

And it's probably not a good idea to assume Asians voted that Democratic. In SF it's the Asian areas which are more Republican (it's all relative of course). It's not just SF either. In Santa Clara County you have a place like Palo Alto which voted 80% Obama while it's 64% White and most of the rest being Asians. And you have many Vietnamese heavy neighborhoods that only voted about 55-65% Obama. But certain areas of Santa Clara do have many Whites voting Republican, but again probably only about 40-45% Mccain.

There's plenty of neighborhoods that are fairly white and voted heavily for Obama like Jfern noted. Even in the suburbs you have a place like Lafayette or Orinda in the east bay which are about 85-90% white total population and voted about 65-70% Obama. And these areas have a median income of around 140k and are considered to be the moderate areas....The liberal whites in SF, Oakland and Marin county were voting Obama 80-20 at the very least.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Areas that are like 35% white and 29% McCain are obviously just loaded with tons of non-voting Hispanics.

Still point taken, someone is voting for the Republicans there, and even 3 out of 10 isn't exactly a striking minority. And honestly even in my precinct where McCain got 243 votes, that's probably still more votes for him per square mile than Michele Bachmann's district (that still means Obama got around 70-80% of the white vote and the upper part of that by my calculation.)

[All Along The Watchtower]

In Santa Clara County (where I live) the Republican voters are mostly older white people who have been here a while. I'm sure there are certain Asians in there too. 

[Sbane]

Areas that are like 35% white and 29% McCain are obviously just loaded with tons of non-voting Hispanics.

Still point taken, someone is voting for the Republicans there, and even 3 out of 10 isn't exactly a striking minority. And honestly even in my precinct where McCain got 243 votes, that's probably still more votes for him per square mile than Michele Bachmann's district (that still means Obama got around 70-80% of the white vote and the upper part of that by my calculation.)

A place like Santa Clara county, that is only 35% white and 2% Black with the rest being Hispanics or Asians probably has a white majority electorate. It's not just Hispanics who vote at a low rate but Asians as well. They might not be illegals but they might not be citizens yet and even if they are don't care enough to vote. Obama got about 70% of the vote in 2008. Even if you assume Hispanics voted 80% Obama and Asians voted 70% Obama, you can see whites must have been voting about 65% Obama. And judging from precinct results, assuming that high of a democratic vote among Asians or Hispanics might be a mistake.

[Torie]

Sbane has it right. This is how two of the wealthiest cities in the United States voted - Woodside and Atherton:



And this is how upper middle class to wealthy Los Gatos voted:

[Хahar 🤔]

I haven't looked at the statement of vote for a while, but I believe that McCain won zero jurisdictions of any size in the Bay Area. I know Obama won every municipality.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I haven't looked at the statement of vote for a while, but I believe that McCain won zero jurisdictions of any size in the Bay Area. I know Obama won every municipality.

And comments like those of Newt Gingrich will ensure that the Bay Area stays all Dem.