Why is the San Francisco Bay Area so liberal?

[Biden his time]

It seems that near everybody on this forum can agree that the San Francisco Bay Area is the most liberal major metro area in the nation.

Why is this though? How did it come about to be?

[GregTheGreat657]

It's a diverse, well-educated area. Beyond that, it is liberal because it has been so liberal for so long

[Biden his time]

It's a diverse, well-educated area. Beyond that, it is liberal because it has been so liberal for so long

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go) and many that are more educated (NoVA, DFW suburbs, Greater Boston, Denver, New Jersey, and even some suburban counties in North Carolina and Tennessee). However, none are quite as liberal (especially compared to the white population). Density can't really be blamed here either, even Manhattan and Boston don't reach the sheer margins seen in San Francisco. In fact, the most Republican parts of SF are the least white.

I'm asking more about what the historical reasons are, what caused the Bay to be so unique in this aspect. Was it the type of migration it received? Big tech? (well obviously not that, the Bay Area has had this reputation since before Silicon Valley was a thing)

[smoltchanov]

Well, in the past it had a considerable tradition of Progressive Republicanism. Richard Welch (from SF, btw) was one of the most liberal Republican congressmen of his time (never opposed by Democrats) , and was substantially more liberal, then many Democrats of his period. State senators Behr, Nejedly and Marks, many assemblymen - too. But when Republican party became Ronald Reagan's party (and he isn't so conservative by present day Republican standards) - Republicna position quickly eroded. Rural South in reverse, and the reasons are essentially the same as were for the rural South moving in opposite direction..

[Del Tachi]

The culture of San Francisco (and resultingly the types of people it attracts) is heavily influenced by the mid-20th century counterculture, environmental, anti-war and gay rights movements.

[Pink Panther]

The culture of San Francisco (and resultingly the types of people it attracts) is heavily influenced by the mid-20th century counterculture, environmental, anti-war and gay rights movements.

This, as many historical moments and people in those movements resides in SF. Also, it's a major hub for immigration, machine politics are still huge here, as well as the Silicon Valley crowd, which have supported Progressive causes for several years now.

[Хahar 🤔]

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go)

As per the 2020 Census, the population of the nine-county Bay Area is 35.8% white, 27.7% Asian, 24.4% Hispanic, 5.6% black, and 5.1% non-Hispanic mixed-race. If this qualifies as a "more homogeneous" metropolitan area, then I'm curious as to what a less homogeneous area looks like.

[Aurelius]

Gay mecca + tech industry + a handful of extremely liberal universities + it's been so liberal for so long that liberals move there specifically because it is liberal.

[Хahar 🤔]

Anyway, I think that any explanation here that focuses on San Francisco is misguided. San Francisco is more Democratic than most American cities, but it is not extraordinary; Manhattan, whose population is somewhat higher than that of San Francisco, gave Biden a higher percentage of the vote than did San Francisco. There are other cities like this, including cities that do not have a reputation for being unusually liberal; Biden's 82% in St. Louis is not so different from his 85% in San Francisco.

What makes the Bay Area unusual is that it has large suburban counties that routinely give Democrats 75% of the vote or more. The only similar metropolitan area I can think of in this respect is Washington, and that only on the Maryland side of the river. I don't think that there's one single great explanation for this. Obviously you have to start with the diversity of the region, since outside Marin the Bay Area doesn't have the sort of white suburbs you see in most places. But then white voters in the Bay Area are probably more Democratic than white voters just about anywhere else, too. That's a bit harder to place firmly.

When making a comparison to Los Angeles, the military industry (a major employer of Republican voters) has never had the same presence in the Bay Area, but historically it has not been nonexistent, either. Lockheed, for instance, was a large employer in Sunnyvale for decades. That hasn't seemed to make an appreciable difference. You can say that the tech industry has tended to attract the sort of highly educated voters who would be unusually Democratic for their income level, but the Democratic vote isn't any lower in Marin, where tech employees have not historically been a major demographic. One thing that does seem obvious is that this is a self-perpetuating cycle; the Bay Area votes Democratic because it always has.

[Torie]

Lack of flat land that was cheap to build on, too much of a "climate" to attract retirees, since the gold rush, a place attractive to be "bad boys," and then a haven for the "queers," a glorious setting to protect that attracted the tree huggers like moths to the flame, and always a place hostile to the prosaic middle class. It was also a place hostile to lower middle class gauche. Style is at least equal to substance.

tldr: I am clueless, but it has been that way since  rocks cooled, sort of.  A lot of my clan's Iowa issue over the past 100 years or so have moved to either the Bay Area and LA, chasing their dreams, and sometimes scoring them. Some dreams really do come true.

[TheReckoning]

There’s a lot of a socialists there, I wouldn’t call it “liberal” necessarily.

[Biden his time]

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go)

As per the 2020 Census, the population of the nine-county Bay Area is 35.8% white, 27.7% Asian, 24.4% Hispanic, 5.6% black, and 5.1% non-Hispanic mixed-race. If this qualifies as a "more homogeneous" metropolitan area, then I'm curious as to what a less homogeneous area looks like.

I actually found that pretty surprising.

San Francisco has a reputation as a pretty white city TBH.
It's pretty unique really as the suburbs are more diverse than the city center.

[Хahar 🤔]

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go)

As per the 2020 Census, the population of the nine-county Bay Area is 35.8% white, 27.7% Asian, 24.4% Hispanic, 5.6% black, and 5.1% non-Hispanic mixed-race. If this qualifies as a "more homogeneous" metropolitan area, then I'm curious as to what a less homogeneous area looks like.

I actually found that pretty surprising.

San Francisco has a reputation as a pretty white city TBH.
It's pretty unique really as the suburbs are more diverse than the city center.

San Francisco is whiter than its suburbs, it's true, but it's still only 39% non-Hispanic white. This is not meant as an indictment of you, but this demonstrates the problem with discourse about California in general and the Bay Area in particular. People talk based on the idea they have of the place, which often bears little relationship to what the place is actually like. In particular, people constantly seem to assume that the Bay Area is largely white, which is not at all the case. I'm not sure there's a metropolitan area of anywhere near similar size whose demographics are consistently mischaracterized in this way.

[RINO Tom]

The culture of San Francisco (and resultingly the types of people it attracts) is heavily influenced by the mid-20th century counterculture, environmental, anti-war and gay rights movements.

Pretty much this … it is a self-fulfilling thing, where the area attracts more and more liberals each year.

[Aurelius]

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go)

As per the 2020 Census, the population of the nine-county Bay Area is 35.8% white, 27.7% Asian, 24.4% Hispanic, 5.6% black, and 5.1% non-Hispanic mixed-race. If this qualifies as a "more homogeneous" metropolitan area, then I'm curious as to what a less homogeneous area looks like.

I actually found that pretty surprising.

San Francisco has a reputation as a pretty white city TBH.
It's pretty unique really as the suburbs are more diverse than the city center.

San Francisco is whiter than its suburbs, it's true, but it's still only 39% non-Hispanic white. This is not meant as an indictment of you, but this demonstrates the problem with discourse about California in general and the Bay Area in particular. People talk based on the idea they have of the place, which often bears little relationship to what the place is actually like. In particular, people constantly seem to assume that the Bay Area is largely white, which is not at all the case. I'm not sure there's a metropolitan area of anywhere near similar size whose demographics are consistently mischaracterized in this way.

I think a lot of people subconsciously think of well-off Asians (there's a bimodal distribution of wealth among Asian Americans, with a huge upper middle class, a large working poor and not much in between) as being "basically white" without even realizing it. This shows up more in discussion of the Bay than for other places because the Bay is just so heavily Asian, and because Bay Area Asians in particular are very well off.

[Del Tachi]

It's worth mentioning the Bay Area is the second-densest MSA in the country under a "population-weighted density" metric, only behind New York.  Density + diversity + wealth = liberal politics

[PSOL]

There’s a lot of a socialists there, I wouldn’t call it “liberal” necessarily.

I’m pretty sure they all got gentrified out sometime in the 2000s. California, especially its coastal environs, is still home to a lot of socialists but it isn’t like it used to be with a good lot of them dying off or moving elsewhere. I’m pretty sure even Oakland has become immensely gentrified and those radicals running wide are either dead or hiding discretely from the cops.

Come to think of it, Vermont and Hawai’i have similar problems with those radicals getting old and dying or moving elsewhere, in the latter case to Reno and Las Vegas. New York has institutional connections, while Chicago has stayed the same in its reputation of radical unionists and diverse conflicts. The only place where one can really say there’s been no change is the Pacific Northwest’s coastal cities, where somehow radicalism still runs very deep.

[Oryxslayer]

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go)

As per the 2020 Census, the population of the nine-county Bay Area is 35.8% white, 27.7% Asian, 24.4% Hispanic, 5.6% black, and 5.1% non-Hispanic mixed-race. If this qualifies as a "more homogeneous" metropolitan area, then I'm curious as to what a less homogeneous area looks like.

I actually found that pretty surprising.

San Francisco has a reputation as a pretty white city TBH.
It's pretty unique really as the suburbs are more diverse than the city center.

San Francisco is whiter than its suburbs, it's true, but it's still only 39% non-Hispanic white. This is not meant as an indictment of you, but this demonstrates the problem with discourse about California in general and the Bay Area in particular. People talk based on the idea they have of the place, which often bears little relationship to what the place is actually like. In particular, people constantly seem to assume that the Bay Area is largely white, which is not at all the case. I'm not sure there's a metropolitan area of anywhere near similar size whose demographics are consistently mischaracterized in this way.

I think a lot of people subconsciously think of well-off Asians (there's a bimodal distribution of wealth among Asian Americans, with a huge upper middle class, a large working poor and not much in between) as being "basically white" without even realizing it. This shows up more in discussion of the Bay than for other places because the Bay is just so heavily Asian, and because Bay Area Asians in particular are very well off.

Yes, this subconsciously stereotypical assessment tends to be accurate when talking about the regions demographics. It also doesn't help the SF is associated in the public consciousness with several stereotypically White economic, political, and cultural phenomenon.

However, the broader economic view of the region is, or at least was before Tech money fully engulfed everything, correct. San Francisco is almost unique for US cities in that the money did not migrate out of the city to the suburbs. This did occur, but you can find plenty of examples of suburbs that were geared towards lower incomes rather than uniformly Middle and Upper class sprawl. In this way I, as a former resident, have come to see the city as somewhat European-style, with the better-off living in the "old city" (pre-Earthquake era or similarly dated and designed homes) and the poor living in the new areas. After all, the city at one time did have Republican areas in the Marina, Richmond, and South of Twin Peaks.

This of course only happens because of the quirks of geography. SF cannot sprawl outwards because of water and coastal mountains. Oakland was the African American industrial city across the bay  - encouraging development of more lower-income Oakland suburbs to the east. Hills cut off easy access to the south at several points, serving as a physical barrier between the communities. There are of course the traditional leafy suburbs further down the peninsula, but their existence was the exception that proved if you had money you didn't want to be bumper-to-bumper on a single bridge. Those same hills divide the city, giving views and raising or depressing land values depending on the area. You can see this in the fact that one of the poorest and most diverse parts of the city, Hunter's Point, is virtually cut off geographically from the wider city and experienced significant low-income constructions during and after WWII.

Now how does this effect the cities Democratic traditions? I don't know. You can cite diversity, but the cities large diversity of minority groups is recent given the long term picture. I suspect though that it comes down to how some of the prosperous "old city" regions were not part of the Republican's base, and how the city was never the best place for cars so the various accompanying social and organizational effects of mass suburbanization didn't play out in SF to the degree they did in the rest of the US.

[kwabbit]

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go)

As per the 2020 Census, the population of the nine-county Bay Area is 35.8% white, 27.7% Asian, 24.4% Hispanic, 5.6% black, and 5.1% non-Hispanic mixed-race. If this qualifies as a "more homogeneous" metropolitan area, then I'm curious as to what a less homogeneous area looks like.

I actually found that pretty surprising.

San Francisco has a reputation as a pretty white city TBH.
It's pretty unique really as the suburbs are more diverse than the city center.

San Francisco is whiter than its suburbs, it's true, but it's still only 39% non-Hispanic white. This is not meant as an indictment of you, but this demonstrates the problem with discourse about California in general and the Bay Area in particular. People talk based on the idea they have of the place, which often bears little relationship to what the place is actually like. In particular, people constantly seem to assume that the Bay Area is largely white, which is not at all the case. I'm not sure there's a metropolitan area of anywhere near similar size whose demographics are consistently mischaracterized in this way.

When people think of areas being White, they really think of them as being mostly non-Black  or also non-Hispanic. Oakland is the only place that has a reputation for having a large Black population and even then the Black population is only 25% of the city. The Bay Area is significantly Hispanic but there's no area with a massive Hispanic population, being very dispersed across the whole metro. There's no Hispanic or Black core city that defines the area as 'diverse'.

For instance, the Philly metro is never going to be called White, despite being 25% Whiter than the Bay Area. This is almost certainly because large parts of Philadelphia are monolithically Black. SF itself isn't that much more White than Philly and it's suburbs are much, much less White, but because it doesn't have a Black quarter, the Bay is seen as White.

The huge Asian populations of the Bay Area doesn't alter the perception of the Bay Area because, as others have said, UMC East Asians and Indians fit neatly into UMC White suburbia.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

The above posts on perceptions of the Bay Area as being "very white" reflect how stereotypes about racial demographics of metro areas often lag behind the reality on the ground by a couple decades. It makes sense to lump in Asians (whether Eastern or subcontinental) with whites if there aren't very many of them, but once you have a certain percentage of Asians in an area (e.g. in the Bay Area and Metro LA) the physical and cultural differences that Asian groups collectively have with non-Asians become more salient.

If an American from the 70s or 80s were to time travel to present-day California (or even Seattle or Portland), they would be shocked to see how many Asians there are in public spaces and K-12 schools, as well as how many majority/plurality-Asian areas there are.

[Schiff for Senate]

It's a diverse, well-educated area. Beyond that, it is liberal because it has been so liberal for so long

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go) and many that are more educated (NoVA, DFW suburbs, Greater Boston, Denver, New Jersey, and even some suburban counties in North Carolina and Tennessee). However, none are quite as liberal (especially compared to the white population). Density can't really be blamed here either, even Manhattan and Boston don't reach the sheer margins seen in San Francisco. In fact, the most Republican parts of SF are the least white.

I'm asking more about what the historical reasons are, what caused the Bay to be so unique in this aspect. Was it the type of migration it received? Big tech? (well obviously not that, the Bay Area has had this reputation since before Silicon Valley was a thing)

To refute some of your points - we're diverse. We have a decent Hispanic population, a small but not meaningless black population, and a solid Asian population. In fact in 2010 we were only 52.5% non-Hispanic white and are probably majority-minority by now. On the other hand, many other metro areas are even more diverse. But still, we are quite diverse and urban.  "Many that are more educated?" Uh...no, not really. Like I said, we have a lot of Asians here, and like you said, we are the national capital of Big Tech. We have some of the richest and most educated congressional districts (plural) in the entire country. Another factor is some of the colleges that are ultra-ultra-liberal, like Berkeley and Stanford, which are here. Also, we aspeople, we care about the environment. We've been liberal on social issues for a while, and earlier, though centrist to centre-right on fiscal matters, we have prioritized social issues. Now we're striaght up liberal on just about everything, though we aren't really like Seattle with a 'progressive culture' outside of parts of San F and the colleges. But yeah, even I'm astonished at how historically liberal we are...Alameda and San F Counties last went red in 1956. Currently also, we're overwhelmingly blue: CA's three bluest counties (Marin, Alameda, San F) were in the Bay Area; all gave Biden about 80% or more. And every Bay Area county gave him at least 70%.

EDIT: After helpful fact-checking by Cody, I deleted the section of my post where I insulted Williamson and Rutherford Counties in Tennessee - though in fairness, we are much better than Rutherford, we are much worse than Williamson in nearly every way. I guess the truly horrible mistake of mine was assuming they were even similar when actually, Williamson >> Rutherford.

[Aurelius]

It's a diverse, well-educated area. Beyond that, it is liberal because it has been so liberal for so long

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go) and many that are more educated (NoVA, DFW suburbs, Greater Boston, Denver, New Jersey, and even some suburban counties in North Carolina and Tennessee). However, none are quite as liberal (especially compared to the white population). Density can't really be blamed here either, even Manhattan and Boston don't reach the sheer margins seen in San Francisco. In fact, the most Republican parts of SF are the least white.

I'm asking more about what the historical reasons are, what caused the Bay to be so unique in this aspect. Was it the type of migration it received? Big tech? (well obviously not that, the Bay Area has had this reputation since before Silicon Valley was a thing)

To refute some of your points - we're diverse. We have a decent Hispanic population, a small but not meaningless black population, and a solid Asian population. In fact in 2010 we were only 52.5% non-Hispanic white and are probably majority-minority by now. On the other hand, many other metro areas are even more diverse. But still, we are quite diverse and urban.  "Many that are more educated?" Uh...no, not really. Like I said, we have a lot of Asians here, and like you said, we are the national capital of Big Tech. We have some of the richest and most educated congressional districts (plural) in the entire country. It's honestly insulting when we're even compared to the likes of Williamson and Rutherford Counties, TN. They are much whiter, stupider and poorer than us. Another factor is some of the colleges that are ultra-ultra-liberal, like Berkeley and Stanford, which are here. Also, we aspeople, we care about the environment. We've been liberal on social issues for a while, and earlier, though centrist to centre-right on fiscal matters, we have prioritized social issues. Now we're striaght up liberal on just about everything, though we aren't really like Seattle with a 'progressive culture' outside of parts of San F and the colleges. But yeah, even I'm astonished at how historically liberal we are...Alameda and San F Counties last went red in 1956. Currently also, we're overwhelmingly blue: CA's three bluest counties (Marin, Alameda, San F) were in the Bay Area; all gave Biden about 80% or more. And every Bay Area county gave him at least 70%.

First off, please just stop. Second, you are objectively false. Statistics show that the Bay Area is both "stupider" (if we're gonna define education as intelligence) and poorer than Williamson County in particular.

All data from census.gov quickfacts. Fields where the Bay Area county in question performs worse than Williamson County are bolded.

County	Median household income	Poverty %	Bachelors+ %	HS grad %
Williamson, TN	$112,962	4.1%	59.8%	95.3%
San Francisco	$112,449	10.0%	58.1%	88.5%
San Mateo	$122,641	5.5%	51.0%	89.6%
Santa Clara	$124,055	6.6%	52.4%	88.4%
Alameda	$99,406	8.6%	47.4%	88.4%
Contra Costa	$99,716	7.2%	42.4%	89.5%
Solano	$81,472	9.3%	26.9%	88.4%
Napa	$88,596	7.9%	35.7%	85.5%
Sonoma	$81,018	7.8%	35.5%	88.8%
Marin	$115,246	6.0%	59.5%	93.3%

So, in conclusion, Williamson County is richer than 6 of 9 bay area counties, less poor than all of them, better college educated than all of them, and better HS educated than all of them. If anything, Williamson County should feel insulted to be compared with the Bay Area   

[H. Ross Peron]

The above posts on perceptions of the Bay Area as being "very white" reflect how stereotypes about racial demographics of metro areas often lag behind the reality on the ground by a couple decades. It makes sense to lump in Asians (whether Eastern or subcontinental) with whites if there aren't very many of them, but once you have a certain percentage of Asians in an area (e.g. in the Bay Area and Metro LA) the physical and cultural differences that Asian groups collectively have with non-Asians become more salient.

If an American from the 70s or 80s were to time travel to present-day California (or even Seattle or Portland), they would be shocked to see how many Asians there are in public spaces and K-12 schools, as well as how many majority/plurality-Asian areas there are.

Xahar and I discussed this point on Discord a few hours earlier. This also plays out in popular perceptions of Orange County, CA by those not living there (or sometimes even worse, former residents) who have a time warp view of Orange County as a lily-white right-wing region. Partially this has to do with pop cultural depictions of the Bay Area or Orange County which tends to be overwhelmingly white whereas pop cultural depictions of East Coast/Midwestern cities (excepting Boston) such as New York and Chicago will tend to be much more diverse.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I've just arrived back home in Singapore from a visit to the Bay area and had the peculiar pleasure of having stayed both it's middle-class north Albany suburb as well as it's much wealthier southern Palo Alto Suburb. One observation I would like to place is that if there's one place Americas annoying tendency to lump all Asian(almost half the world population) into a single group breaks down it's the bay area. Indians, Japanese, Chinese and Koreans all enjoy distinct economic roles and social positioning as well as being distributed differently.

[Schiff for Senate]

It's a diverse, well-educated area. Beyond that, it is liberal because it has been so liberal for so long

There are tons of places more diverse than the Bay (in fact it's probably one of the more homogeneous ones as far as major metros go) and many that are more educated (NoVA, DFW suburbs, Greater Boston, Denver, New Jersey, and even some suburban counties in North Carolina and Tennessee). However, none are quite as liberal (especially compared to the white population). Density can't really be blamed here either, even Manhattan and Boston don't reach the sheer margins seen in San Francisco. In fact, the most Republican parts of SF are the least white.

I'm asking more about what the historical reasons are, what caused the Bay to be so unique in this aspect. Was it the type of migration it received? Big tech? (well obviously not that, the Bay Area has had this reputation since before Silicon Valley was a thing)

To refute some of your points - we're diverse. We have a decent Hispanic population, a small but not meaningless black population, and a solid Asian population. In fact in 2010 we were only 52.5% non-Hispanic white and are probably majority-minority by now. On the other hand, many other metro areas are even more diverse. But still, we are quite diverse and urban.  "Many that are more educated?" Uh...no, not really. Like I said, we have a lot of Asians here, and like you said, we are the national capital of Big Tech. We have some of the richest and most educated congressional districts (plural) in the entire country. It's honestly insulting when we're even compared to the likes of Williamson and Rutherford Counties, TN. They are much whiter, stupider and poorer than us. Another factor is some of the colleges that are ultra-ultra-liberal, like Berkeley and Stanford, which are here. Also, we aspeople, we care about the environment. We've been liberal on social issues for a while, and earlier, though centrist to centre-right on fiscal matters, we have prioritized social issues. Now we're striaght up liberal on just about everything, though we aren't really like Seattle with a 'progressive culture' outside of parts of San F and the colleges. But yeah, even I'm astonished at how historically liberal we are...Alameda and San F Counties last went red in 1956. Currently also, we're overwhelmingly blue: CA's three bluest counties (Marin, Alameda, San F) were in the Bay Area; all gave Biden about 80% or more. And every Bay Area county gave him at least 70%.

First off, please just stop. Second, you are objectively false. Statistics show that the Bay Area is both "stupider" (if we're gonna define education as intelligence) and poorer than Williamson County in particular.

All data from census.gov quickfacts. Fields where the Bay Area county in question performs worse than Williamson County are bolded.

County	Median household income	Poverty %	Bachelors+ %	HS grad %
Williamson, TN	$112,962	4.1%	59.8%	95.3%
San Francisco	$112,449	10.0%	58.1%	88.5%
San Mateo	$122,641	5.5%	51.0%	89.6%
Santa Clara	$124,055	6.6%	52.4%	88.4%
Alameda	$99,406	8.6%	47.4%	88.4%
Contra Costa	$99,716	7.2%	42.4%	89.5%
Solano	$81,472	9.3%	26.9%	88.4%
Napa	$88,596	7.9%	35.7%	85.5%
Sonoma	$81,018	7.8%	35.5%	88.8%
Marin	$115,246	6.0%	59.5%	93.3%

So, in conclusion, Williamson County is richer than 6 of 9 bay area counties, less poor than all of them, better college educated than all of them, and better HS educated than all of them. If anything, Williamson County should feel insulted to be compared with the Bay Area    

This is truly a horrible relevation. I didn't know Williamson was that impressive / we were that bad. You are right about one key thing - rather than making lofty assumptions, I should've first fact-checked this comment; I just automatically assumed we were wealthier and smarter but should have really fact checked first. I apologize for the assumption, and not only will I do that, I'll also delete the portion of my post where I made this misguided assumption. Literally the only consolation I have is that Rutherford actually has a lower HS+ rate than Marin and a lower Bachelor's+ than all 9 bay area counties, and is less rich that all of them; also, its poverty rate is higher than in 7 of 9 Bay Area counties - so I guess, while still not fully true, it'd be fair to say we are richer and more intelligent than Rutherford County - though not Williamson. So I guess another mistake I made, was ignorantly equating Williamson to Rutherford. Overall point - I shouldn't assume anything. Thanks for fact-checking my comment, and I won't make these assumptions in the future.