what type of states politically/culturally would "Northern California" & "Southern California" be?

[Cyrusman]

Let's say California were to break off into two separate states, being Northern California and Southern California. Everything From San Luis Obispo County//Fresno County// Inyo County is Southern California, including those three counties. Everything north of those counties is Northern California.

What type of states culturally would they be, and what would the political leans be, in terms of the average margin of victory?
Would Nor Cal be culturally like Oregon/Washington?
Would SO Cal be like Arizona, Nevada, or different?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

It's possible that they would have evolved in divergent directions, and in fact they kinda were in the past - NorCal has pretty much always been a liberal bastion, but SoCal used to be quite conservative until the 1990s. But nowadays, most places with a high degree of urbanization are liberal, and SoCal would have been urbanized regardless of whether it was in the same state as NorCal. Maybe in that scenario, SoCal would attract more conservatives and be like Arizona, strongly Republican until recently when the trends kicked in and Democrats started winning. But I think even that is a bit of a stretch. I don't think they would be that different politically than they are IRL.

Culturally, again I think it would be similar to current NorCal/SoCal divides, but perhaps more pronounced. Which is to say, NorCal would feel even more like a northeastern state than it already does, and SoCal would be more Sun Belt-y than it already is.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Culturally, again I think it would be similar to current NorCal/SoCal divides, but perhaps more pronounced. Which is to say, NorCal would feel even more like a northeastern state than it already does, and SoCal would be more Sun Belt-y than it already is.

I don't really think of NorCal as being culturally similar to any part of the Northeast- not least because California seems to define itself in opposition to the entire country east of the Rockies. Agree with you on the politics aspect.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Culturally, again I think it would be similar to current NorCal/SoCal divides, but perhaps more pronounced. Which is to say, NorCal would feel even more like a northeastern state than it already does, and SoCal would be more Sun Belt-y than it already is.

I don't really think of NorCal as being culturally similar to any part of the Northeast- not least because California seems to define itself in opposition to the entire country east of the Rockies. Agree with you on the politics aspect.

True I think the PNW would have been a much more obvious comparison. Although a part of the reason why the PNW/NorCal are as progressive as they are was, historically, a mix of Yankee and Irish migration and general western populism. My understanding is that SoCal saw more Southern and later Midwestern/Plains (i.e. many conservative Germans) migration, again a bit more like Arizona, which created a more conservative culture in the mid-20th century. I could be wrong though, I'm a little rusty on California settlement patterns.

[Agonized-Statism]

If they split tomorrow? Both blue states anchored around San Francisco and Los Angeles with their own laundry lists of obstacles for Republicans. Population losses would be hitting NorCal much harder proportionally and the current problems in the tech industry wouldn't bode well for its economy, and while SoCal would have and maintain a larger population and a more diversified economy, its per capita personal income and income disparity might look worse. SoCal would inherit the oil and gas industry and Los Angeles' car culture, while NorCal would be freer to pursue an environmentalist agenda. SoCal's five UC and twelve CSU campuses, while prestigious, would struggle being disconnected from the rest of the university system. The North would inherit the Sacramento government, and the more interesting political developments would be in SoCal.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

If they split tomorrow? Both blue states anchored around San Francisco and Los Angeles with their own laundry lists of obstacles for Republicans. Population losses would be hitting NorCal much harder proportionally and the current problems in the tech industry wouldn't bode well for its economy, and while SoCal would have and maintain a larger population and a more diversified economy, its per capita personal income and income disparity might look worse. SoCal would inherit the oil and gas industry and Los Angeles' car culture, while NorCal would be freer to pursue an environmentalist agenda. SoCal's five UC and twelve CSU campuses, while prestigious, would struggle being disconnected from the rest of the university system. The North would inherit the Sacramento government, and the more interesting political developments would be in SoCal.

It would be interesting to see how the environmentalist movements in Los Angeles and San Diego would evolve in a hypothetical independent SoCal. I'm guessing the seat of the new state government would be based somewhere in Los Angeles proper?

[Sol]

If they split tomorrow? Both blue states anchored around San Francisco and Los Angeles with their own laundry lists of obstacles for Republicans. Population losses would be hitting NorCal much harder proportionally and the current problems in the tech industry wouldn't bode well for its economy, and while SoCal would have and maintain a larger population and a more diversified economy, its per capita personal income and income disparity might look worse. SoCal would inherit the oil and gas industry and Los Angeles' car culture, while NorCal would be freer to pursue an environmentalist agenda. SoCal's five UC and twelve CSU campuses, while prestigious, would struggle being disconnected from the rest of the university system. The North would inherit the Sacramento government, and the more interesting political developments would be in SoCal.

It would be interesting to see how the environmentalist movements in Los Angeles and San Diego would evolve in a hypothetical independent SoCal. I'm guessing the seat of the new state government would be based somewhere in Los Angeles proper?

I actually wouldn't be too surprised to see it end up in Orange County or the Inland Empire, given that peripheral areas of the new SoCal, like Santa Barbara, San Diego, the Imperial Valley, etc. might be a bit unhappy with LA monopolizing the state capitol too.

This was the logic that lead the failed movement to move Alaska's capitol to pick the Mat-Su as its capital, not Anchorage proper.

[pbrower2a]

It depends upon which part gets the Central Valley. The San Francisco- San Jose area votes much like Greater LA anyway. 

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

It depends upon which part gets the Central Valley. The San Francisco- San Jose area votes much like Greater LA anyway. 

That actually makes me wonder if Greater Los Angeles was ever more D/less R than the Bay Area.

The answer often given for this question is that OC was strongly conservative due to post-WWII suburbanization as well as the presence of the Cold War-era defense industry. However, looking at past election results, it seems to go much deeper than this- IIRC, Orange County was already one of the most Republican counties in California by the 1920s (along with tiny Alpine County in the Sierras).

In 1884, in Los Angeles County (which at the time also included present-day Orange County), a total of 10,829 votes were cast. James Blaine won the county by eight points, making Los Angeles County two points more Republican than the state as a whole. In 1888, the first election after the beginning of the wave of immigration, the total vote in Los Angeles County was 25,264 votes, more than double what it had been just four years ago. While Cleveland improved on his previous performance statewide, in Los Angeles County this time Benjamin Harrison won by fifteen points, making the county thirteen points more Republican than the state as a whole. From a political perspective, greater Los Angeles was created in the late 1880s, and it was created by Republicans.

[Kuumo]

It depends upon which part gets the Central Valley. The San Francisco- San Jose area votes much like Greater LA anyway. 

That actually makes me wonder if Greater Los Angeles was ever more D/less R than the Bay Area.

The answer often given for this question is that OC was strongly conservative due to post-WWII suburbanization as well as the presence of the Cold War-era defense industry. However, looking at past election results, it seems to go much deeper than this- IIRC, Orange County was already one of the most Republican counties in California by the 1920s (along with tiny Alpine County in the Sierras).

In 1884, in Los Angeles County (which at the time also included present-day Orange County), a total of 10,829 votes were cast. James Blaine won the county by eight points, making Los Angeles County two points more Republican than the state as a whole. In 1888, the first election after the beginning of the wave of immigration, the total vote in Los Angeles County was 25,264 votes, more than double what it had been just four years ago. While Cleveland improved on his previous performance statewide, in Los Angeles County this time Benjamin Harrison won by fifteen points, making the county thirteen points more Republican than the state as a whole. From a political perspective, greater Los Angeles was created in the late 1880s, and it was created by Republicans.

In the 1850s and 1860s, what is now the Los Angeles area was more Democratic than the San Francisco area because southern California was dominated by Mexican American landowners who were sympathetic to the planter class of the American South while San Francisco was populated by Forty-Niners and their descendants who leaned toward the Republican Party and were responsible for California's admission to the Union as a free state.

As an example, in the 1860 Presidential election, Lincoln won California due to the split in the Democratic vote and his strength in the Bay Area while Los Angeles County voted for Breckenridge.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/California_Presidential_Election_Results_1860.png/640px-California_Presidential_Election_Results_1860.png

[Ragnaroni]

NorCal is closer to OR and WA. SoCal is more "sunbelty" like Nevada or Arizona

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

You'd also have to wonder how both domestic and foreign immigration to OTL California would differ in this scenario, and how they would affect NorCal and SoCal respectively.

[justfollowingtheelections]

SoCal is A LOT more left wing than Arizona and Nevada.

[Agonized-Statism]

It would be interesting to see how the environmentalist movements in Los Angeles and San Diego would evolve in a hypothetical independent SoCal.

While California receives about 75% of its rain and snow in the watersheds north of Sacramento, Southern California's urban areas have a more robust and spread-out water supply and counterintuitively are generally better prepared for drought conditions. The Bay Area doesn't really have the ample underground aquifers and groundwater resources of the South, and they would actually end up importing more water. Water infrastructure also isn't as good in the North, the reason being that 80% of California's urban and agricultural water demand comes from the southern two-thirds of the state dating back to the late 19th century. A highly engineered water system was built there to transport water to the most arid places in the state- at the cost of changing the natural environment and wildlife habitats, of course. SoCal's environmentalists wouldn't have quite as much pull with their state's better preparedness for drought conditions and reliance on the status quo of heavier water use, not to say they wouldn't be a much more regulated state than Nevada or Arizona. Their focus would be on combating their state's more extreme heat and air pollution, the worst in the country by far. But those issues affect poor and marginalized populations more than those that would be terrorizing all Northern Californians more equally- wildfires, floods, and water shortages- so we would probably see a stronger environmentalist lobby and more far-reaching legislation in NorCal.

You'd also have to wonder how both domestic and foreign immigration to OTL California would differ in this scenario, and how they would affect NorCal and SoCal respectively.

More immigrants would continue to flow into SoCal due to its proximity to the border. More Mexican-origin immigrants end up in Southern California and more Asians in Northern California, and that wouldn't change either. While the whole state is in decline for internal migrants, I would expect SoCal to bleed less than NorCal with the difference in economic prospects.

I know, I know, my SoCal pride is showing despite being way close to Oregon now. Not that I don't dislike the entire state at this point.

[Skill and Chance]

Do you mean if they split today or were split upon admission to the Union? 

In the former case, not much would change in the short run, but in the long run SoCal would probably resemble a socially liberal Rust Belt state like Michigan due to the outmigration and economic struggles.  It would gradually trend right and Republicans would probably do better at the state level than federally.  NorCal would be uttely locked down for Dems by Silicon Valley and would have more in common with Colorado or the NE states where a majority of young people go to college. 

In the latter case, SoCal would likely be admitted as a slave state and attract a ton of Southern migration early on.  During the Civil War, it may very well end up voting to join the Confederacy or if not, being forcibly occupied by the Confederacy for a time.  It would probably be a distinctly culturally Southern state to the present day.  IDK if L.A. ever becomes a center for film making in this world.  Maybe it still does.  Much of early Hollywood was made up of former Southerners after all.  In any event, I would expect a SoCal that diverged pre-Civil War to vote Dem until sometime in the mid 20th century and then GOP after that, with Dems possibly gaining strength again very recently as in Arizona, which was the most Southern/Confederate-influenced Western state IRL.