Opinion of Imperial County voting to the right of Orange County

[Aurelius2]

Horrible coalitions that portend a terrible future for American politics and society imo.

[riverwalk7]

Not a major fan of Orange County myself. My ideal coalition is excelling in small cities, winning cities proper by a little, losing rurals by a little, and getting crushed in the suburbs.

Wonder if FC gets more votes because a majority of voters are Democratic and like Orange County more than Imperial.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I do think it's a genuine positive that the Republican coalition is becoming more multi-racial - even though I obviously don't want any group shifting right, it does suggest that non-white voters feel more integrated into American society and means both parties now must make a serious effort to appeal to the concerns of these voters.

The thing that concerns me though is the increasing lack of highly educated and "high trust" communities that vote Republican. I think having some accountability to these types of voters helps ground a party from becoming too reactionary or populist, but at this point it seems like Republicans could care less about appealing to these voters.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

Imperial County is a poor indicator for CA Latinos on the whole for the same reasons why the border boondocks are a poor indicator for TX Latinos. They both account for a small portion of each state's total voter population and of each state's Latinos.

Rather than making a sweeping generalization, it might help to look at the various communities that comprise Latino voters overall. For CA (and for a lot of other places, too), I'd say break it down into three broader categories:

• distinctly urban clusters where the majority of Latinos reside
• relatively less urbanized areas with relatively large Latino populations
• rural or otherwise isolated places where Latinos are the overwhelming majority

It's fairly clear that Democrats aren't having long-term issues with the first group, and because of that, any major "realignment" or shift is impossible on some grand scale.

The second group in CA would more or less focus on the Central Valley, where huge fluctuations in Latino turnout between presidential and off-year elections occur. It's very likely any statistically large movements here compared to recent elections is merely turnout-based discrepancies. Remember that these CDs have some of the lowest turnout in the country in any midterm elections.

That leaves the third group (places such as Imperial Valley, and the RGV for that matter). I do think it can be argued that this group is trending toward the GOP, but it's a relatively tiny segment of the overall population. A good thread on AAD can be found around this discussion, but one quote in particular that applies to the RGV I think may broadly apply to a place like the Imperial Valley:

Neutral and tbh completely predictable based on ongoing urban-rural polarization. A lot of Orange County flipping R->D was due to the county's CVAP becoming more Latino and more Asian.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Imperial County is a poor indicator for CA Latinos on the whole for the same reasons why the border boondocks are a poor indicator for TX Latinos. They both account for a small portion of each state's total voter population and of each state's Latinos.

Rather than making a sweeping generalization, it might help to look at the various communities that comprise Latino voters overall. For CA (and for a lot of other places, too), I'd say break it down into three broader categories:

• distinctly urban clusters where the majority of Latinos reside
• relatively less urbanized areas with relatively large Latino populations
• rural or otherwise isolated places where Latinos are the overwhelming majority

It's fairly clear that Democrats aren't having long-term issues with the first group, and because of that, any major "realignment" or shift is impossible on some grand scale.

The second group in CA would more or less focus on the Central Valley, where huge fluctuations in Latino turnout between presidential and off-year elections occur. It's very likely any statistically large movements here compared to recent elections is merely turnout-based discrepancies. Remember that these CDs have some of the lowest turnout in the country in any midterm elections.

That leaves the third group (places such as Imperial Valley, and the RGV for that matter). I do think it can be argued that this group is trending toward the GOP, but it's a relatively tiny segment of the overall population. A good thread on AAD can be found around this discussion, but one quote in particular that applies to the RGV I think may broadly apply to a place like the Imperial Valley:

Neutral and tbh completely predictable based on ongoing urban-rural polarization. A lot of Orange County flipping R->D was due to the county's CVAP becoming more Latino and more Asian.

There definitely is tons of evidence Dems are losing ground with Urban Latinos as well - look at what happened in LA County and The Bronx. Sure, right now it might not translate to losing those Congressional and State Legislative seats, but it still significantly impairs statewide margins and if *big if* trends continue as they have been, could put these places in real danger in a few more cycles.

[Aurelius2]

I do think it's a genuine positive that the Republican coalition is becoming more multi-racial - even though I obviously don't want any group shifting right, it does suggest that non-white voters feel more integrated into American society and means both parties now must make a serious effort to appeal to the concerns of these voters.

The thing that concerns me though is the increasing lack of highly educated and "high trust" communities that vote Republican. I think having some accountability to these types of voters helps ground a party from becoming too reactionary or populist, but at this point it seems like Republicans could care less about appealing to these voters.

Yeah on one hand I will say it's very good that nonwhites mostly vote ideologically nowadays. On the other hand though this pair of county results encapsulates a lot of recent trends I hate:

The Dems increasingly running on ever more fringey social issues (and doing so in a shrill, hamfisted way that creates actual backlash which hurts the people affected).
The increasing salience and appeal of peronist/caudillismo type rhetoric and action.
The flight of "elite human capital" from the GOP, and the Crank Realignment turning the Dems into a party pathologically overtrusting of authority and the GOP into the home of true believers for every insane conspiracy theory under the sun (this last one being less relevant to Orange/Imperial in particular though, as neither strikes me as particularly crankish - I am sort of using this as an opportunity to vent my grievances with the 2024 GOP).
The GOP becoming less a party of principles and more a party of transactionalism, not yet to the same extent of the Dems but it's an ugly trend.
The general decline in civic and constitutional republicanism as virtues in their own right. Again this one is less about these particular counties.
And last but certainly not least the right becoming more sociologically/politically Protestant and the right more sociologically/politically Catholic. The fact that integralism and its adjacent worldviews, however fringe they may be, are rising on the right disgusts me. Though this is less a campesino thing and more an overeducated-adult-convert thing.

If you're losing Orange and winning Imperial, you're also then focusing less and less on economic and constitutional-liberty principles, and more on a particular sort of social-conservatism I have no interest in whatsoever. Though I get I am somewhat in the minority on that point.

But yes, Hispanics aren't a monolith and it of course makes sense that rural border-county campesinos will be more conservative than their urban counterparts. For those whobare principled libertarians (or fellow travelers like myself) it's sad to see a party that, despite many of foibles, has been one of the greatest engines of liberty in the world, devolve into Latin American-esque transactional strongman politics.

TL;DR while racedep is nice to see, I care about GOP remaining a fundamentally classically liberal party much more than that and these coalitional shifts reflect an ever growing shift away from that historical foundation.

[Don't Tread on Me]

Racial depolarization is a good thing, massive FC.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I do think it's a genuine positive that the Republican coalition is becoming more multi-racial - even though I obviously don't want any group shifting right, it does suggest that non-white voters feel more integrated into American society and means both parties now must make a serious effort to appeal to the concerns of these voters.

The thing that concerns me though is the increasing lack of highly educated and "high trust" communities that vote Republican. I think having some accountability to these types of voters helps ground a party from becoming too reactionary or populist, but at this point it seems like Republicans could care less about appealing to these voters.

Yeah on one hand I will say it's very good that nonwhites mostly vote ideologically nowadays. On the other hand though this pair of county results encapsulates a lot of recent trends I hate:

The Dems increasingly running on ever more fringey social issues (and doing so in a shrill, hamfisted way that creates actual backlash which hurts the people affected).
The increasing salience and appeal of peronist/caudillismo type rhetoric and action.
The flight of "elite human capital" from the GOP, and the Crank Realignment turning the Dems into a party pathologically overtrusting of authority and the GOP into the home of true believers for every insane conspiracy theory under the sun (this last one being less relevant to Orange/Imperial in particular though, as neither strikes me as particularly crankish - I am sort of using this as an opportunity to vent my grievances with the 2024 GOP).
The GOP becoming less a party of principles and more a party of transactionalism, not yet to the same extent of the Dems but it's an ugly trend.
The general decline in civic and constitutional republicanism as virtues in their own right. Again this one is less about these particular counties.

If you're losing Orange and winning Imperial, you're also then focusing less and less on economic and constitutional-liberty principles, and more on a particular sort of social-conservatism I have no interest in whatsoever. Though I get I am somewhat in the minority on that point.

But yes, Hispanics aren't a monolith and it of course makes sense that rural border-county campesinos will be more conservative than their urban counterparts.

I largely agree with this - and in summary it seems like social/cultural issues are becoming a more dominant in our politics than economic and good-government issues. Spending all this time arguing over DEI and trans rights is an absolute waste - I want to talk about stuff like healthcare, infrastructure, regulations, ect.

Perhaps the a silver lining is because social/culture issues are more dominant, you may be more likely to get bipartisan wins on other stuff that actually matters - we sort of saw this in the Biden administration with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill - I think because very few voters actually care much about infrastructure, it gave more leeway for some Republicans to crossover and vote for it - no Republican is getting outprimaried for voting for the bill. Likewise with the bipartisan gun reform bill, the CHIPs act, or the Respect for Marriage act.

[New World Man]

As a Dem I don't want affluent suburbanites(just kidding). Am sad that rural working class counties swing away from us.

[Roll Roons]

Imperial County is a poor indicator for CA Latinos on the whole for the same reasons why the border boondocks are a poor indicator for TX Latinos. They both account for a small portion of each state's total voter population and of each state's Latinos.

Rather than making a sweeping generalization, it might help to look at the various communities that comprise Latino voters overall. For CA (and for a lot of other places, too), I'd say break it down into three broader categories:

• distinctly urban clusters where the majority of Latinos reside
• relatively less urbanized areas with relatively large Latino populations
• rural or otherwise isolated places where Latinos are the overwhelming majority

It's fairly clear that Democrats aren't having long-term issues with the first group, and because of that, any major "realignment" or shift is impossible on some grand scale.

The second group in CA would more or less focus on the Central Valley, where huge fluctuations in Latino turnout between presidential and off-year elections occur. It's very likely any statistically large movements here compared to recent elections is merely turnout-based discrepancies. Remember that these CDs have some of the lowest turnout in the country in any midterm elections.

That leaves the third group (places such as Imperial Valley, and the RGV for that matter). I do think it can be argued that this group is trending toward the GOP, but it's a relatively tiny segment of the overall population. A good thread on AAD can be found around this discussion, but one quote in particular that applies to the RGV I think may broadly apply to a place like the Imperial Valley:

Neutral and tbh completely predictable based on ongoing urban-rural polarization. A lot of Orange County flipping R->D was due to the county's CVAP becoming more Latino and more Asian.

There definitely is tons of evidence Dems are losing ground with Urban Latinos as well - look at what happened in LA County and The Bronx. Sure, right now it might not translate to losing those Congressional and State Legislative seats, but it still significantly impairs statewide margins and if *big if* trends continue as they have been, could put these places in real danger in a few more cycles.

Also the rightward trends among urban Hispanics very much happened in 2020, and not just in Miami. We saw it in NYC, North Jersey, LA County and Houston.

[New World Man]

Imperial County is a poor indicator for CA Latinos on the whole for the same reasons why the border boondocks are a poor indicator for TX Latinos. They both account for a small portion of each state's total voter population and of each state's Latinos.

Rather than making a sweeping generalization, it might help to look at the various communities that comprise Latino voters overall. For CA (and for a lot of other places, too), I'd say break it down into three broader categories:

• distinctly urban clusters where the majority of Latinos reside
• relatively less urbanized areas with relatively large Latino populations
• rural or otherwise isolated places where Latinos are the overwhelming majority

It's fairly clear that Democrats aren't having long-term issues with the first group, and because of that, any major "realignment" or shift is impossible on some grand scale.

The second group in CA would more or less focus on the Central Valley, where huge fluctuations in Latino turnout between presidential and off-year elections occur. It's very likely any statistically large movements here compared to recent elections is merely turnout-based discrepancies. Remember that these CDs have some of the lowest turnout in the country in any midterm elections.

That leaves the third group (places such as Imperial Valley, and the RGV for that matter). I do think it can be argued that this group is trending toward the GOP, but it's a relatively tiny segment of the overall population. A good thread on AAD can be found around this discussion, but one quote in particular that applies to the RGV I think may broadly apply to a place like the Imperial Valley:

Neutral and tbh completely predictable based on ongoing urban-rural polarization. A lot of Orange County flipping R->D was due to the county's CVAP becoming more Latino and more Asian.

There definitely is tons of evidence Dems are losing ground with Urban Latinos as well - look at what happened in LA County and The Bronx. Sure, right now it might not translate to losing those Congressional and State Legislative seats, but it still significantly impairs statewide margins and if *big if* trends continue as they have been, could put these places in real danger in a few more cycles.

Also the rightward trends among urban Hispanics very much happened in 2020, and not just in Miami. We saw it in NYC, North Jersey, LA County and Houston.

Also Chicago area.Trump did about 16 points better in Cicero. Also imagine he improved a lotin Aurora.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I do think it's a genuine positive that the Republican coalition is becoming more multi-racial - even though I obviously don't want any group shifting right, it does suggest that non-white voters feel more integrated into American society and means both parties now must make a serious effort to appeal to the concerns of these voters.

The thing that concerns me though is the increasing lack of highly educated and "high trust" communities that vote Republican. I think having some accountability to these types of voters helps ground a party from becoming too reactionary or populist, but at this point it seems like Republicans could care less about appealing to these voters.

Yeah on one hand I will say it's very good that nonwhites mostly vote ideologically nowadays. On the other hand though this pair of county results encapsulates a lot of recent trends I hate:

The Dems increasingly running on ever more fringey social issues (and doing so in a shrill, hamfisted way that creates actual backlash which hurts the people affected).
The increasing salience and appeal of peronist/caudillismo type rhetoric and action.
The flight of "elite human capital" from the GOP, and the Crank Realignment turning the Dems into a party pathologically overtrusting of authority and the GOP into the home of true believers for every insane conspiracy theory under the sun (this last one being less relevant to Orange/Imperial in particular though, as neither strikes me as particularly crankish - I am sort of using this as an opportunity to vent my grievances with the 2024 GOP).
The GOP becoming less a party of principles and more a party of transactionalism, not yet to the same extent of the Dems but it's an ugly trend.
The general decline in civic and constitutional republicanism as virtues in their own right. Again this one is less about these particular counties.
And last but certainly not least the right becoming more sociologically/politically Protestant and the right more sociologically/politically Catholic. The fact that integralism and its adjacent worldviews, however fringe they may be, are rising on the right disgusts me. Though this is less a campesino thing and more an overeducated-adult-convert thing.

If you're losing Orange and winning Imperial, you're also then focusing less and less on economic and constitutional-liberty principles, and more on a particular sort of social-conservatism I have no interest in whatsoever. Though I get I am somewhat in the minority on that point.

But yes, Hispanics aren't a monolith and it of course makes sense that rural border-county campesinos will be more conservative than their urban counterparts. For those whobare principled libertarians (or fellow travelers like myself) it's sad to see a party that, despite many of foibles, has been one of the greatest engines of liberty in the world, devolve into Latin American-esque transactional strongman politics.

TL;DR while racedep is nice to see, I care about GOP remaining a fundamentally classically liberal party much more than that and these coalitional shifts reflect an ever growing shift away from that historical foundation.

Honestly the reason the GOP was a fundamentally classically liberal party in many ways was thanks to one man and his name is Ronald Reagan. Reagan's presidency basically ensured both Rockefellerism and Nixonionism would be relegated to the wilderness because he made a whole generation of people more prosperous in unprecedented ways. He also presented an extremely optimistic version of America and American principles in a way truly no other president in the modern era has done which I think helped see a rebirth of classical liberalism in the country after spending the prior half century in the wilderness.

Sadly I dont think there is a man or women in politics today who comes close to matching Reagan at this

[He's turned to dust now, one of the chosen few]

Reagan's presidency basically ensured both Rockefellerism and Nixonionism would be relegated to the wilderness because he made a whole generation of people more prosperous in unprecedented ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States

[E-Dawg]

I'll just note that Orange County voted to the right of Imperial County in the senate elections. Orange voted for Garvey by 1%, while Imperial is a near tie that has Schiff ahead in the regular election by 2 votes, and Garvey ahead in the special election by 400 votes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Imperial County is a poor indicator for CA Latinos on the whole for the same reasons why the border boondocks are a poor indicator for TX Latinos. They both account for a small portion of each state's total voter population and of each state's Latinos.

Rather than making a sweeping generalization, it might help to look at the various communities that comprise Latino voters overall. For CA (and for a lot of other places, too), I'd say break it down into three broader categories:

• distinctly urban clusters where the majority of Latinos reside
• relatively less urbanized areas with relatively large Latino populations
• rural or otherwise isolated places where Latinos are the overwhelming majority

It's fairly clear that Democrats aren't having long-term issues with the first group, and because of that, any major "realignment" or shift is impossible on some grand scale.

The second group in CA would more or less focus on the Central Valley, where huge fluctuations in Latino turnout between presidential and off-year elections occur. It's very likely any statistically large movements here compared to recent elections is merely turnout-based discrepancies. Remember that these CDs have some of the lowest turnout in the country in any midterm elections.

That leaves the third group (places such as Imperial Valley, and the RGV for that matter). I do think it can be argued that this group is trending toward the GOP, but it's a relatively tiny segment of the overall population. A good thread on AAD can be found around this discussion, but one quote in particular that applies to the RGV I think may broadly apply to a place like the Imperial Valley:

Neutral and tbh completely predictable based on ongoing urban-rural polarization. A lot of Orange County flipping R->D was due to the county's CVAP becoming more Latino and more Asian.

There definitely is tons of evidence Dems are losing ground with Urban Latinos as well - look at what happened in LA County and The Bronx. Sure, right now it might not translate to losing those Congressional and State Legislative seats, but it still significantly impairs statewide margins and if *big if* trends continue as they have been, could put these places in real danger in a few more cycles.

Yeah, in terms of the raw numbers of votes that changed because it's such a large county, the Bronx going from Hillary's best county (DC isn't a county) in 2016 and Trump getting only 9.5% there to to him getting 26.9% there now is a pretty crazy swing.

[Goldwater]

I'll just note that Orange County voted to the right of Imperial County in the senate elections. Orange voted for Garvey by 1%, while Imperial is a near tie that so far has Schiff ahead in the regular election by 2 votes, and Garvey ahead in the special election by 400 votes.

Describe a Harris/Schiff special/Garvey full term voter from Imperial County.

[Don't Tread on Me]

I do think it's a genuine positive that the Republican coalition is becoming more multi-racial - even though I obviously don't want any group shifting right, it does suggest that non-white voters feel more integrated into American society and means both parties now must make a serious effort to appeal to the concerns of these voters.

The thing that concerns me though is the increasing lack of highly educated and "high trust" communities that vote Republican. I think having some accountability to these types of voters helps ground a party from becoming too reactionary or populist, but at this point it seems like Republicans could care less about appealing to these voters.

Yeah on one hand I will say it's very good that nonwhites mostly vote ideologically nowadays. On the other hand though this pair of county results encapsulates a lot of recent trends I hate:

The Dems increasingly running on ever more fringey social issues (and doing so in a shrill, hamfisted way that creates actual backlash which hurts the people affected).
The increasing salience and appeal of peronist/caudillismo type rhetoric and action.
The flight of "elite human capital" from the GOP, and the Crank Realignment turning the Dems into a party pathologically overtrusting of authority and the GOP into the home of true believers for every insane conspiracy theory under the sun (this last one being less relevant to Orange/Imperial in particular though, as neither strikes me as particularly crankish - I am sort of using this as an opportunity to vent my grievances with the 2024 GOP).
The GOP becoming less a party of principles and more a party of transactionalism, not yet to the same extent of the Dems but it's an ugly trend.
The general decline in civic and constitutional republicanism as virtues in their own right. Again this one is less about these particular counties.
And last but certainly not least the right becoming more sociologically/politically Protestant and the right more sociologically/politically Catholic. The fact that integralism and its adjacent worldviews, however fringe they may be, are rising on the right disgusts me. Though this is less a campesino thing and more an overeducated-adult-convert thing.

If you're losing Orange and winning Imperial, you're also then focusing less and less on economic and constitutional-liberty principles, and more on a particular sort of social-conservatism I have no interest in whatsoever. Though I get I am somewhat in the minority on that point.

But yes, Hispanics aren't a monolith and it of course makes sense that rural border-county campesinos will be more conservative than their urban counterparts. For those whobare principled libertarians (or fellow travelers like myself) it's sad to see a party that, despite many of foibles, has been one of the greatest engines of liberty in the world, devolve into Latin American-esque transactional strongman politics.

TL;DR while racedep is nice to see, I care about GOP remaining a fundamentally classically liberal party much more than that and these coalitional shifts reflect an ever growing shift away from that historical foundation.

 Reagan's presidency basically ensured both Rockefellerism and Nixonionism would be relegated to the wilderness because he made a whole generation of wealthy people more prosperous in unprecedented ways.

FTFY. But he deserves credit for his optimism and charisma, we can use more of that even though Iran-Contra was arguably worse than Watergate.

[GAinDC]

If Dems trade rural, racially homogenous counties for large, diverse, suburban counties, then I'd be ok with that trade.

However, I still think Dems will hit a wall in places like Orange County while Republicans will have the same problem in places like Imperial and RGV, especially post-Trump.

I think urban counties shifting R is an ephemeral thing that's mostly about Trump's unique appeal, Dem turnout cratering this year, and voters giving the middle finger to Dem local and state leaders (Hochul, Adams, etc). A stronger Dem can do much better in those places in 2028 or even 2026.

[The '90s' Last Champion]

The rich voting for the left is a good sign of a society avoiding class war and toxic class politics. However, as OP noted this can result in populism if the coalitions reverse too much. I think the ideal alignment (safe from both class war and populism) looks something like this:

Left: upper class and lower middle class
Right: upper middle class and middle class

Everyone else would be a swing voter. This alignment would be hard to bring about but it would probably avoid both populism and class politics.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

The rich voting for the left is a good sign of a society avoiding class war and toxic class politics. However, as OP noted this can result in populism if the coalitions reverse too much. I think the ideal alignment (safe from both class war and populism) looks something like this:

Left: upper class and lower middle class
Right: upper middle class and middle class

Everyone else would be a swing voter. This alignment would be hard to bring about but it would probably avoid both populism and class politics.

What do you think are the prime examples of such a class alignment coming about?

[The '90s' Last Champion]

The rich voting for the left is a good sign of a society avoiding class war and toxic class politics. However, as OP noted this can result in populism if the coalitions reverse too much. I think the ideal alignment (safe from both class war and populism) looks something like this:

Left: upper class and lower middle class
Right: upper middle class and middle class

Everyone else would be a swing voter. This alignment would be hard to bring about but it would probably avoid both populism and class politics.

What do you think are the prime examples of such a class alignment coming about?

I don’t really think any exists because it’s hard to think of countries where the upper middle class and upper class vote differently. The closest examples would probably be in PR systems where the latter overwhelmingly vote conservative but the former have a sizable chunk of liberal support. I guess Canada at times has at times approached this because Tory support in places like Rosedale and Oakville is more solid than somewhere like King-Vaughan (but it also breaks down because in 2008+2011 when the Tories got massive swings among upper middle class GTAers their support in the most elite precincts didn’t change nearly as much). Basically voter choice is more inelastic among affluent Canadians (make of that what you will).

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

The rich voting for the left is a good sign of a society avoiding class war and toxic class politics. However, as OP noted this can result in populism if the coalitions reverse too much. I think the ideal alignment (safe from both class war and populism) looks something like this:

Left: upper class and lower middle class
Right: upper middle class and middle class

Everyone else would be a swing voter. This alignment would be hard to bring about but it would probably avoid both populism and class politics.

What do you think are the prime examples of such a class alignment coming about?

I don’t really think any exists because it’s hard to think of countries where the upper middle class and upper class vote differently. The closest examples would probably be in PR systems where the latter overwhelmingly vote conservative but the former have a sizable chunk of liberal support. I guess Canada at times has at times approached this because Tory support in places like Rosedale and Oakville is more solid than somewhere like King-Vaughan (but it also breaks down because in 2008+2011 when the Tories got massive swings among upper middle class GTAers their support in the most elite precincts didn’t change nearly as much). Basically voter choice is more inelastic among affluent Canadians (make of that what you will).

Looking historically, it does seem like Canada is a relatively good example for this sort of thing.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

The rich voting for the left is a good sign of a society avoiding class war and toxic class politics. However, as OP noted this can result in populism if the coalitions reverse too much. I think the ideal alignment (safe from both class war and populism) looks something like this:

Left: upper class and lower middle class
Right: upper middle class and middle class

Everyone else would be a swing voter. This alignment would be hard to bring about but it would probably avoid both populism and class politics.

Orange County isn't a particularly uniformly affluent county by any means... Also its well-off Non-Hispanic White coastal areas are still quite R.

That being said- what's your rationale for wanting the Left to win the 1%, nail salon workers, manufacturing technicians, nurses, landscapers, and school teachers, and the Right to win doctors, corporate lawyers, software developers, accountants, psychologists, and university professors?

(Also I do think the professional class and the actual 1% vote differently in the US; the former is D-leaning and to my knowledge the latter is R-leaning).

[He's turned to dust now, one of the chosen few]

Orange County isn't a particularly uniformly affluent county by any means... Also its well-off Non-Hispanic White coastal areas are still quite R outside of Irvine.

Whenever S019 talks about Orange County it becomes painfully clear that he has no idea what HB is like.

[Skill and Chance]

I do think it's a genuine positive that the Republican coalition is becoming more multi-racial - even though I obviously don't want any group shifting right, it does suggest that non-white voters feel more integrated into American society and means both parties now must make a serious effort to appeal to the concerns of these voters.

The thing that concerns me though is the increasing lack of highly educated and "high trust" communities that vote Republican. I think having some accountability to these types of voters helps ground a party from becoming too reactionary or populist, but at this point it seems like Republicans could care less about appealing to these voters.

Yeah on one hand I will say it's very good that nonwhites mostly vote ideologically nowadays. On the other hand though this pair of county results encapsulates a lot of recent trends I hate:

The Dems increasingly running on ever more fringey social issues (and doing so in a shrill, hamfisted way that creates actual backlash which hurts the people affected).
The increasing salience and appeal of peronist/caudillismo type rhetoric and action.
The flight of "elite human capital" from the GOP, and the Crank Realignment turning the Dems into a party pathologically overtrusting of authority and the GOP into the home of true believers for every insane conspiracy theory under the sun (this last one being less relevant to Orange/Imperial in particular though, as neither strikes me as particularly crankish - I am sort of using this as an opportunity to vent my grievances with the 2024 GOP).
The GOP becoming less a party of principles and more a party of transactionalism, not yet to the same extent of the Dems but it's an ugly trend.
The general decline in civic and constitutional republicanism as virtues in their own right. Again this one is less about these particular counties.
And last but certainly not least the left becoming more sociologically/politically Protestant and the right more sociologically/politically Catholic. The fact that integralism and its adjacent worldviews, however fringe they may be, are rising on the right disgusts me. Though this is less a campesino thing and more an overeducated-adult-convert thing.

If you're losing Orange and winning Imperial, you're also then focusing less and less on economic and constitutional-liberty principles, and more on a particular sort of social-conservatism I have no interest in whatsoever. Though I get I am somewhat in the minority on that point.

But yes, Hispanics aren't a monolith and it of course makes sense that rural border-county campesinos will be more conservative than their urban counterparts. For those whobare principled libertarians (or fellow travelers like myself) it's sad to see a party that, despite many of foibles, has been one of the greatest engines of liberty in the world, devolve into Latin American-esque transactional strongman politics.

TL;DR while racedep is nice to see, I care about GOP remaining a fundamentally classically liberal party much more than that and these coalitional shifts reflect an ever growing shift away from that historical foundation.

Something that should be reassuring on this front is that Catholics (along with Jewish and Muslim people) disproportionately live in the most secular/freethinking parts of the country.  Therefore, such a religious conservative coalition will nearly always be playing constitutional defense, not offense. 

There are theoretically the votes for an Evangelical/Baptist integralist Upper South tomorrow if the establishment clause stopped being incorporated on the states, but having lots of Catholic/Jewish/Muslim voters joining the religious right coalition actually makes this outcome less likely as they would all strongly object to it.

On the other hand, there very clearly aren't the votes for a Catholic integralist Phoenix or Albuquerque or Las Vegas (LOL) or a Muslim integralist Detroit this side of 2100.  This is going to be much more about stuff like making sure St. Patrick's Hospital of South Boston isn't legally obligated to provide elective abortions.