County Trend Map

[Tender Branson]

Has anyone already made a 2004->2008 US trend map incl. all counties ?

I have seen a few swing maps, 1988 to 2008 and the trend map from states, but not the counties ...

[RI]

I made one that I posted a while back. I will repost it.


Link: http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp131/rarohla/2008Trend.png

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[Sbane]

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

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

[Nym90]

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

True. It may make more sense to divide the 2008 percentage of the vote by the 2004 percentage rather than simply subtract it when determining swing (so, losing 2 percent to drop from 15 to 13 percent is a much bigger swing than losing 2 percent to drop from 50 to 48 percent, for example) rather than just looking at the straight percentage of vote that was lost and comparing it to the national percentage that was lost when determining "trend".

DC "trended" Republican as well using this same flawed methodology.

[Alcon]

I actually prefer change in % of Republican voteshare as a measure, over the past few elections.  Ignoring 2000, change in share of two-party vote (50% -> 75% would be +50%) seems logical to me.

[nclib]

It is interesting that while Texas trended Democratic, most of its counties trended Republican, esp. considering the home state factor. In fact, the vast majority of counties in Texas that trended Dem were either mainly Hispanic along the border, or parts of the state's main metro areas (Dallas, S. A., Houston, Austin). (I'm not sure about the red area in the NW of the state)

[Holmes]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

[Sbane]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

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

[Franzl]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

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

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

[Verily]

It is interesting that while Texas trended Democratic, most of its counties trended Republican, esp. considering the home state factor. In fact, the vast majority of counties in Texas that trended Dem were either mainly Hispanic along the border, or parts of the state's main metro areas (Dallas, S. A., Houston, Austin). (I'm not sure about the red area in the NW of the state)

Historically ultra-Republican, somewhat Hispanic (but long-time resident Hispanic, the sort who identify their ancestry on the Census as "Spanish"), still very Republican. Lubbock is in that area, so there is at least one city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llano_Estacado

[Holmes]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

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

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

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

[Hash]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

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

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

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

San Mateo? Santa Cruz?

[Sbane]

Noooooooooo, my California county trended Republican.

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

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

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

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

[minionofmidas]

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

Bush by Supervisor District...
1st 26.0, 2nd 30.2, 3rd 13.9, 4th 28.5, 5th 28.9 (3rd is most of Santa Cruz city plus the coast west of that.)
by CD (portions within Sta Cruz only, o/c)
14th 31.4, 17th 22.1. The 14th has 31.1% of the total vote but 39.2% of the Republicans.
by State Senate District
11th 19.9, 15th 33.2. The 15th has 38.0% of the total vote but 50.6% of the Republicans. As you might figure, the main thing the 17th CD and 15th SD have in common is that they don't include the city.
by Assembly District
27th 24.5, 28th 28.2. The 28th portion is quite small and based on Watsonville.
by city
Santa Cruz 14.1
Watsonville 26.2
Capitola 25.1 (small city near Sta Cruz. Mostly in 2nd Supervisor District. Seems a lot of the land just east of Sta Cruz is built up, actually, but only this small bit is incorporated)
Scotts Valley 41.4 (small city, inland from Santa Cruz on Highway 9. 5th Supervisor District)
unincorporated 28.3 (most of the county)

[Sbane]

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

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

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

[minionofmidas]

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

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

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

merely votes very heavily Democrat.

[Sbane]

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

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

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

merely votes very heavily Democrat.

LOL. Santa Cruz is a lovely place.

[minionofmidas]

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

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

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

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

[NOVA Green]

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

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

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

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

Nice observation on Watsonville...

In many respects it is more similar to neighboring parts of Monterey County, in that it is an area with an active agricultural sector. The town itself is dominated by freeze-dry plants with a stable unionized workforce. The UFW is still active in the area, and I remember seeing "Si se puede" signs all over the area in the late '90s during an ongoing labor dispute.

Scotts Valley does not surprise me, as this is the main commuter route "over the hill" to San Jose with many expensive homes in what is already one of the most expensive real estate markets in the US.

[Sbane]

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

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

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

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

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

[minionofmidas]

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

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

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

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

Nice observation on Watsonville...

In many respects it is more similar to neighboring parts of Monterey County, in that it is an area with an active agricultural sector. The town itself is dominated by freeze-dry plants with a stable unionized workforce. The UFW is still active in the area, and I remember seeing "Si se puede" signs all over the area in the late '90s during an ongoing labor dispute.

Interesting.

Hilarious that it doesn't show up at all in the 2004 results, though.

[NOVA Green]

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

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

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

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

Nice observation on Watsonville...

In many respects it is more similar to neighboring parts of Monterey County, in that it is an area with an active agricultural sector. The town itself is dominated by freeze-dry plants with a stable unionized workforce. The UFW is still active in the area, and I remember seeing "Si se puede" signs all over the area in the late '90s during an ongoing labor dispute.

Interesting.

Hilarious that it doesn't show up at all in the 2004 results, though.

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

The labor struggles of the predominately Mexican cannery workers in this city go back decades, and are not particularly wedded to either the local Democratic Party or the Anglo dominated unions that represent them. More recently there have been attempts by the UFW to organize strawberry field workers (when I was last in the area in the late '90s).

Several articles that give background on the labor movement in Watsonville:

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC35folder/WatsonvilleStrike.html

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=193_0_3_0


It would be interesting to see if there were electoral swings between 1992 and 2000, since this would be the period when the city was hit hard by relocation of some freeze-dry operations to Mexico, and also growing labor strife in the neighboring strawberry fields. Since much of the agricultural workforce lives within the city of Watsonville because of zoning restrictions favoring farmland in this area, this might be where you would notice an impact.

I'm not sure to what extent this plays out in national elections, but the state senator is a Republican Mexican-American strawberry farmer from the Watsonville area, so there might be a more localized, rather than national, electoral impact.

[minionofmidas]

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

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

[NOVA Green]

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

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

What's interesting is that Watsonville voter registration is 73-25% Democratic, with an extremely low number of independents compared to most of the rest of California. This might account for there being an almost infinitesimal shift in Republican support between 2000 and 2004.

I would expect more volatility in Capitola, since it is to all extents a suburban part of Santa Cruz with a higher proportion of independents. Interestingly it has a significantly cheaper cost of rent than in Santa Cruz, so is more of a bedroom community with less of a college population than the city itself. Although there is a community college right near it, most of the overwhelmingly Democratic UCSC students live within Santa Cruz proper or on campus way over in West Santa Cruz.