County Trend Map

[Sbane]

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)

It seems like Watsonville was the only area that didn't swing between 2000 and 2004. In that way it was more similar to areas like the central valley and socal rather than the bay area. I would expect a pretty good swing towards Obama this year.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

My God look at the trend in Appalachia.  Historically, this is like, home base for working class Dems.  In any year that the economy should dictate them going back to their roots, 2008 was it.

What the heck were these people thinking?  (Wow, 2004 was pretty bad, too.  But at least Bush was a fit for the area... what appeal could McCain possibly have to these people?  Sheesh.)

I would've loved to have seen these vote totals if Clinton had wound up with the nomination.  I'm guessing she would have taken WV and AR and made TN and KY competitive.   

[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)

It seems like Watsonville was the only area that didn't swing between 2000 and 2004. In that way it was more similar to areas like the central valley and socal rather than the bay area. I would expect a pretty good swing towards Obama this year.

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.)

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)

2008, McCain by supervisor district
1st 21.1, 2nd 24.3, 3rd 10.6, 4th 20.3, 5th 24.1
by city
Sta Cruz 10.8
Watsonville 17.9
Capitola 19.9
Scotts Valley 34.3
unincorporated 23.1

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump, interesting map.