There’s the germ of an interesting question in here. It does seem to me that the Bay Area dominates the Democratic party in California. But, as a southern Californian, maybe that’s just sour grapes and confirmation bias. So I decided to look at actual data. I went back to 1992, which I consider the year California went blue.
There are 10 statewide elected positions, 8 state offices + 2 senators. (Technically Superintendent of Public Schools is non-partisan) Currently all are Democrats. 7 of the 10 are from the Bay Area, the other 3 are from Los Angeles. The last Democratic US Senator to not be from the Bay Area was John V. “My-ex-roomate-called-me-instead-of-the-police-after-he-drove-off-the-Chappaquiddick-Bridge” Tunney in the 1970s. Otherwise it’s been Cranston, Boxer, Fienstein and Harris.
Since 1992, 28 Democrats have held statewide offices. 18 of those got their state in Bay Area politics, with quite a few serving on San Francisco City Council or Board of Supervisors. 7 are from Los Angeles, and the other 3 from the Central Valley.
So 70% of current officeholders and 64% over the past 3 decades. But given the relatively small sample sizes, it could just be coincidence.
The GOP tends to be a bit more spread-out. The last 3 Republican governors were from LA (Arnold), San Diego (Wilson), and LA suburb Long beach (Deukmejian)
So it seems to me that the Bay Area does dominate the Democratic side of things, and now that California has turned into a one-party state, it is more noticeable at the state level.
That’s an interesting observation. But what about the future? Now that the Dems turned Orange County blue, is it likely that more state-level Dems will be from the south?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends how stubborn CA Republicans are about brand. If a significant number of moderate Republicans essentially abandoned their party or at least go independent and start crossing over to vote for slightly more moderate SoCal Democrats that would be one thing. But I doubt that will happen quickly.
Because I’m pretty certain that there are still far more Republicans in urban southern CA than in the north. Yes, the old strongholds of Santa Barbara, Orange and parts of Greater San Diego are eroding. But there are still quite a few in those big suburbs, which I’m sure is still creating a lot more R/D push-pull in local politics. The north( which is mostly the Bay Area/Monterey and Sacramento population-wise )is and has been much darker blue and as a result I think they tend to vote more in lockstep for major statewide offices.
Bay Area also contains Oakland, San Jose, Sillycone Valley, Vallejo, Petaluma, major military bases and corporate districts, and probably the world’s most diverse population. US News & World Report lists the most diverse cities. Half the top ten are in NorCal. See also their list of the least diverse - none in California.
WalletHub lists diversity in big and smaller cities. Note that diverse populations generally correlate with liberal attitudes. If you’re going to live among different peoples, you’d better learn to loosen up and get along.
I can’t tell if you are amplifying the part of my post that you quoted or not, but SF and Berkeley are, in my opinion, farther to the left than everywhere you named.
There have been several articles about this in the local newspapers over the years.
Basically it comes down to the fact that Northern Californians are more politically active. They are more likely to vote. Democratic primaries have often featured someone from the North vs. someone from the South. Despite the population advantage the South has, they don’t vote enough compared to the North.
Many people vote in the primaries based simply on name recognition. Northerners are most likely to recognize people from their part of the state, and same for the South.
San Francisco is well known all thru the state for it’s corruption. Newson, Harris and others came from there. While i am not saying either is corrupt, I wont vote for any politico out of SF.
I am curious if you follow any other cities. Because living in Atlanta that series of articles didn’t make me bat an eye. Chicago and New York City also seem to have more corruption than that. Not to mention LA.
Is their any indication that Newsom or Harris were corrupt?
LA’s corruption is pretty old, not ongoing. I admit that I dont know much about Atlanta. I wont vote for anyone out of Atlanta either, I suppose.
I never said they were. I just wont vote for any person who was a elected SF politician, who came out of that cesspit. They still smell.
I personally dont like either , nor their politics, but I have said publicly that Newsom has done a excellent job on Covid. He has shown real leadership on this issue.
Search on “most corrupt US cities” and find stuff like a 2018 top 15 list:
15: Las Vegas NV
14: Cleveland OH
13: Wichita KS
12: Los Angeles CA
11: Richmond VA
10: Newark NJ
9: New Orleans LA
8: Detroit MI
7: New York NY
6: Houston TX
5: Miami FL
4: Baltimore MD
3: Philadelphia PA
2: Chicago IL
1: Washington DC
Los Angeles doesn’t break into the top 10 and San Francisco doesn’t make the list. So much for that.
