If They Are Smart, Democrats Will Jump All Over This “Three Californias” Proposal
Tim Draper of the “3 CAL” movement announced today that his group has collected over the requisite number of signatures to have a state-wide referendum on splitting California into three different states.
The state we know as “California” would be no more, and from its ashes would rise three new states: North California, South California, and California (but new!):
Now, even if this proposal passes, it will face some additional political hurdles. Namely, the Governor of California will give notice to the United States Congress that California wants to cut itself up into little pieces. Then, the Congress will vote on whether to welcome the three new states and provide a gigantic boom to the China-based US Flag manufacturing industry.
Conventional wisdom suggests that such a proposal would never get that far, however. So the story goes, Democrats in Congress would block admission of the new states in fear that their 55 electoral vote “golden empire” would crumble away.
If this is assumption, I decided to test it. Using data from California’s Secretary of State office and the precise county list from 3CAL’s website (you misspelled “Alameda” and “Colusa” counties btw Tim Draper), I mapped out how the Democratic Party would fare in each new California.
Had the 2016 Election taken place with three Californias, instead of our one whole California, here’s what the results would’ve looked like:
New California:
Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito counties
North California:
Bay Area, Sacramento and the 31 counties north of Sacramento
South California:
San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, Mono, Madera, Inyo, Tulare, Fresno, Kings, Kern and Imperial counties
Across all three states, we see that Hillary Clinton would’ve scored resounding victories against President Donald J. Trump.
But, I admit, that in itself doesn’t fully explain why this proposal is so good for Democrats. The answer, of course, is the United States Senate.
Every single state in the union, regardless of population, gets two Senators who serve six year terms in the United States Senate. The Senate is responsible for voting on legislation, confirming nominees (uh Supreme Court anyone?), and approving treaties. Sounds pretty important overall, right? Well, the rotten news for Democrats is that they have a structural disadvantage in the Senate.
Going by partisan lean, as reported by FiveThirtyEight, there are 31 states that are more Republican than the nation as a whole, but only 18 states more Democratic than the nation as a whole. That’s 62 Senate seats that tend to lean Republican and 36 Senate seats that tend to lean Democratic. The only reason Democrats ever even have a shot at winning the Senate is because they are really, really good at winning seats in Republican-leaning states. But it’s getting harder (debate whether it’s because of bigotry or the party being out of touch in the comments!!!).
For Democrats, splitting California into three would give them two more states that are more Democratic than the nation as a whole. Hence, four new Senate seats that would lean toward the Democratic Party.
Now, as I’m sure many of you remember, 2016 was an odd year — especially in California. While California numbers generally took a backseat to endless discussion of the rustbelt, something remarkable did happen. Hillary Clinton won Orange County, a once bastion of conservative power in California. California’s suburban coasts seemed uniquely offended by Donald Trump, and even as they voted for Hillary Clinton (or third party in some cases) Orange County and surrounding areas still elected Republicans to Congress in CA-49, CA-48, CA-45, CA-39, etc. So is South California really more Democratic than the nation as a whole?
It’s complicated.
To test my theory to the point of straining, I decided to look at another election: California’s 2010 gubernatorial race. 2010 was a wave election for Republicans, and the California GOP had a quality (and very well-funded) candidate in Meg Whitman. Seeing how that election played out across all three Californias would definitely give deeper insight in how Democratic each state really would be.
New California:
Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito counties
North California:
Bay Area, Sacramento and the 31 counties north of Sacramento
South California:
San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, Mono, Madera, Inyo, Tulare, Fresno, Kings, Kern and Imperial counties
So the plot thickens! In a wave election year, with a quality candidate, Republicans actually carry South California by a convincing margin. From 2010 to 2016 we see a 21.4 point swing in South California toward the Democrats at the Presidential level.
But this was in a massive wave election year for Republicans. It’s seems unlikely that performance could be repeated with any regularity.
In addition, I also think we have reason to believe that South California has started tilting far more Democratic since 2010.
South California has become very comfortable voting Democratic at the Presidential level. When I looked at the 2008 and 2012 Presidential election, South California voted for Obama both times—albeit, by narrow margins. Furthermore, the “state” is trending Democratic. Obama over-performed in 2012 based on the swing in the national popular vote, and of course, Hillary Clinton blew Donald Trump out of the water.
2008 Election
2012 Election
South California feels more like a Virginia than an Arizona. Much as we’ve had endless discussion about the rapidly evolving political evolution of rustbelt states that have traditionally been Democratic but are moving rapidly toward the Republicans, the data seems to suggest the inverse in South California.
But forgetting about South California for a second: those two new Senate seats in North California would be for keeps. Even in a wave Republican election year, with a quality, well-funded candidate and no incumbent, Democrats dominated North California and (new) California. That would be a net two Senate seats that would be a done deal today. That would be two solid blue Senate seats, and two new seats in a “state” that would be trending Democratic.
And that’s important for the Dems, because there aren’t a lot of other states trending Democratic. It’s safe to say that Virginia is in the blue fold, and North Carolina might be on it’s way, but not many other states are heading the other way. To keep the Senate competitive, Democrats need more seats in friendly turf. This would be an easy way to do it.
And yeah, it’d be a bit of a bummer to put 19 electoral votes on the table, but in a way, Democrats already have. South California seems like a much safer bet than Iowa or Ohio, which combined have 24 electoral votes. For what it’s worth, there hasn’t been an election in recent memory where Democrats won, but would’ve lost if you subtracted 19 electoral votes.
Ultimately, this is all speculation. If Democrats want to be more cautious than me, a key test might be to watch the Congressional races in South California. If I’m right, and the area is starting to trend more firmly Democratic, we should see a few districts flip blue. If they do, it might be time for Democrats to support adding some stars to our flag.
