Let’s face it.  This blog – and to an extent, politics in this state in general – is heavily tilted to the large population centers in the Bay Area and Southern California (including Orange County and down to San Diego).  But to continue in this fashion would be shortsighted, because it’s clear that the population patterns are moving away from two all-powerful hubs and toward a more widely spread pattern.  What has been getting most of the ink from the recent study by the state Department of Finance is that the Inland Empire will soon become home to the second-largest county (Riverside) in all of California.  But what has been less remarked upon is the expansion of the Central Valley:

With a new state forecast predicting that California’s population growth will tilt ever more toward the Central Valley, Southern California’s Inland Empire and fast-growing areas around Sacramento, experts say the state’s political center of gravity may shift, too – away from the more urbanized, coastal metropolitan areas that dominate the state’s political and economic life today.

The Central Valley “will clearly gain heft compared with the other metropolitan regions,” said Carol Whiteside, president of the Great Valley Center and the former mayor of Modesto. “It won’t be the baby cousin any more.”

The Central Valley will grow from 10 percent of the state’s population in 2000, to 16 percent of all Californians by 2050. The Bay Area is projected to gain about 3.5 million new residents by 2050, but its share of California’s population will drop to 17 percent, from 20 percent in 2000, an analysis of new state Department of Finance projections shows.

This is something important for political groups to internalize.  The traditional structure of Democratic election efforts has been to raise turnout in LA and SF, and hope to do half-decent everywhere else, and walk away a winner.  That’s not going to work as we go forward.  With 1 in 6 Californians living in places like Modesto and Fresno and Stockton and Bakersfield and Merced and the numerous towns throughout the San Joaquin Valley, Democrats must build and grow their presence outside of the urban metropolises, to a level where they were in the recent past before giving up practically all of that ground to the Republicans.

Some stats on the flip:

Here’s the spread of population in 2000:

Coastal Southern California: 47%
Bay Area: 20%
Central Valley: 10%
Inland Empire: 10%
Other (High Desert, Sierras): 13%

Here’s the projections for 2050:

Coastal Southern California: 39%
Bay Area: 17%
Central Valley: 16%
Inland Empire: 14% (3x the size in 50 years!)
Other (High Desert, Sierras): 14%

The “big 2” go from 67% of the population to 56%.  That’s significant in a statewide election.  It will also likely affect reapportionment, with the Bay Area potentially losing seats in Congress or the state legislature as early as the 2010 Census.

We have to start thinking about this and planning now.  What are the concerns of the Central Valley?  Obviously agriculture and water concerns would weigh heavily, one would think, but the Valley is also urbanizing and developing rapidly.  These aren’t all cow towns anymore; there are at least 5 cities with over 100,000 inhabitants.  The San Joaquin Valley is also the primary oil-producing region in our state.  Culturally this is likely to be a more classically Western libertarian area.

We have a 3-2 deficit among the Congressional delegation in this area.  Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa are Democrats, and George Radanovich, Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes are Republicans.  By 2050 there could be up to 10 seats in this region.  Are Cardoza and Costa helping grow the Democratic brand in the Central Valley?  Are they promoting policies that can help Democrats win?  This is a diverse area as well, with not just Hispanics but lots of Asian and European communities.  How are they being served?

I hope people are asking these questions.  The Central Valley could hold the key to continued Democratic dominance in California.

UPDATE: Here’s an example of a Central Valley issue that simply doesn’t get a lot of attention.  From our friends at the California Teachers Association:

The California Teachers Association is part of a coalition of education groups fighting Assembly Bill 1403 that is winding its way through the legislature. The bill would disrupt implementation of a new law helping schools of greatest need in the Central Valley and take control away from local school boards to help improve student learning in their districts. 

AB 1403 by Assemblyman Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, gives the Fresno and Tulare county superintendents authority over local schools and districts that do not meet the state Academic Performance Index (API) or the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements.  Currently the local school boards, State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education have these powers. The bill also disrupts new efforts already under way to help 39 schools of greatest need in these counties as part of the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA). QEIA, sponsored last year by CTA, provides $2.9 billion over seven years to help hundreds of schools across the state with proven intervention reforms such as reducing class sizes, hiring more counselors and providing quality training for teachers and principals.

This is kind of Antonio Villaraigosa’s school takeover effort, ported into the Central Valley.  I would think that Democrats could earn a lot of goodwill among the grassroots in Fresno and Tulare by scuttling this effort to centralize control in the county superintendents.  Maybe a Central Valley reader could give their impression of this issue; to me it seems like a no-brainer to let the schools determine what’s best for their schools and their students.

Brian has a post on the latest budget news below.  I have coverage of this move over at Working Californians, but want to delve more into the politics of what is going on here.

I admit it, the factors at play in the budget battle are fascinating to me.  They tell the story of the state of the California legislature so well and it’s relationship with the governor.  Plus, the dysfunctional rules that the legislature operates under.

There are three sides in this fight. First you have the governor, who is more wrapped up in his public image and travels than actually governing.  However, it’s not like he is that relevant.  His working relationship with the Republicans has so soured that he cannot, through the sheer force of personality, peel enough of them off to pass a budget.

Last year it was different.  The governor managed to convince the Republicans (the second side) to play ball, in part because he needed a well oiled legislature and the appearance of bi-partisanship to smooth his path to election.  So, while many principled Republicans objected to the budget, the Republican leadership cleared the way for the budget’s passage, bringing along the right number of votes.  This lead directly to the installation of new Republican leaders, ones who vowed that they would not cow to Arnold’s demands.  They were elected to their positions with the express purpose to ensure that the Republicans in the legislature were not irrelevant.  They practically promised that the budget would be much more difficult to pass this year. 

It has been, but that is due in part to slightly weakened finances.  There just is not as much money as there was last year.  Thus the fight.  The actual places where the government can make cuts is severely limited, because of predetermined funding paths for many programs.  These formulas guarantee funding, but it also increases the pressure on the programs not subject to these rules in a time of budgetary pressure.

Now, Arnold is fairly absent, in part because his presence really would not do much good.  He has little leverage over the Republicans.  Arnold does not want to relive the 2005 Special election.  He avoided cutting funds for education and public safety, because he knew that that old battle would get waged again.  He already lost it once and probably would end up with the same result.  Plus, he is trying to work with those groups in a consensus manner, not a big public dispute.  Instead of cutting their funding, he decided to go after the poor, elderly and children.  That is a new fight, if an unpopular one.

The Democrats (in the third and final side) have the upper-hand here, but the limitations of the state constitution mean that they cannot dictate the entire budget.  They need two Republican Senators and six Assemblymembers to vote for the budget.  Unlike just about every other state in the nation, our budget must be passed with a 2/3rds majority.  This is one of the few times when they do need to strike a deal with the Republicans. 

However, they do have the advantage of having the public support for funding schools, the poor, those on welfare, children and public service.  The scope of the problem is simply not big enough to be able to justify the cuts.  The two sides are only about $2 billion apart.  It is very hard for the Republicans to credibly argue to the public that our state’s finances are so bad that they need to cut these beloved programs.

This dynamic set up the current Democratic strategy.  The leadership is continuing to negotiate in private, but they are taking very public actions to try and increase the pressure on the Republicans to cave.  They started a fairly low level push to try and get the Republicans to actually submit programs to cut.  The blogs were used to push that message and get the reporters to start asking questions.  At the same time Nunez scheduled a vote on the budget to show the public that it was not the Democrats who were holding up the process.  Even if it never occurred, it got the message out there.  Meanwhile, the Republicans finally laid out their cuts, but in secret.  That was then mocked, creating the impression that they were scared to expose them in public.  This started a narrative about them, before we knew what they actually were. 

Then came today’s news about education cuts.  The Democratic leaders went to what is arguably the most powerful coalition of issue based groups to inform them about the Republican’s plans.  They could have exposed other proposed cuts to a different set of groups, but I suspect the cuts were not as large, nor those groups as effective at mobilization than the education community.  They can now continue this tact with every single interest group community effected by the proposed cuts.  The groups put outside pressure on the negotiations and drive news coverage of the stalemate.  The effectiveness of this strategy rests on the knowledge that the public supports the Democrats on the issues.  Absent that and there is no point in raising the profile of the fight and driving down the legislature’s approval ratings due to the acrimony.  The lessons of 2005 are still out there.