SF perspective on visiting other places (vs, relocation, area)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

In the Bay Area people don't obsess about LA like Chicagoans do about NYC, but any time LA comes up everyone goes "haha, LA? LA sucks! Haha!"

In LA people are so unaware about anything north of Ventura that they just don't care, except about the Giants. Most people here who aren't brain dead Fox drones like SF a lot since it's an actual city.

LA doesn't care what we think because everyone hates on LA. Nothing new to them. There's an equal amount of LA bashing in San Diego.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

LA doesn't care what we think because everyone hates on LA. Nothing new to them. There's an equal amount of LA bashing in San Diego.

Life's too short to worry about haters. Dealing with living in LA doesn't allow one the luxury of wasting energy on such people.

[Isebiel]

I think there might be something more universal happening. If a city does some particular thing exceptionally well, it's really easy to slip -- even inadvertently, through commentary -- into criticizing other locations who aren't doing that thing well. Especially if you start out in some unexceptional location, where everything is done to minimum requirements. It's striking to see what can be accomplished when people really care to do a good job.

I know I was insufferable about trains for a long time after coming back from Tokyo. And after visiting Portland, no place else seems to understand pedestrians. NYC really does have fantastic diversity. And San Francisco has the best garbage handling in the US.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

t


I think most people are just annoyed with the brain dead voters in socal, and the awful politicians they vote for, who ruin the state.

Not an SFer, but if LA went to Mexico, I would not miss the city at all.

Now that's funny since the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and both federal Senators are from San Francisco/the Bay Area and the President Pro Tem of the state senate is from Sacramento and you're blaming bad governance on SoCal.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Now that's funny since the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and both federal Senators are from San Francisco/the Bay Area and the President Pro Tem of the state senate is from Sacramento and you're blaming bad governance on SoCal.

It's a NorCal thing. They do it down there, too, but it's something of a reflex up here. Really funny when transplants start doing it.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Now that's funny since the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and both federal Senators are from San Francisco/the Bay Area and the President Pro Tem of the state senate is from Sacramento and you're blaming bad governance on SoCal.

None of those people(sans stienberg) would have been elected had it not been for the voters of so cal. Hell Kamala Harris actually had a lot of people not voting for her in Nor Cal, because they knew how bad of a DA she was in Frisco.

Same goes for the Governator. I remember driving down to smell-a back in 04 or so during the Kerry -Bush election. People had "Viva Bush" bumper stickers. Course they were all high from the RE boom and thought they were rich, but still that in and of itself should be grouds for banishment to Mexico. And I say this as a fairly moderate righty.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

None of those people(sans stienberg) would have been elected had it not been for the voters of so cal. Hell Kamala Harris actually had a lot of people not voting for her in Nor Cal, because they knew how bad of a DA she was in Frisco.

And none of those people would have ever been on the statewide ballot if they had not be elected to an office in Northern CA by NorCal voters to begin with. Not sure how you can blame SoCal for CA's problems when the state legislature is currently dominated by Northern Ca politicians.

Also Kamala Harris only won 2 counties in SoCal and every single coastal Northern CA County including all Bay Area counties. She won by at least 10 percentage points in all Bay Area counties and got 71% of the vote in SF.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by sav858

And none of those people would have ever been on the statewide ballot if they had not be elected to an office in Northern CA by NorCal voters to begin with. Not sure how you can blame SoCal for CA's problems when the state legislature is currently dominated by Northern Ca politicians.

Also Kamala Harris only won 2 counties in SoCal and every single coastal Northern CA County including all Bay Area counties. She won by at least 10 percentage points in all Bay Area counties and got 71% of the vote in SF.

Most of inland Northern California rejected Harris, she could not even carry the liberal strong hold of Sacto (the same place that spawned STIENBERG). Winning the entire bay area still leaves nearly 50% of the northern california population. And Harris did not win every single northern coastal county.


Harris carried LA county. Which pretty much means more than 25% of the states voting block alone. Simply carrying LA county alone is worth more than the entire bay area.

I don't care where the politicians are from, just because they are from the bay area does not mean people HAVE to elect them. We sure as hell did not, out here in my neck of the woods.

Southern Califrnian's made a choice to be dominated by the bay area politicos. But that's the way it has always been since I've been here. Northern California does the thinking, So cal sits around and looks pretty.

I suppose it is for the best. Well, as long as you don't ask a farmer who can't farm cause some d-bag in so cal needs a green lawn.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Most of inland Northern California rejected Harris, she could not even carry the liberal strong hold of Sacto (the same place that spawned STIENBERG). Winning the entire bay area still leaves nearly 50% of the northern california population. And Harris did not win every single northern coastal county.

My mistake, she didn't win tiny Del Norte County and its whopping 8,000 votes. And she lost Sac County by a mere 1.5% (6,000 votes).

I don't care where the politicians are from, just because they are from the bay area does not mean people HAVE to elect them. We sure as hell did not, out here in my neck of the woods.

Okay, still pretty dumb to blame SoCal voters though when these politicans got a their start and continued on due to Northern CA voters. Clearly it's more of a coastal vs inland divide than north south.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by sav858

My mistake, she didn't win tiny Del Norte County and its whopping 8,000 votes. And she lost Sac County by a mere 1.5% (6,000 votes).
Okay, still pretty dumb to blame SoCal voters though when these politicans got a their start and continued on due to Northern CA voters. Clearly it's more of a coastal vs inland divide than north south.

Well to be fair, most far nothern coastal counties have small populations, so no need to get snippy. You were the one trying to make it sound like carrying sparsely populated coastal counties was significant.


Losing Sacramento county is pretty huge considering how reliable they are for the democratic party.

I don't see why you care where these politicians start. George Bush got his start in Texas, but I'm not going to blame the state of Texas for the millions of people who voted for him.

Same goes for bay area politicos, sure they got their start in the bay. And that is where they belong, not on the state platform, IMO.

Not sure I agree on the coastal inland divide, given AG and Gubernatorial, Lt. Gubernatorial of 2010, Prop 8, 2010 house of reps election, prop 19, prop 21, etc.

Coastal/inland divide is an extremely simplisitc way at looking at the complicated realm of California politics. California state elections, November 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia