.

Contra Costa Voted For President Obama By A Wide Margin

Lamorinda was solid for the president's re-election bid vs. Mitt Romney on the Nov. 6 ballot, but with a margin that had narrowed since Obama-vs.-John McCain four years ago.

The presidential contest was decisive in Contra Costa County, according to final figures released this week by the county registrar of voters.

President Barack Obama defeated Republican challenger Mitt Romney in every incorporated city.

In total, 442,143 Contra Costa voters cast ballots for president. Of those, 290,824 voted for Obama and 136,517 voted for Romney.

In 2008, Obama received the same strong support in Contra Costa County. The president received 260,238 votes to Republican nominee John McCain's 111,742.

Countywide, Obama widened the gap over his Republican challenger from 2008 to 2012. In Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda, Romney ran closer to the Democrat than John McCain did four years before.

This year, the president did well in Orinda, where he won 7,158 to 3,958 as 86 percent of registered Orindans cast their ballots in this past election.

In the town of Moraga, Obama beat Romney 5,244 to 3,487, with an 85 percent turnout.

Eighty-six percent of Lafayette voters went to the polls and cast 9,001 votes for Obama to 5,174 votes for Romney.

This year, in some cities (Danville and Clayton), Obama had what could only be described as a narrow victory. In others (Richmond and Martinez), the president trounced his opponent.

As expected, Obama did well in blue collar cities like Martinez (home to Democratic powerhouse Congressman George Miller), where the president received 11,641 to Romney’s 5,527, with an 80 percent turnout.

In 2008, Obama received 12,921 votes in Martinez compared to 5,625 for McCain.

This year, in Walnut Creek, the outcome was also decisive. Of the 36,755 votes cast (an 84 percent turnout), Obama received 22,918 votes to Romney’s 12,718.

In Concord, which had a 78 percent turnout, Obama won with 30,475 to Romney’s 14,621.

In Pleasant Hill, Obama beat Romney by more than 50 percent, garnering 10,746 votes to Romney’s 4,868.

In unincorporated areas of the county, a total of 43,026 voted for Obama and 25,247 voted for Romney.

All the other presidential candidates on the ballot received less than 4,000 votes each.

UPDATE: Here's the breakdown city-by-city along with a comparison of the 2008 vote for Obama with the 2012 vote.

2008 2012

Obama vote change

Obama McCain Obama Romney Antioch 68.5% 29.3% 70.5% 27.1% 2.0% Brentwood 56.7% 41.3% 53.9% 43.6% -2.8% Clayton 54.8% 43.3% 50.4% 47.4% -4.4% Concord 66.2% 31.4% 65.4% 31.4% -0.8% Danville 55.0% 43.4% 49.7% 48.3% -5.2% El Cerrito 84.9% 12.5% 85.0% 11.3% 0.1% Hercules 77.1% 21.5% 79.1% 19.0% 2.0% Lafayette 67.2% 30.5% 61.8% 35.5% -5.4% Martinez 67.7% 29.5% 65.5% 31.1% -2.3% Moraga 62.7% 35.1% 58.5% 38.9% -4.2% Oakley 60.8% 36.8% 60.1% 36.6% -0.7% Orinda 67.2% 30.7% 62.6% 34.6% -4.6% Pinole 71.9% 25.9% 73.7% 23.7% 1.8% Pittsburg 77.1% 21.0% 79.7% 18.3% 2.5% Pleasant Hill 69.1% 28.2% 66.3% 30.0% -2.8% Richmond 87.7% 10.5% 88.5% 9.0% 0.8% San Pablo 85.8% 12.2% 87.7% 10.2% 1.9% San Ramon 62.0% 36.1% 59.9% 37.9% -2.1% Walnut Creek 65.1% 32.7% 62.8% 34.8% -2.3% COUNTY 67.7% 30.1% 66.2% 31.1% -1.5%

This story originated on Martinez Patch.

terry December 05, 2012 at 12:24 AM
That's great...........now everyone that did should get a job and help pay for the debt that party continues to run up!
Lou December 05, 2012 at 04:39 AM
Guess you didn't get the memo, no need for everyone to get a job, just top earners. The Prez says the reason we rehired him is so he can tax these people to pay for pretty much everything.
c5 December 05, 2012 at 03:46 PM
the only problem being that when you tax something more, you get less of it...as will probably be the case at the federal level, and absolutely at the state level.
Informed Citizen December 05, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Precisely c5. England is a great example. Per Wall St. Journal Monday, in 2010, Gordon Brown pushed 20% tax hike on "Buffet-Income-Earners" (Million +). The net result in 2011 was that the U.K. government received 50% less in total tax revenues from that elite group of earners after the "soak-the-rich" tax law changes. Moreover, the number of families that reported income at that level was also cut in half. The left's obsession with tax hikes on the "rich" (Obama's target family of $250,000/yr AGI -- which is the top 2% of U.S. earners) is a complete distraction from our seemingly intractable problem of reckless spending. The media fails to even report: Even if the GOP house caves in completely to Obama's draconian tax hikes (which is looking more likely now) the extra $72 Billion in additional tax revenue collected next year will amount to less than 5% of Obama's proposed NEW debt spending, of $1.3 Trillion. Both parties are prepared to just pay lip service to spending cuts, just like Jerry Brown took away some cell phones and pretended to trim some pensions. (I'm sure his Administration knew that his public pension revisions this year would never stand review in the Courts; and now that a Contra Costa County Judge sided with the County Fire and Sheriff's union lawsuit to block the pension formula revisions, and granted an injunction to stop them, Brown's Attorney General Harris will faint and walk away from them.)
KAC December 05, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Pres. Obama wants a balanced approach, i.e. reduce spending and raise the top 2% to the same as it was during the Clinton era - but the funny thing is I don't recall this much whining and complaining back then. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Onions and Opinions Make You Cry December 05, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Haters gonna hate. My family had to eat at Boston Market for Thanksgiving because of you Contra Costa haters. - Signed, Mittens
BV December 05, 2012 at 07:26 PM
People are very happy to vote for others to pay taxes but are less enthusiastic when it comes to paying themselves. This is demonstrated with prop 30 and 38. 38 requires most everyone to dig in and pay additional income taxes while 30 only taxed a small number of higher earners. Result 38 fails …30 passes.
fredsbreakfast December 05, 2012 at 07:47 PM
There's no hope. Go here ~ www.seasteading.org
My Kids Dad December 06, 2012 at 04:09 AM
The whole article is about how obama improved from the last election, however as i read the statistics Romney votes increased 22% over McCain and Obama only up 11% and his percent of the vote also went down 1.5% while Romney increased by 1%. He still won, but i don't see the point of the story.
Onions and Opinions Make You Cry December 06, 2012 at 05:47 AM
According to my calendar the world ends in a few short days so what does any of this matter?
Informed Citizen December 07, 2012 at 08:44 PM
How are tax hikes with no meaningful spending cuts a "balanced approach"? Even if the GOP cave in to Obama's demands for significant tax increases to the top 2% of earners (which by the way are only upper middle class here in Bay Area, and include such folks as firemen and many police retirees!) that additional revenue next year will pay for less than 5% of Obama's proposed new Debt spending. Let me be specific about this, so you understand how unbalanced his approach is: Obama proposes $3.3 Trillion in spending next year. Of this, only about $2 Trillion is expected to be received in Revenues (all sources). So he's calling for another $1.3 Trillion in new Debt Spending to pile on top of our $16.1 Trillion in U.S. Debt. If his soak-the-"rich" election mantra goes into effect in 2013, it will generate a projected $71 Billion in new revenue; less than 5% of just the portion of Obama's budget that will be new deficit spending. How is this even nearly "balanced"? Besides, the top 2% of all U.S. earning families (Obama's target) already pay almost 50% of all personal income taxes collected. So making them pay even more will not nearly make a dent in all the reckless over-spending, but will serve to stifle consumer spending, employment growth, and true economic recovery - something which has not been experienced by most Americans. What it will do is just feed an irrational self-destructive populist jealous un-American fervor to punish the producers.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something