Neither NY nor CA is as blue as everybody seems to think.
I think regional attitudes and the "type of republican/democrat" that tend to go along with that region tend to play a factor as well.
...that's why there's sometimes very differing outcomes between Federal and City/State level elections. People may for republican governors/mayors, but not the same type of republican that would run, in say, a place like Alabama.
In terms of overall attitudes, I'd say states like CA are quite liberal in comparison to other pockets of the country.
I mocked up this little spectrum in paint to highlight why I think that tends to happen for another thread.
If the democrats run Mark and republicans run David, democrats can steal a lot of red votes in a federal election. However, if they run Ted, the west coast and New England Republicans will still with their own party most likely.
For instance, while Kevin Faulconer is the republican mayor of San Diego, he'd have a hard time fitting in with his party at a federal level I would think.
While he's fiscally conservative in many ways, I can't imagine republicans in the deep south going for him being pro-choice, pro-LGBT, heading up climate change initiatives, in favor of gun control.
I think he'd end up being regarded as basically "A democrat who likes lower taxes" by the federal level republicans.
I think in the more ideologically-strong (for lack of a better term) areas of the country on either side, the opposition can just be more ideologically nuanced or moderate and be considered as "the other party" even if they don't line up with the national party's agenda all that much.
I think it's probably fair to say that Kevin Faulconer (as a "California Republican") is probably further left on the spectrum (as people see it through national-level optics) than Doug Jones (as an "Alabama Democrat").
