A common explanation [1] is that California turned deep blue after Prop 187 passed. The only thing to be explained is Schwarzenegger's election, and that was a rather weird one. (Plus, he's an immigrant and not a typical Republican.)

But not everyone buys this. Another explanation is just that California is 38% non-hispanic white and falling. [2][3]

[1] http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2013/10/17/prop187effect...

[2] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/california-and...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California

People seem to forget Schwarzenegger's election was really weird being a recall and having so many people on the ballot. And he is a very large celebrity. After that, the incumbent almost always wins.

Schwarzenegger would never have made it through a GOP primary. He was only elected because of Issa's pointless recall election of Gray Davis during the energy crisis which was actually a result of Pete Wilson's deregulation of the CA energy grid at the behest of Enron.

Looking backwards, there was little difference between Davis and Schwarzenegger.

>I've always wondered why California keeps electing conservative governors

This is also true for Massachusetts. The people are smart enough to know party doesn't matter, but the person's ideals and what they have to offer. Also not all the people who vote for President will vote in local elections.

People in Massachusetts see a Republican governor as a check on the power of the Democratic legislature.

> I've always wondered why California keeps electing conservative governors like Reagan and Schwarzenegger while always voting for Democratic Presidents

Bear in mind that a conservative running for President has to turn out conservatives in Ohio and conservatives in Florida.

There are issues on which California voters are conservative (or at least, favor positions usually held by Republicans - not quite the same thing but I won't quibble). We just voted again in favor of the death penalty, for instance.

Conservatives running in only California get to tailor their message to those issues, while on other issues being willing to compromise or even genuinely differing with other Republicans (see Schwarzenegger on climate, for instance).

>always wondered why California keeps electing conservative governors like Reagan and Schwarzenegger

Because the state's demographics and industry changed...? California was hardly a liberal bastion before it became solidly blue on the national level in 1992.

Even then Schwarzenegger was hardly a conservative compared to national Republicans even in 2003. And he pivoted even further left before his 2006 re-election bid.

Schwarzenegger pivoted left after the 2005 special election initiatives went down in flames. Then he hired a lesbian Democratic chief of staff who worked with the legislature. The result was a decent centrist administration and his solar initiatives. Later, Californians gave Brown supermajorities in both houses as the state pivoted left.

California has no electoral college, so conservative voices aren't muted in state elections as they are in Presidential elections (but they're still a minority in the coastal counties).

I don't understand this. For both the California vote in the presidential vote the winner for state-wide elections (i.e. senate and governor) it is winner takes all.

Where you could see the difference would be in the California assembly and senate and at the federal level in the House of Representatives since that depends on how districts are defined.

> But they're still a minority's in the coastal counties.

I.e. Where the people actually live. The only real big metropolitan area that isn't coastal is Sacramento.

No state uses an electoral college to elect governors.