Even more dramatically, the sun should starting setting in the S or SSW. This doesn't happen, of course. Am I misinterpreting the bi-polar model or does this show the bi-polar model can't be right? (I found an old topic on this subject that didn't address this question, and rather than dredge that one up, I started a new topic. I trust that's okay.)
Yes, just like al globelings don't understand FET, you're misinterpreting this bi-polar model, because you hugely underestimated your problem.
As you know the earth is divided into 360 meridians, or 24 sections of 15 meridians (1 section of 15° for each hour of the day). These 24 sections are visible on the Bi-polar map with the curved vertical lines.
So every hour the sun moves 15 meridians or 15° west. (Or 1 vertical line on this bi-polar map)
What also is common knowledge is that London GB (Greenwich Park) is located on the Prime meridian, and that when it is midday in London, the sun is above the Prime Meridian:
Also common knowledge is that the time difference between London and Southern California (Los Angeles) is 8 hours; LA is 8 hours behind London. When it is 07.00 h in LA, it is 15.00 h in London and the sun has moved to 45° west:
That's about sunrise in California, visible in the SSE.
Five hours later it will be midday in LA, and the sun has moved another 75° to the west:
From that moment on, the sun will maybe move a little more to the west (from your point of view) but after 13.00 h LA time the sun will start moving back to the east, and around 16.00 h it will get very dark and cold in California, because in the afternoon the sun will move very fast away from LA in SSE direction:
At the time of California sunset, the sun is back above your South East horizon, visible in almost the same direction where it appeared in the morning:
If this does not match your observations of a winter sunset in Southern California, then somehow you do not understand FET, and you should ask a bi-polar map specialist to explain it to you.
Merry Christmas!