Why Do Large Cities Vote Democrat?

[suds101]

I know this sounds like a dumb question. The answer always seems to be because for the past few decades, African-American voters have predominantly voted for democrats(which is another thing I really do not understand). However, during that time, more and more Democrats have failed to make much improvement(please correct me if I am wrong). The few exceptions, such as New York, have experienced huge strides in cleaning up the streets and improving the economy.

I live in a very diverse north suburb of Chicago(Evanston) and after one of the most corrupt politicians I have seen, Cook County President Todd Stroger, was elected I have lost my faith that I will ever again see a Republican Judge or County president or Mayor in my lifetime in Chicago. Why is it that every time during an election, a Democrat is able to give the same speech he did last time about how much better he is than is out-of-touch Republican foe and will be able to improve the ailing education system, decrease crime and grow the economy. WHY? After failing so many times, why do cities like Baltimore, Detroit, LA and Chicago continue to vote Democrats in every area of local politics?

[liverleef]

Well I live in a large city and I always assumed that the reason why the city votes democrat is because of the large population of minorities and the strong presence of labor unions. There are two Ford plants and a huge UPS hub, both are unionized.

[Beerina]

Large cities = big swaths of old, cheaper housing = large numbers of people with a giant "L" on their forehead people down on their luck = people who gain proportionally more from government handouts in a tit-for-tat kickback scheme for politicians called the "vote", which would be illegal as corruption and bribery in smaller, which is to say, any other, industry.

[pgwenthold]

Large cities = big swaths of old, cheaper housing = large numbers of people with a giant "L" on their forehead people down on their luck = people who gain proportionally more from government handouts in a tit-for-tat kickback scheme for politicians called the "vote", which would be illegal as corruption and bribery in smaller, which is to say, any other, industry.

Yeah, that's probably the popular conception. Of course, it's probably not true (at least on the federal level; I was just reading a thread on that the other day - rural areas get a better return on their tax money than urban areas do)

[liverleef]

Large cities = big swaths of old, cheaper housing = large numbers of people with a giant "L" on their forehead people down on their luck = people who gain proportionally more from government handouts in a tit-for-tat kickback scheme for politicians called the "vote", which would be illegal as corruption and bribery in smaller, which is to say, any other, industry.

Well, there is some truth to this. Inner city residents often depend on some form of government assistance. Such programs tend to be sponsored by democrats.

[Dymanic]

I haven't delved deeply into the statistics, but some casual investigation suggests that there is a correlation between level of education and party affiliation, with better educated people being more likely to vote Democrat. Most of the career opportunities for those people are found in cities, and the real action tends to take place in large cities.

In short, one possible explanation is that the Republican party depends heavily on hordes of dumbass hicks.

[Tailgater]

I haven't delved deeply into the statistics, but some casual investigation suggests that there is a correlation between level of education and party affiliation, with better educated people being more likely to vote Democrat. Most of the career opportunities for those people are found in cities, and the real action tends to take place in large cities.

In short, one possible explanation is that the Republican party depends heavily on hordes of dumbass hicks.

Are you going to post your investigation?

[Dymanic]

Are you going to post your investigation?As my choice of words was intended to convey, it wasn't much. Here are a couple of the things I looked at:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2929364
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

[Darth Rotor]

Bribing the prols with the dole is a standard political habit. It is more efficient to distribute the dole in a densely populated area than in a dispersed area.

Not rocket science.

DR

[Cain]

People in urban areas tend to be more socially liberal minded: think about wealthy, economically conservative Republicans who tend to be more tolerant of gays, open in attitudes towards women, less enthusiastic about guns, and more open to choice. Rural areas tend to be more socially conservative. In terms of the economics, it's a lot more noisy. As noted, money flows from "blue" states to "red" states. But even if you break down a state like California, it's mostly red with a few blue dots, in the major cities, which tend to be more economically productive.

The parties are getting weirder in terms of education and income. You might want to think of the Democratic Party as having a much flatter bell curve. People who have not finished high school tend to vote Democratic. People who have Ph.Ds tend to vote Democratic. Last I checked, a college degree meant someone was slightly more likely to vote for a Republican for president than a Democrat (that might very well change this year). (You can see this in the second link in an above post.)

It was reporter a little while ago that Democrats, for the first time ever, had more support from people making over 100,000 dollars a year.

[PitPat]

This is a really interesting question to me. I don't have anything to empirically back this up, but I've always thought part of the phenomenon could be attributed to population density. Many people who live close together are forced to be more tolerant of each other than their more isolated counterparts. And this is reflected in political ideology (at least from a social liberal-conservative perspective). Though I'd probably agree that higher concentrations of education and wealth emblematic of large urban areas constitute a lion's share of the cause.

[WildCat]

I live in a very diverse north suburb of Chicago(Evanston) and after one of the most corrupt politicians I have seen, Cook County President Todd Stroger,
And Todd Stroger was endorsed by Obama btw... "change", yeah right!

How are things in the People's Republic of Evanston?

[Tony]

There tends to be more smart and educated people in the cities.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because we need to live in tall, ivory towers so that we can look down on the common folk while engaging in hedonistic orgies.

[Darth Rotor]

There tends to be more smart and educated people in the cities.
Even in Houston? :D

:duck:

DR

[Loss Leader]

Sanity.

[Darth Rotor]

Sanity.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lindsay)

DR

[Tricky]

Big cities are full of poor people. Big cities are full of minorities. Big cities are full of union workers. Big cities are full of gun crime. The Republican Party is notoriously and historically callous toward those people/problems. No big mystery.

[Uncle Effort]

Perhaps it's because those who live in the cities tend to get a better view of the down-side of "trickle-down" economics.

[fuelair]

I know this sounds like a dumb question. The answer always seems to be because for the past few decades, African-American voters have predominantly voted for democrats(which is another thing I really do not understand). However, during that time, more and more Democrats have failed to make much improvement(please correct me if I am wrong). The few exceptions, such as New York, have experienced huge strides in cleaning up the streets and improving the economy.

I live in a very diverse north suburb of Chicago(Evanston) and after one of the most corrupt politicians I have seen, Cook County President Todd Stroger, was elected I have lost my faith that I will ever again see a Republican Judge or County president or Mayor in my lifetime in Chicago. Why is it that every time during an election, a Democrat is able to give the same speech he did last time about how much better he is than is out-of-touch Republican foe and will be able to improve the ailing education system, decrease crime and grow the economy. WHY? After failing so many times, why do cities like Baltimore, Detroit, LA and Chicago continue to vote Democrats in every area of local politics?
Logic- the only reason the sticks (just descriptor, not meant for nastiness) don't right now is they are more worried (thanks to republicker lies to them and their fears of actual civilization) about their kids catchin' THE GAY and atheists forcing them to have abortions that they don't notice the sounds of the republickers they vote for laughing as they steal the land's (their)wealth.

[WildCat]

There tends to be more smart and educated people in the cities.
Any smart people are certainly not products of Dem-controlled and run big city school systems.

[peptoabysmal]

Big cities are full of poor people. Big cities are full of minorities. Big cities are full of union workers. Big cities are full of gun crime. The Republican Party is notoriously and historically callous toward those people/problems. No big mystery.

Well, except for the gun crime. We're for that you know :p
BTW I like ur new avatar :D

[balrog666]

There tends to be more smart and educated people in the cities.


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one!

[Tony]

Even in Houston? :D

:duck:

DR

Relatively speaking, I'd say so.

Houston Texas, home to Rice University. Glen Rose Texas, home to the Creation Evidence Museum.

[Tony]

Any smart people are certainly not products of Dem-controlled and run big city school systems.

Good point, all the smart people are products of creation teaching, jesus loving, science denying, history revisioning republican controlled school systems. They then move to the city, vote democrat and proceed to run crappy schools.


The world according to WildCat.

[WildCat]

Good point, all the smart people are products of creation teaching, jesus loving, science denying, history revisioning republican controlled school systems. They then move to the city, vote democrat and proceed to run crappy schools.


The world according to WildCat.
Maybe you should compare/contrast the Chicago Public School system with any school in Republican (mostly) DuPage County. My sister's kids go to school there, and I can assure you there is no creationism taught there, and the school ranks among the best in the country as far as academics go.

eta: The educated smart people who move to the city generally move out as soon as their kids reach school age, or send them to private schools if they can afford it.

[Whiplash]

I haven't delved deeply into the statistics, but some casual investigation suggests that there is a correlation between level of education and party affiliation, with better educated people being more likely to vote Democrat. Most of the career opportunities for those people are found in cities, and the real action tends to take place in large cities.

In short, one possible explanation is that the Republican party depends heavily on hordes of dumbass hicks.

This is just so rich.

Cities are the homes of hoards of uneducated poor (many of whom are dropouts, delinquents, and social parasites), and the Democrats have pandered to and enabled them for decades, buying their votes. There has never been an substantive attempt to lift these people up. Instead you take advantage of their ignornace on economics, social issues, racial issues, foreign policy, and everything else. They are the defintion of "useful idiots".

I seriously have a hard time believing that anyone on the left actually believes they have a monopoly on the intelligent. Every single day I see arguments from Democrats and left-leaning people that demonstrate a completely emotional and visceral reaction to events, rather than a substantive and logical examination of the facts and details surrounding them. So much of it is based on class envy and jelously and a sense of entitlement.

And people who live in rural areas are much more self-reliant, and understand the value of hard work and taking care of themselves, instead of counting on government to save them from themselves. Hence they vote Republican. Many of them are stupid as well, but they are at least able to take care of themselves. The left has created complete cultures of dependant people, and that is their power base.

[Dymanic]

And people who live in rural areas are much more self-reliant, and understand the value of hard work and taking care of themselves, instead of counting on government to save them from themselves.Despite your rather emotional and visceral reaction to my hypothesis, I see your logic, and I concede that you have a point here. The problem I see is that such people often tend to be concerned only with taking care of themselves -- but when we ask them to participate in the process by which political leaders are chosen, we're asking them to take care of much more than that. Their ignorance on matters like economics, social issues, and foreign policy can easily be exploited (this idea may sound familiar to you).

A recent joke comes to mind:

A TV news camera crew had recorded an interview with a customer standing at the sporting goods counter of a Montgomery Wal-Mart. When asked why he was trying to buy more ammo he stated “by God the Russians may have invaded Georgia, but they're never going to get Alabama.”

[Uncle Effort]

And people who live in rural areas are much more self-reliant, and understand the value of hard work and taking care of themselves, instead of counting on government to save them from themselves.

Are you joking. Haven't you heard of farm subsidies? Ever been to a town that used to have a lumber-mill or a have mine? Have you heard about the boom in Iowa due to the government push for ethanol? Rural people are some of biggest receivers of government assistance. And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that.

[fuelair]

Are you joking. Haven't you heard of farm subsidies? Ever been to a town that used to have a lumber-mill or a have mine? Have you heard about the boom in Iowa due to the government push for ethanol? Rural people are some of biggest receivers of government assistance. And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that.
Some people still fall for the old image of the countryside. There may have been periods as long as 15 or 20 years where they were accurate but that's about the best of it.

[BrianX]

I would guess that broadly speaking, Democrats tend to emphasize diversity and cooperation, while Republicans play on xenophobia and self-reliance. While someone living out in the country might naturally fear that which they have never experienced and take self-reliance as a matter of necessity, city-dwellers live shoulder-to-shoulder with people who often aren't very much like them, and if they haven't actually learned to be tolerant, at least know the benefits of keeping their xenophobia to themselves. It's something of a matter of perspective.

I think the real question is why are all the red states Republican when the vast bulk of them are debtor states to the Federal Government? If that proves anything, it proves that for the vast majority of conservatives, conservative economics is a sham.

[Just thinking]

I think there are 2 basic reasons for the question in the OP. First, as has been said my some already, there are large numbers of folks dependent on one form of government dependency or another, and look to who will hand them over more of the same. But that's also true of rural areas to a degree. The other thing I feel we have in large urban cities are groups of city dwellers (those that work and live in the city) with a sort of disconnect to the large picture. They never see the actual physical work needed to produce goods. The hard work needed to supply the electricity to light their businesses and apartments. How many actually go and look at the amount of resources this nation imports in order to meet their demands? I can go on with many more examples, but I think you see my point. We also see the same thing in similar environments, such as academia.

Many of us (OK, all of us) have seen political maps of the US state-by-state with each colored blue or red, showing how they vote. But have you ever looked at the same map county-by-county. Virtually all of the USA is red. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004_election_county-by-county/) Notice where the blue is.

[Cain]

Are you joking. Haven't you heard of farm subsidies? Ever been to a town that used to have a lumber-mill or a have mine? Have you heard about the boom in Iowa due to the government push for ethanol? Rural people are some of biggest receivers of government assistance. And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that.

Add to that rural electrification.

The city has more impersonal cooperation -- mass transit system, it's not likely you will know the name of the police officer to arrive on the scene, and so on. I had a friend who lived in NYC with his wife for five years and they never knew their neighbors' names. Also, cities do not necessarily always vote in Democrats (Giluiani in NYC, Richard Riordan in L.A.), but do they tend to be more moderate (such as Bloomberg, switching from Republican to independent). Cities deal with more practical collective action problems, so there's not much time for this rhetoric about how the "free market" will do everything for us. That's an abdication of responsibility.

Cities also attract a wide range of people, from the high income, well-educated, to the no-income, high-school dropout. Young white people are moving into cities more and more. Some people are predicting unwalkable suburbs are going to be the slums of the future, with heroin addicts holed up in abandoned tract housing.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Maybe you should compare/contrast the Chicago Public School system with any school in Republican (mostly) DuPage County. My sister's kids go to school there, and I can assure you there is no creationism taught there, and the school ranks among the best in the country as far as academics go.

eta: The educated smart people who move to the city generally move out as soon as their kids reach school age, or send them to private schools if they can afford it.

And this couldn't have anything to do with the way schools are funded, you know, the thing city Democrats are trying to change...

[tanabear]

I know this sounds like a dumb question. The answer always seems to be because for the past few decades, African-American voters have predominantly voted for democrats(which is another thing I really do not understand). However, during that time, more and more Democrats have failed to make much improvement(please correct me if I am wrong). The few exceptions, such as New York, have experienced huge strides in cleaning up the streets and improving the economy.

WHY? After failing so many times, why do cities like Baltimore, Detroit, LA and Chicago continue to vote Democrats in every area of local politics?

Benjamin Franklin in his, Observations concerning The Increase of Mankind gives us a hint,

"For People increase in Proportion to the Number of Marriages, and that is greater in Proportion to the Ease and Convenience of supporting a Family. When Families can be easily supported, more Persons marry, and earlier in Life."

What tends to make people more conservative? Getting married, having children and owning a home. People interested in doing these things will probably leave the cities for more family friendly surroundings. Those who remain in the cities tend to enjoy the single life more. Therefore, the Republican appeal to family values is going to have less sway with these voters.

Generally speaking, people are probably already aware of those patterns. However, the quantitative data has already been done by Steve Sailer, who shows us how important these variables are.

How important is the white fertility in determining whether a state went for Bush or Kerry? Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility and 25 out of the top 26. The sixteen states with the lowest white fertility, Kerry won. Sailer writes, "You could predict 74% of the variation in Bush's shares just from knowing each state's white fertility rate. When the average fertility goes up by a tenth of a child, Bush's share normally goes up by 4.5 points."

How important is marriage in explaining the difference between Red and Blue states? Bush carried the top 25 states ranked on years married for a white woman. If you add marriage and fertility you can explain with a high degree of confidence Bush's share of the vote,

When you add the marriage "factor together with fertility in a simple multiple regression model, you get an r-squared of 88%, which is bizarrely high. That means that if you have just these two demographic measures for each state (in fact, those just for the white residents, weirdly enough), you can come up with a model where only 12% of the variation in Bush's share is unaccounted for. And it worked almost as well in 2000."

The variation in housing prices also plays a large role in the Red/Blue divide.

This can help explain why California, once a strong Republican state, has slowly drifted to the left over the last couple of decades. Sailer writes, "As recently as 1990, non-Hispanic white women in California had higher fertility than in Texas, averaging 1.93 babies compared to Texas' 1.85. Over the next dozen years, though, California's white fertility rate dropped 14.4 percent to 1.65 babies." This compares to only a 1 percent drop in the white fertility rate nationally over the same period.

What caused so many people to flee the wonderful Mediterranean climate, the beautiful landscapes, and excellent living conditions of Southern California? Massive amounts of legal and illegal immigration. This drove up the cost of living, wrecked the public schools, increased crime, and drove the middle-class out. The extremely wealthy(i.e. white liberals) do okay in their gated communities and secure mansions. Now California seems to resemble the Latin American class structure, opposed to the traditional Anglo-American one.

So who destroyed the Republican Party in California? Ronald Reagan by supporting Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. George W. Bush has helped to finish California off as a Republican/Conservative state.

I wonder if this process will be repeated in other states? Are you listening Pat Curley(aka Brainster)???????

[Cain]

See, this is exactly what happens when we allow so many immigrants to come in and start breeding like crazy. We need more scientific racists like Steve Sailor.

California has bucked the national trend and seen crime rates go up since 1990? The liberal media was publicizing some crazy study that said alien crime was "a myth." Liars. California is so bad we even have an immigrant in the state's highest office, and even admits to using illegal drugs.

[Alex Libman]

Cities attract more collectivist individuals.

[stevea]

Ones party choice might reflect ones *opinion* of which federal policy is personally most beneficial, despite the realities. Many Western states for example receive more Federal tax dollars than are collected, yet vote Republican despite .. and vise-versa.

I'll further suggest that people who feel they do not control their own destiny are most likely to be approve of the socialisprogressive Democratic agenda, and this includes those on the dole and wage slaves even those with Ph.Ds.

I'd be very interested to see a breakdown of higher education degree specialization vs party affiliation.

Not related to the OP, but as income brackets increase from 20K to 100K percentage of Dems decline and percentage of Reps increase:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/813/gen-dems
In that same graph, although the population was Dem-leaning at each education category, the Dems have a 20pt lead among "HS or less" and only a 10 pt lead among "College grad". The Dems had a 13pt lead total in that poll. So the Dems seem to have have LESS average education and are less affluent on average, despite having more than half of the college grads and equal percentages of 100k+ earners. It's only in the totals where they look better (b/c there are more Dems), on average or per capita they are worse-off.

[stevea]

Cities attract more collectivist individuals.

I think the word is "trap" rather than "attract".

[Alex Libman]

They're free to leave at any time.

(That's right, even an Anarcho-Capitalist like me doesn't have a big problem with local municipal governments as long as there's free travel and unrestricted competition between them - which isn't the case right now.)

[GreyICE]

Any smart people are certainly not products of Dem-controlled and run big city school systems.

This is just so rich.

Cities are the homes of hoards of uneducated poor (many of whom are dropouts, delinquents, and social parasites), and the Democrats have pandered to and enabled them for decades, buying their votes. There has never been an substantive attempt to lift these people up. Instead you take advantage of their ignornace on economics, social issues, racial issues, foreign policy, and everything else. They are the defintion of "useful idiots".

I seriously have a hard time believing that anyone on the left actually believes they have a monopoly on the intelligent. Every single day I see arguments from Democrats and left-leaning people that demonstrate a completely emotional and visceral reaction to events, rather than a substantive and logical examination of the facts and details surrounding them. So much of it is based on class envy and jelously and a sense of entitlement.

And people who live in rural areas are much more self-reliant, and understand the value of hard work and taking care of themselves, instead of counting on government to save them from themselves. Hence they vote Republican. Many of them are stupid as well, but they are at least able to take care of themselves. The left has created complete cultures of dependant people, and that is their power base.
I just have to ask: Do any of you ignorant schmucks live in a city?

Whiplash, by your third paragraph you're deep into self-parody.

[Tony]

Whiplash, by your third paragraph you're deep into self-parody.

Dude. His whole post is self parody. Seriously, it is a perfect example of someone detached from reality.

[WildCat]

And this couldn't have anything to do with the way schools are funded, you know, the thing city Democrats are trying to change...
Since I know you live in Chicago, do you think that the Dems who run Chicago's priority has been education? There seems to be unlimited money available for street median landscaping, a $500 million park, armies of patronage hires who do nothing, tax breaks for big businesses (Boeing really needed those millions!) and the absolute worst and most egregious example is the proliferation of TIF districts which have sprouted up like mushrooms under the Daley admin.

Do you understand how the TIF districts work TB? How they siphon money away from schools and into the pockets of developers and political insiders? The Chicago Reader has done an excelent series of articles on them over the last several years, archived here: http://www.chicagoreader.com/tifarchive/

I suggest you read them and then tell me with a straight face that lack of money is the problem rather than diversion of that money for other things.

The fact is, Chicago is a much wealthier place than DuPage county with an enormous tax base. The issue isn't lack of money, but priorities. And those priorities sure don't involve improving public education but with increasing political power.

[WildCat]

I just have to ask: Do any of you ignorant schmucks live in a city?
:rolleyes:

[WildCat]

http://www.chicagoreader.com/tifarchive/
A short excerpt from one of those articles (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3993329):

As many readers know, when a TIF district is created it freezes the amount of property taxes the schools, parks, county, and other agencies can take from that area for 23 years, diverting any revenue from increased property values or new development into a fund overseen by the city. As costs rise while revenue remains fixed, the schools, parks, county, etc, have to raise their tax rates to compensate for the money going into the TIFs. From Daley’s standpoint, the beauty of the program is that other taxing bodies do the heavy lifting while he controls the cash. And because TIF funds aren’t included in the city’s annual budget or broken down on tax bills, he can act like they don’t exist. Last year Daley stated in his annual budget address that he was levying about $720 million in property taxes. In fact, as the new figures show, the city extracted more than $1.2 billion.

According to Orr’s report, TIFs swallowed more than $500 million in 2006. That’s up almost 30 percent from the roughly $387 million collected in 2005. And while the coffers expand—the 2007 take should easily exceed $600 million—the mayor’s new budget hits us with a property tax increase of $83.4 million next year.
$600 million translates to over $1,400 per Chicago Public School student that will never be available for education.

Go Chicago Democrats! Keep voting for them!

Of course, when you keep the population ignorant and dependent it makes it much easier to pull off stuff like this. You'll never fit an anti-TIF argument on a bumper sticker, or frame it in a way a typical CPS parent (who likely attended a CPS school themselves) will understand.

[WildCat]

And btw, Chicago spends $10,555 per pupil (http://www.cps.k12.il.us/AtAGlance.html), several thousand more than the state average. Why they can't manage a decent school system with that amount of money available is beyond me. I'd bet there's lots of waste there, and lots of jobs filled with political hacks rather than concerned educators.

Maybe it's just as well so much is siphoned off by the TIFs, just more good money to throw in after bad.

Go big-city Dems!

[suds101]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-meeks-boycottsep02,0,3288534.story

This is great. So instead of urging students to attend the first day of class, Rev. Meeks is sending loads of students and parents to suburban New Trier to protest the huge disparity in school funding.

"New Trier spent more than $17,000 per student in 2005-06, while Chicago schools spent an estimated $10,400 per student."

However, New Trier residents pay much more than twice of what Chicago parents do on absurd real estate taxes and New Trier resident's money also goes into Chicago schools whereas New Trier does not receive funding from Chicago. I am not sure what Rev. Meeks is trying to accomplish here but this is yet another example of Liberal leader trying to put the blame on lack of funding or not high enough taxes.

[Beerina]

I haven't delved deeply into the statistics, but some casual investigation suggests that there is a correlation between level of education and party affiliation, with better educated people being more likely to vote Democrat. Most of the career opportunities for those people are found in cities, and the real action tends to take place in large cities.

In short, one possible explanation is that the Republican party depends heavily on hordes of dumbass hicks.


One could also argue the "better educated" are feeling guilt they want to assuage via other people's money.

The narrative is that these people are "down" because of no fault of their own. Elitism, racism, nobody caring to teach life skills, how to run a business, whatever.

So throw money at 'em, then head to the coffee shoppe for a latte and a ham on cheese prosciutto y gruyère on focaccia with one o' dem olive oil dippin' plates an olive oil accoutrement.

"Ummm, is your olive oil first cold press?"

"Yes, sir. It's the best money can buy*."





* For $2.99 per gallon.

[Shalamar]

Many of us (OK, all of us) have seen political maps of the US state-by-state with each colored blue or red, showing how they vote. But have you ever looked at the same map county-by-county. Virtually all of the USA is red. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004_election_county-by-county/) Notice where the blue is.

Interesting trend. How long before the USA becomes, essentially, a one-party state?

[Random]

Many of us (OK, all of us) have seen political maps of the US state-by-state with each colored blue or red, showing how they vote. But have you ever looked at the same map county-by-county. Virtually all of the USA is red. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004_election_county-by-county/) Notice where the blue is.

These maps are highly misleading and can lead someone to conclude that conservative support is much higher nationwide that it actually is. States and counties with a lot of surface area but a small, thinly spread population can appear to be “larger” than a county with more people in a more centralized area.

It also shows Bush and Kerry/Gore support as a basic red or blue. If one county gave 51% of its vote to Bush, it is red. If another county with the same population gave 99% of its support to Kerry, it is blue. Combined, the voters of these areas would have voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, but on the map, it would look like a “tie”.

You can find a more accurate collection of maps here (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election), with a county by county map with a red/blue shading in each area adjusted by proportion of vote, and the physical size of each county adjusted proportionately to population. (It is second from the bottom and looks like alien vomit)

[Thunder]

People in big cities tend to be more educated and advanced.

=)

[Dymanic]

One could also argue the "better educated" are feeling guilt they want to assuage via other people's money.You may be on to something here. It's hard to stay focused on short-term self-interest with guilt whispering in your ear. Republicans long ago mastered the fine art of guilt-free allocation of other people's money, and they do it proudly, knowing that instead of squandering it on useless trivialities like education, they've gotten real value for those dollars -- you know, like the half a trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war.

[drainbread]

In short, one possible explanation is that the Republican party depends heavily on hordes of dumbass hicks.

Kiss my redneck ass!

[Beerina]

You may be on to something here. It's hard to stay focused on short-term self-interest with guilt whispering in your ear. Republicans long ago mastered the fine art of guilt-free allocation of other people's money, and they do it proudly, knowing that instead of squandering it on useless trivialities like education, they've gotten real value for those dollars -- you know, like the half a trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war.

Apparently you missed my point. Heave money, we're done, let's go to the coffee shop.

As has been pointed out in Chicago, money is hardly the solution.

[Dymanic]

Apparently you missed my point. Heave money, we're done, let's go to the coffee shop.

As has been pointed out in Chicago, money is hardly the solution.

I take it you do not concur with WildCat's analysis of the situation in Chicago. What DO you see as the solution, if not money?

[PixyMisa]

Interesting trend. How long before the USA becomes, essentially, a one-party state?
Won't happen. The two major parties are really more like coalitions, and tend to reform and shift position so as to be more-or-less evenly balanced. If something drastic happens, one of the parties will fracture, and after a few election cycles, you'll be back where you started.

This is pretty much built in to the way voting is laid out in the Constitution. Makes it terribly hard for third parties, but avoids some of the weirdness you get in parliamentary systems, which sometimes factionalise into a swarm of tiny single-issue parties in constantly changing coalitions.

[Tony]

Kiss my redneck ass!

Not only are they dumb. They're also mutated.

The specimen above appears to have developed a "neck ass". This individual's is red. What is the function of this neck ass? And how did it evolve? Scientists will be searching for these answers decades to come.

[Shalamar]

Interesting Views.

The Liberal View of why Large Cities vote Democratic:
"Large cities are where the best paying jobs tend to be. So the best, brightest, and well educated will go to the cities. And they vote Democrat."

The Conservative view of why large cities vote democratic:
"Large cities are where the poor, and the leeches of society congregate. Since that is where they cxan get the best handouts, and Liberals like to take money from hand working americans and give it to the welfare cases, they will go to the cities and vote democratic to continue to get free money."

The Liberal View on why rural areas vote Republican:
"Rural Areas are full of uneducated rednecks who don't know better. They just want their guns and Jesus. Sinec these areas trend to be sparsely populated, they can hole up there."

The Conservate view on why rural areas vote Republican:
"Rural Areas are where the true hard working Americans live. They run the farms, logging, mining and such not that the rest of the country needs. They would never accept a dime from the public coffers, and sacrifice a great deal for the betterment of the country."

Did I miss anything?

[drainbread]

Not only are they dumb. They're also mutated.

The specimen above appears to have developed a "neck ass". This individual's is red. What is the function of this neck ass? And how did it evolve? Scientists will be searching for these answers decades to come.


I have only one thing to say to you...









lulz

[GreyICE]

Interesting Views.

The Liberal View of why Large Cities vote Democratic:
"Large cities are where the best paying jobs tend to be. So the best, brightest, and well educated will go to the cities. And they vote Democrat."

The Conservative view of why large cities vote democratic:
"Large cities are where the poor, and the leeches of society congregate. Since that is where they cxan get the best handouts, and Liberals like to take money from hand working americans and give it to the welfare cases, they will go to the cities and vote democratic to continue to get free money."

The Liberal View on why rural areas vote Republican:
"Rural Areas are full of uneducated rednecks who don't know better. They just want their guns and Jesus. Sinec these areas trend to be sparsely populated, they can hole up there."

The Conservate view on why rural areas vote Republican:
"Rural Areas are where the true hard working Americans live. They run the farms, logging, mining and such not that the rest of the country needs. They would never accept a dime from the public coffers, and sacrifice a great deal for the betterment of the country."

Did I miss anything? The part where the poor dumb uneducated leeches are giving their money to the hard working miners who would never take a dime from public coffers.

Reality and its well known liberal bias again...

[WildCat]

I take it you do not concur with WildCat's analysis of the situation in Chicago. What DO you see as the solution, if not money?
If you read my posts, you'd see that the Dems are siphoning money away from the schools to put in the pockets of the politically connected through the TIF districts even as they complain about lack of money. Meanwhile, Chicago spent $11,300 per pupil last year according to this article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h25Dp22bLwMyo-g2MUiwq4f6qX0wD92UPD280). Is that really not enough? Really?

Do you really think throwing more money at this will fix the problem? Been there and done that. The Chicago Teacher's Union assured us things would change if they just got more money and smaller classes, they got both and we still can't educate children in this city. Class sizes are now <20 per class, hardly an overcrowded situation.

The problem is management - and the placing of the politically connected into positions where the criteria ought to be competence and results. But like everything else the Dems do in this city politics and power are priority #1, everything else be damned.

Barack Obama showed he was a willing participant in this philosophy when he endorsed the pathetic joke named Todd Stroger for Cook County Board President last year. A choice of patronage and machine politics over the welfare of the county and its citizens.

Go big city Dems! Maybe there will be a cabinet position in the Obama Admin. for a Daley and other Chicago machine politicians, because Washington needs a good dose of what we have to suffer through here!

[WildCat]

Anyway, I can sum up the answer to the thread title in 3 words - bread and circuses.

[WildCat]

BTW, anyone notice this bit in the story I linked (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h25Dp22bLwMyo-g2MUiwq4f6qX0wD92UPD280)?

Chicago Public Schools spent $11,300 per student last year. New Trier High School spent $17,500 a student, near the top in the state.

Peggy Richmond, who accompanied her 12-year-old granddaughter Skyler Williams on the boycott, said she was forced to enroll Skyler in a private school because of the poor quality of the public schools in her Chicago neighborhood.

"I'm still angry," she said of having to pay $650 a month in tuition to ensure her granddaughter gets a good education.
$650/month for 9 months = $5,850 per pupil per school year. Half of what the CPS spends, and with far, far better results.

[Dymanic]

If you read my posts, you'd see that the Dems are siphoning money away from the schools to put in the pockets of the politically connected through the TIF districts even as they complain about lack of money.As you clearly seem to have investigated to much greater depth than I have, I'm tentatively willing to accept your analysis that the problem is not money, but management. Am I mistaken in assuming that you do not object to the idea of Tax Increment Financing in principle, but only with the way it is practiced (in Chicago)? As an alternative to federal funding, the idea seems like one which even a conservative might be able to embrace. I imagiine that we could probably agree that money IS required in order to educate children, that it has to come from somewhere, and that in order to do any good, it needs to be properly managed. But I'm not entirely clear on what serves as the basis for the statement "we still can't educate children in this city". Against the background provided by the disastrous NCLB policy, that might be tricky to assess.

[Morrigan]

Interesting Views.

The Liberal View of why Large Cities vote Democratic:
"Large cities are where the best paying jobs tend to be. So the best, brightest, and well educated will go to the cities. And they vote Democrat."

The Conservative view of why large cities vote democratic:
"Large cities are where the poor, and the leeches of society congregate. Since that is where they cxan get the best handouts, and Liberals like to take money from hand working americans and give it to the welfare cases, they will go to the cities and vote democratic to continue to get free money."

The Liberal View on why rural areas vote Republican:
"Rural Areas are full of uneducated rednecks who don't know better. They just want their guns and Jesus. Sinec these areas trend to be sparsely populated, they can hole up there."

The Conservate view on why rural areas vote Republican:
"Rural Areas are where the true hard working Americans live. They run the farms, logging, mining and such not that the rest of the country needs. They would never accept a dime from the public coffers, and sacrifice a great deal for the betterment of the country."

Did I miss anything?

:newlol Brilliant summary of this thread. And you know what, I think there's a bit of truth in all of these point of views (just a bit, mind you).

Nominated, btw.

[Just thinking]

These maps are highly misleading and can lead someone to conclude that conservative support is much higher nationwide that it actually is. States and counties with a lot of surface area but a small, thinly spread population can appear to be “larger” than a county with more people in a more centralized area.

Not misleading at all .... in fact, more on the order of how the founding fathers believed the electoral college is needed in order to offset your point (or the link's you supplied). The assumption is that population alone is what should determine an election --- and we both know that's not the case.

It also shows Bush and Kerry/Gore support as a basic red or blue. If one county gave 51% of its vote to Bush, it is red. If another county with the same population gave 99% of its support to Kerry, it is blue. Combined, the voters of these areas would have voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, but on the map, it would look like a “tie”.

And it is ... in the manner of electoral votes. You must somehow free yourself of the notion that population is the determining factor. (Of course, to a degree it is, but not in such a straightforward manner.) The founders did not want small concentrated groups determining the politics of entire vast areas where folks lived quite different lifestyles, and had very different needs. This is certainly true of counties and states as well, but since we're called the United States (and not the united counties) we go with sate populations, and state electoral votes.

You can find a more accurate collection of maps here (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election), with a county by county map with a red/blue shading in each area adjusted by proportion of vote, and the physical size of each county adjusted proportionately to population. (It is second from the bottom and looks like alien vomit)

All this is doing is driving home the point that when weighted by population alone, the maps tend to pretty much even out. But that is offset to a degree when looking at standard boundaries (States and Counties). For presidents, we use state boundaries and the electoral college. Like it or not, the founders considered it the best way to incorporate everyone's vote in the best manner of fairness. And when taken on a county-by-county level, as per their needs and desires, the vast area of the US goes red.

[Random]

Not misleading at all .... in fact, more on the order of how the founding fathers believed the electoral college is needed in order to offset your point (or the link's you supplied). The assumption is that population alone is what should determine an election --- and we both know that's not the case.

And it is ... in the manner of electoral votes. You must somehow free yourself of the notion that population is the determining factor. (Of course, to a degree it is, but not in such a straightforward manner.) The founders did not want small concentrated groups determining the politics of entire vast areas where folks lived quite different lifestyles, and had very different needs. This is certainly true of counties and states as well, but since we're called the United States (and not the united counties) we go with sate populations, and state electoral votes.

All this is doing is driving home the point that when weighted by population alone, the maps tend to pretty much even out. But that is offset to a degree when looking at standard boundaries (States and Counties). For presidents, we use state boundaries and the electoral college. Like it or not, the founders considered it the best way to incorporate everyone's vote in the best manner of fairness. And when taken on a county-by-county level, as per their needs and desires, the vast area of the US goes red.

I was trying to make a point about the way the maps seems to be used by conservatives. After the 2000 and 2004 elections I heard a bunch of nonsense about how liberals were on the run. “Just look at the map!” Yes, Bush won the surface area vote, but I don’t think that we should attribute more power to an Arizona scorpion farmer than 100 people living in a condo complex just because the scorpion farmer lives on 50 acres of desolate scrubland.

[WildCat]

Am I mistaken in assuming that you do not object to the idea of Tax Increment Financing in principle, but only with the way it is practiced (in Chicago)? As an alternative to federal funding, the idea seems like one which even a conservative might be able to embrace.
In principle, a TIF is supposed to be used only in blighted areas and provide incentives for the renovation of those areas. In practice, there is no definition of "blighted area" and it is left entirely at the discretion of politicians. As a result, some of the most prime real estate in Chicago has been declared blighted, a TIF created, and the real estate taxes produced are not available for schools, parks, etc. Politically connected developers then get sweetheart deals on the property and rake in millions and in turn make big fat contributions to the mayor and the Aldermen. It is completely screwed up, I posted a link to an excellent Chicago Reader series on TIF abuse in Chicago, it is very long but fascinating reading! You can read it here: http://www.chicagoreader.com/tifarchive/

But I'm not entirely clear on what serves as the basis for the statement "we still can't educate children in this city". Against the background provided by the disastrous NCLB policy, that might be tricky to assess.
A dropout rate of ~50% is a pretty clear metric IMHO.

[Just thinking]

I was trying to make a point about the way the maps seems to be used by conservatives. After the 2000 and 2004 elections I heard a bunch of nonsense about how liberals were on the run. “Just look at the map!” Yes, Bush won the surface area vote, but I don’t think that we should attribute more power to an Arizona scorpion farmer than 100 people living in a condo complex just because the scorpion farmer lives on 50 acres of desolate scrubland.

You might think differently if those 100 people depend on his crop output. You must put more than population into the equation. My point is that sometimes people try to over simplify things.

[Shalamar]

:newlol Brilliant summary of this thread. And you know what, I think there's a bit of truth in all of these point of views (just a bit, mind you).

Nominated, btw.

Heh. Thank you. Unsure if its deserved, but I appreciate the gesture. :)

[gnome]

Anyway, I can sum up the answer to the thread title in 3 words - bread and circuses.

Funny thing about that "bread and circuses"... used by Heinlein I think to symbolize crippling govenment largesse.... but when first mentioned it was a description of a cheap pittance the government could offer to the masses to keep them from complaining.

[gnome]

I would describe it this way... in cities people live closer together and are more interconnected--and so policies that reflect how what an individual does affects so many others seem natural to those in an urban environment... but would seem far too regulatory to someone who lives a mile from their nearest neighbor, and would favor far more hands-off policies... which, contrarily, to someone in an urban environment would perceive as neglect.

[WildCat]

but when first mentioned it was a description of a cheap pittance the government could offer to the masses to keep them from complaining.
That's the only way I've ever understood the term.

[gnome]

I thought the complaint about Democrats was that they were offering too much government goodies, not too little...

[WildCat]

I thought the complaint about Democrats was that they were offering too much government goodies, not too little...
The trick is making a little look like a lot. People get happy about a new garbage can when the street is covered in potholes.

eta: have you seen some of our circuses (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalProgramAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@0955236388 .1220565004@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadefdieimemcefecelldffhdfhk.0&programId=536879144&channelId=-9004&topChannelName=Residents)?

[gnome]

The trick is making a little look like a lot. People get happy about a new garbage can when the street is covered in potholes.

eta: have you seen some of our circuses (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalProgramAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@0955236388 .1220565004@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadefdieimemcefecelldffhdfhk.0&programId=536879144&channelId=-9004&topChannelName=Residents)?

Still seems to be off the usual point... if the Democrats could satisfy the masses so cheaply that you'd call it the 'bread and circuses' phenomenon, wouldn't that be BETTER than how they're characterized as blowing the budget for giveaways to welfare abusers?

Frankly I have a problem with either characterization, but the former is just atypical, which is why I'm noting it.

[WildCat]

Still seems to be off the usual point... if the Democrats could satisfy the masses so cheaply that you'd call it the 'bread and circuses' phenomenon, wouldn't that be BETTER than how they're characterized as blowing the budget for giveaways to welfare abusers?
Oh gnome, your naivete is so refreshing!

The budget doesn't get blown on giveaways to "welfare abusers", it gets blown on bloated payrolls for do-nothing, make-work, or ghost jobs to friends and relatives, and sweetheart deals to the politically connected. Armies of patronage workers to get out the vote among supporters and intimidate rivals.

Oh, and once you've consolidated power you can change the election laws so as to lock opponents out of the process for good. Did you know that in order to get on the mayoral ballot here you need 50,000 signatures on a petition? And rest assured, you will need to defend every last one of them in a court where the judge owes his job to the Chicago Democratic Machine.

I laugh at those who want to recreate this one-party system in Washington.

Of course, my experience is only here in Chicago.

[WildCat]

The latest Chicago Reader article about TIF abuse by the Democrats that run Chicago: http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/080904/

An excerpt:

Yes, believe it or not, TIFs manage to exacerbate funding inequities too, at least in Chicago. Here’s how. As you’ve probably read in this column, TIFs are tax districts created by the City Council in which the amount of property taxes the schools, parks, and other taxing bodies get has been frozen for up to 24 years. Any tax increases go into a special fund to be spent by city officials with next to zero oversight. To compensate for the income siphoned off by the TIFs, the schools raise their tax rate. Even so, the city doesn’t reach its per-student minimum, and the state has to make up the difference.
The schools surrender roughly $250 million a year to the TIFs. CPS officials estimate the state compensates them for roughly 70 percent of that. I suppose it’s not a bad system if you’re part of the Daley team and want to give the mayor tax dollars to play with as he sees fit. But it’s not such a great system if you’re trying to provide the best education for Chicago’s schoolchildren.

...
I have a suggestion: expose Chicago’s TIF scam. The city that’s crying poor paid $8 million in TIF funds to subsidize a car dealership at North and Clybourn, to give one more recent example.
A car dealership in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Chicago gets $8 million while the schools fail. I wonder if that dealership donated money to the local alderman and Daley's campaign? I'd bet next weeks pay it did.

It's the big city Democrat way!

[rockoon]

Counter-question to the thread title:

Why are large cities filled mostly with people who do not contribute significantly to the economy?

The primary contribution of the big city populations to the economy are as consumers, be they rich or poor.

Many of these peoples paychecks are primarily supported by taxes, while many of the rest are primarily supported as white collar paperwork whores managing commercial machines; where the real contribution of that machine, the production on which our economy is based, is located elsewhere.

High-density population centers are inevitable, but is it also inevitable that within these centers of population, that nobody is really essential to the economy?

Self-perpetuating consumerism.

[Oliver]

*snip* African-American voters have predominantly voted for democrats(which is another thing I really do not understand).*snip*


Democratic Party vs. Racist Party, hope this helps.