Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What big city isn't liberal? And why does the FBI UCR say that red states across the nation have both higher violent and property crime rates than blue states? The average violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) in 2008 for the 28 states that voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election was 389 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 22 states that voted for John McCain was 412 incidents per 100,000 residents – or a 5.8 percent higher incidence of violent crime. 2 of the top 3 states with the highest violent crime rates in the nation in 2008 voted for McCain: South Carolina (#1) and Tennessee (#3). (Nevada was #2). The difference was even more pronounced for property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft). Obama states had an average property crime rate of 2,989 incidents per 100,000 residents, with McCain states averaging a rate of 3,228 – or an 8.0 percent higher incidence of property crime. Eight of the top 11 states with the highest property crime rates voted for McCain: Arizona (#1), South Carolina (#2), Alabama (#4), Tennessee (#6), Georgia (#7), Texas (#8), Arkansas (#10), and Louisiana (#11). These crime rate findings hold despite the fact that blue states have a higher population of residents in urban areas, which tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing Unit Counts, the average statewide percentage of residents living in urban areas in the Obama states was 78.0 percent, compared to a statewide average of just 64.6 percent in the McCain states.
The red state/blue state crime data split also holds true across other measures of statewide partisan groupings.
For example, a Smart Politics analysis of partisan control of state legislatures finds the 27 states with Democratic-controlled legislatures with an average violent crime rate of 390 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 14 states with Republican-controlled legislatures was 11.1 percent higher, at 433 incidents per 100,000 residents. (The rate was lowest among eight states with split partisan control - at 382).
There was also a double-digit percentage difference for property crime rates among the states with Democratic and Republican controlled legislatures. For Democratic-controlled states, the property crime rate was 3,044 incidents per 100,000 residents compared to 3,351 incidents per 100,000 residents for Republican-controlled states - or a 10.1 percent higher rate under GOP legislative control.
The differences in the rate of violent and property crimes between states along partisan lines by control of the governor's office were less stark, but still pointed in the same direction. The 22 states with Republican governors had a 0.4 percent higher violent crime rate in 2008 (400 incidents per 100,000 residents) than the 28 states with Democratic governors (398) as well as a 6.0 percent higher property crime rate (3,196 for GOP states and 3,014 for Democratic states).
2008 was not an aberration. Looking back to the 2004 Presidential election, the 19 states that voted for Democrat John Kerry had an average violent crime rate in 2004 of 361 incidents per 100,000 residents. The 31 states that voted for George W. Bush had an average violent crime rate that year of 419 incidents per 100,000 residents - or a 16.3 percent higher rate. Bush states also had an 18.6 percent higher rate of property crimes in 2004 (3,648 incidents per 100,000 residents) than the Kerry states (3,077).
However, there are many other variables to be considered other than partisanship when examining the different rates of crime between states. For example, red states tend to be less affluent than blue states. The average statewide per capita income in 2008 for the 28 states voting for Obama was 19.4 percent higher ($45,752) than in the 22 states voting for McCain ($38,333).
The per capita income difference was still present, although less pronounced, when grouping states by partisan control of the legislature and the governor's office. States with Democratic-controlled legislatures have an 11.1 percent higher per capita income ($44,470) than states with Republican-controlled legislatures ($40,018). States with Democratic governors had a 2.5 percent higher per capita income in 2008 ($42,955) than those with Republican governors ($41,892).
And funny you should mention Compton, since it now has the lowest homicide rate since 1972. The main thing that city is in the news for these days is having a young mayor (she's 32.)
It would be helpful to break the discussion down and specify economic/development progress and social progress.
Has anyone mentioned that Chattanooga rates very high in economic/development progress? They've wired the whole downtown for ultra high speed internet. The number of new urbanist style developments is astounding.
Asheville is very liberal and seems like it would rank high for social progress.
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia while they try/want to be more progressive on a local level...Fact remains that Pennsylvania has to be one of the least Progressive States in the Northeast, if not the Union. This cripples Philly and the Burgh's ability to adapt/embrace change as easily/seamless as Big Cities in more progressive states or at least states that don't try to undermine/demonize their Big Cities at every turn.
For instance Pittsburgh is currently going to through a tough uphill slog with Ride Sharing services such as Uber and Lyft because of draconian Pennsylvania PUC laws that were drawn to protect the monopoly of cab companies. This is even though the Mayor, City and County fully support Ride Sharing. Yes PA has LGBT Marriage now, but if the current Governor wasn't as widely unpopular as he is, the fact he cannot afford any amount of backlash right now; I fully believe he would have been appealing the overturn of the law left and right. This is a governor who compares Homosexuality to that of Incest.
So much of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia governance has a state hand in the pot, that it is Really Tough for these cities to be as progressive as they set out to be when the State goes sharply in the other direction. Until Pennsylvania either rewrites many of its laws giving localities more control over their own laws, or the State becomes more "Progressive" there will always be that proverbial ceiling in "Progressive-ness" for the Burgh and Philly.
What is Ride Sharing? Do we really want to put ANOTHER industry out of business? If people can't afford a cab, then ride the bus. We already pay millions of taxpayer dollars on the transportation system.
What is Ride Sharing? Do we really want to put ANOTHER industry out of business? If people can't afford a cab, then ride the bus. We already pay millions of taxpayer dollars on the transportation system.
"Ride sharing" is like a modern taxi system with fewer regulations. If the taxi services had stayed modern, it's highly likely that ride sharing would never have gained a foothold. While a lot of people talk about UberX or Lyft being cheaper than cabs, their typical customers use them for the ease of hailing them with slick mobile apps. Mobile apps that don't use cutting-edge technology, but tech that has existed for years now. Taxi services could have implemented it years ago and never left the door open for competition but they chose not to. A lack of innovation will doom any industry.
"Ride sharing" is like a modern taxi system with fewer regulations. If the taxi services had stayed modern, it's highly likely that ride sharing would never have gained a foothold. While a lot of people talk about UberX or Lyft being cheaper than cabs, their typical customers use them for the ease of hailing them with slick mobile apps. Mobile apps that don't use cutting-edge technology, but tech that has existed for years now. Taxi services could have implemented it years ago and never left the door open for competition but they chose not to. A lack of innovation will doom any industry.
It's been my belief for some time that the Internet and high tech will doom any industry. Let's take a moment to reflect on all the things that are lost or are seriously reduced because of the Internet:
Newspapers/Magazines
Watches
Television
Movies
Music Industry
Retail stores
Book stores
Radio
Travel Agencies
I gave broad categories, but there are thousands of businesses that have been hurt by technology. Why do people need a mobile app for hailing taxis? Can't they just call the cab company from their phones? I recently ordered a taxi for a client and I did it online, so obviously some companies have a good Internet presence.
I just hate this idea that all these industries should have just innovated more when that's not true. There really is nothing they could have done because it only takes a few small companies (in employees, not profit) to destroy everything else.
Amazon putting all those book stores out of business, then the Kindle sealing the deal. I don't want to read books on a device! I like going to a store and having a knowledgeable salesperson recommend books to me. I liked going to a music store and having a knowledgeable salesperson recommend music to me, but those are hard to find now too. Now streaming is hurting even iTunes, much as iTunes hurt the music industry (after Napster and Youtube probably almost killed it). My kids love music, but they never want to buy it, ever. It's just so different than when I was younger.
Ride sharing has been around since the 1990s (it started via telephone).
How does hailing a taxi from a mobile app hurt the business? It is no different than calling... except possibly more efficient, which is a win-win.
Even if the 68 in your alias is a reference to your birth year, it is still too early for you to be saying GET OFF MY LAWN!!
And I'm sure most artists feel quite indebted to the internet, considering all the avenues it has opened up for them to be more easily accessible and the ability to be seen and heard. Just image all the incredible music the world missed out on pre-internet just because they weren't lucky enough to be discovered by the industry. Now just about anyone can build a following all on their own or just be heard / seen, whether they are incredibly talented or not.
If there ever was an industry that should have been "seriously reduced", it is the music industry (execs). Thanks to the internet, artists can be quite successful going independent and cutting out the middle man (record label) and be in full control of their art. No longer do the labels control all aspects of the business, including the artists' actual content. The people are their label.
I'm a little confused by the inclusion of "watches" on your list. I'm assuming you mean because of cell phones? Hmmm, I guess the ever important 'watch industry' should have been consulted before we allowed cell phones to exist. I mean the two products pretty much function exactly the same, they both tell time. Oh wait a second, that isn't the main thing a cell phone does! It revolutionizes communication. I bet even watch company CEO's find the invention of the cell phone to be one of the greatest & most important events of the modern era. Forget the 'app & text culture' cell phones have created, this is an infinitely important device - whether you are communicating with loved ones or dealing with an emergency.
Did you even consider the 'industries' that TV & Movies destroyed? There were other forms of entertainment before these things you know (you even included a few of them in the same list).. How is this any different? Also I'm not entirely sure how the TV & Movie industries have been "seriously reduced" (I have over 9000 TV channels now).
EDIT: I could go on but then I would be typing this post until tomorrow morning. And I haven't even touched on the importance of competition and innovation - or how the internet has connected the globe, in every aspect.
Last edited by RadicalAtheist; 06-12-2014 at 11:54 PM..
If there ever was an industry that should have been "seriously reduced", it is the music industry (execs). Thanks to the internet, artists can be quite successful going independent and cutting out the middle man (record label) and be in full control of their art. No longer do the labels control all aspects of the business, including the artists' actual content. The people are their label.
Absolutely. I've had a good bit of involvement in the "music industry," and even while it affected areas where I would have received far more money years earlier, I cheered while it burned. The other side is downloading helped destroy music's "middle class," so while you can still blow up in a big way, there isn't much between that and "starving musician" anymore (at least not like pre-downloading). Touring costs way more (gas prices up, crowds down & door prices consistent throughout), it's nearly impossible to make real money off recordings (there are still studio costs, but that has often been replaced by home recording, which is the best/cheapest it's ever been), and on down. But yeah - no one gouged more than the major label oligarchy, outside of jewelers, perhaps. I'm glad it destroyed them and the system that was in place (and bad for the development of quality art).
Progressive new south city's on the rise
Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh, Austin
These city's that are being quite progressive and making names for themselves but tend to get over looked quickly as soon as someone brings up Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, into the picture. seriously if u all want to have a pissing match then start another thread.
Charlotte and Nashville's metropolitan areas really couldn't be called that progressive. I think the real measure of a city's "progressiveness" is not just how the city votes but how its entire metro area votes. And in both their cases their metropolitan areas vote Republican overall. Sure the municipalities vote democratic--nearly all major cities do. Though even by this metric, if you were to compare how much Charlotte and Nashville vote democratic relative to other major cities, you'd find that they tend to be close to the halfway point, but in the lower half of the list overall.
Austin and Raleigh are a different story of course, on both counts.
You really have to consider both these things. Some cities have very incongruous situations like Salt Lake City, which is very strongly democratic in the city proper (hence why they can pass things like strong LGBT employment protections), but has some of the most conservative suburbs in the country, which contributes heavily to the feel of the place as well as the politics of the state in general. Same goes for Dallas which actually has a larger democratic majority in the city proper than all four cities you listed, but also a more conservative metro overall than all four. Granted the list I'm citing is a bit dated--pre 2008. So changes to the parties and voting patterns since then, as well as the major population growth in all four cities, could influence things a bit. I do think that all of these places have probably drifted leftward a bit in the time since relative to other cities that grew slower.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
