[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

You might want to look up the turnout numbers this election vs past elections. “Those people”... eyeroll.



You’re only thinking about the big 4/5. You’re forgetting the New Britain, Bristol, Manchester, West Haven, East Hartford, etc type cities. Those cities have a large percentage of urban poor who only vote Democrat. Without those cities, the state would be Republican every time. Full stop.

Except for New Britain, I don't consider consider those to be very urban areas. They are working class communities that are primarily suburban in character. IF you look at population, West Hartford is bigger than them. Would you consider West Hartford urban too? What about Fairfield? Greenwich? They are large towns with over 50,000 residents.

My point is that the idea that cities are what elected Lamont is ridiculous. Even if you add in those communities though, how much of a difference does that really make.

Look at the state legislature. Why has both the Connecticut House and Senate gone to Democrats? Even outside the cities. The results go well beyond the cities, plain and simple. Jay

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

In 1994 and 2010, the POTUS party in power lost dozens more seats each than the 2018 GOP. In those years, POTUS party lost Senators. Not so 2018.

Ct people, and I was born here, are not in touch with how regional the Democratic party has become. Northeast and Pacific Coast are really all it influences.

Trump IMO cut the GOP House bleed rate-and likely swung both Fl Gov & Senate race. His lack of popularity in the Northeast does not exist in Middle America. Nor Florida.

Ct is addicted to Big Government. Ct residents also claim they want job growth and a thriving economy. Those are mutually exclusive options. I will be shocked if Lamont even keeps up the horrible economic growth of Malloy-but I hope I am wrong.

His popularity tends to drop in most urban areas even in the Midwest. FL is kind of divided at the moment. But his popularity with certain segments in places like FL and GA is very effective at driving out voters in a midterm. NRA voters for instance (even thou Trump has made some pretty bad comments on gun control).

The senate races were in states that would be hard for Democrats to win due to demographics.

As far as growth a number of left leaning states see plenty of growth even with big government. They are just in less financial trouble then us and have better cities, weather and or infrastructure. Places like CA, MA , WA have had great GDP growth.
Also side note while just looking up GDP tables CT has done way better over the last 2 quarters and are kind of midpack with other states for GDP growth this year. Which is a bit shocking.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Except for New Britain, I don't consider consider those to be very urban areas. They are working class communities that are primarily suburban in character. IF you look at population, West Hartford is bigger than them. Would you consider West Hartford urban too? What about Fairfield? Greenwich? They are large towns with over 50,000 residents.

My point is that the idea that cities are what elected Lamont is ridiculous. Even if you add in those communities though, how much of a difference does that really make.

Look at the state legislature. Why has both the Connecticut House and Senate gone to Democrats? Even outside the cities. The results go well beyond the cities, plain and simple. Jay

We’ve had this discussion before. It is not ridiculous. If you removed the major cities from the CT voting pool, Lamont would not have gotten elected. Period. It goes back to my reply that a huge percentage of people who vote Democrat are uneducated.

It’s more about poverty rate vs urban. Manchester’s poverty rate is over 14%. New Britain’s is over 10% and West Haven’s is over 15%. Most of those in poverty in these cities are Hispanic or African American, both of whom typically vote Democrat.

[SAE72]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

We’ve had this discussion before. It is not ridiculous. If you removed the major cities from the CT voting pool, Lamont would not have gotten elected. Period.

It’s more about poverty rate vs urban. Manchester’s poverty rate is over 14%.

The cities put Lamont in.






https://www.nytimes.com/elections/re...ticut-governor

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by SAE72

The cities put Lamont in.






https://www.nytimes.com/elections/re...ticut-governor

2022 Democrats will again it is one party state.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by SAE72

The cities put Lamont in.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/re...ticut-governor

Exactly. The few suburbs that voted Democrat are the outliers. I encourage anyone disputing this look at that map.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by SAE72

The cities put Lamont in.


https://www.nytimes.com/elections/re...ticut-governor

Poor people don't vote. Independent voters put Lamont in. They are the largest group in CT.


"Connecticut is one of 19 states where Democrats are ahead of Republicans when it comes to active registered voters. As of June 28, there were 760,672 active registered Democratic voters in Connecticut, compared to 446, 265 active registered Republicans."


"A whopping 143,217 unaffiliated voters were registered to vote in this midterm cycle, bringing the total number of unaffiliated voters, as of the end of June, to 857,111. That’s more than the number of registered Democrats in the state and nearly twice the number of registered Republicans."


According to a recent University of Virginia study on voter registration, Connecticut is in a minority of states when it comes to the numbers of unaffiliated voters. It is just one of six states where independents are a plurality and Democrats outnumber Republicans. But the study also said that, nationally, the number of voters choosing to identify themselves as independents is growing.




https://ctmirror.org/2018/07/19/conn...term-election/


The registration numbers for all three groups would be slightly higher on Nov 6th because CT allows last minute voter registration.


All the voter stats you can ever want are here. Try picking some city - suburban pairs and note the differences.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SOTS/E...18RE.pdf?la=en


I compared city of Hartford to Glastonbury. According to the stats on this page city of Hartford voter turnout was 36%. Glastonbury was 73%.


Approx 87% of voters in Hartford voted for Lamont. In Glastonbury 46% voted for Lamont.


If the cities could get 73% voter turnout like Glastonbury the Republicans would never win another state wide election in CT. The Democrats wouldn't even need the independents votes.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Exactly. The few suburbs that voted Democrat are the outliers. I encourage anyone disputing this look at that map.

I guess the question is why does that matter. The cities are part of the state. It looks strange but it's about people voting and if you overlay the population map over the voets it lines up with Blue over the population.

I found a 2010 election map, and amazingly enough more suburbs did go Blue this time then 2010. Some towns that switched, Glastonbury, Essex, Danbury, Redding, Ridgefield, Lyme, Weathersfield, Fairfield, South Windsor, Vernon.

[Kreliroth]

Originally Posted by BPt111

2022 Democrats will again it is one party state.

At least until the CT GOP changes it's strategy significantly.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by East of the River

His popularity tends to drop in most urban areas even in the Midwest. FL is kind of divided at the moment. .

True, but in Middle USA, urban pop/state pop < Northeast and in Ca urban pop/state pop % also more than Mid USA %.

That will not change.

Middle America is gigantic in sq miles, so less packed in like sardines. That leads to a more conservative population mix, and we saw the Red Wall has held firm since 1988.

The Northeast , politically, is an anomaly.