[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Right, just like FL, VA, GA, AZ, NC, among many others.

Those states are incredibly large and have a much higher percentage of of non city or urban population that can help balance it out. CT suburbs are relatively sparsely populated in comparison to places like Palm Beach County and Orange County, CA that makes it difficult to even out.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Those states are incredibly large and have a much higher percentage of of non city or urban population that can help balance it out. CT suburbs are relatively sparsely populated in comparison to places like Palm Beach County and Orange County, CA that makes it difficult to even out.

CT inner cites are much smaller. 4 or 5 barely make it over 100K. Probably only 1/3 vote, I'd bet less than half for sure. Suburbia is CT's middle name. It overwhelms the State.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

CT inner cites are much smaller. 4 or 5 barely make it over 100K. Probably only 1/3 vote, I'd bet less than half for sure. Suburbia is CT's middle name. It overwhelms the State.

Not in terms of population, it doesn’t. CT’s suburbs, even populated suburbs like Fairfield and Westport, would be considered rural in most other metropolitan areas. And even 1/3 urban population is huge.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Perhaps. She’s better than any candidate, both democrat and republican. The problem is so many in CT’s most populous cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat (Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford, Hartford) regardless of candidate because of party loyalty. That’s what makes it so difficult for even great Republicans like Stewart to win.

Why is it a problem for people who live in cities to express their political preferences?

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Those states are incredibly large and have a much higher percentage of of non city or urban population that can help balance it out. CT suburbs are relatively sparsely populated in comparison to places like Palm Beach County and Orange County, CA that makes it difficult to even out.

Yet somehow Republicans need to gerrymander in many of these places for political advantage. Maybe that's why the popular vote almost always skews much more Democratic than the distribution of elected officials?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Why is it a problem for people who live in cities to express their political preferences?

Nobody suggested it was a “problem” to express political preferences - the problem arises when party loyalty becomes a thing. That’s not good, regardless of party affiliation.

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Yet somehow Republicans need to gerrymander in many of these places for political advantage. Maybe that's why the popular vote almost always skews much more Democratic than the distribution of elected officials?

You mean the same tactic democrats deploy in Republican states? That’s a political game played across party lines. Let’s not pretend, here.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Nobody suggested it was a “problem”, just that the population of CT’s cities very much helps sway the political direction the state is going in.

And since the cities are so poorly governed in general, that spreads the problem to the state level.

The problem could be solved if the suburban areas went back to voting the opposite of the city. When I was growing up, that's how it was and it meant that the state was better governed and more politically competitive. One party government that can't be dislodged never produces a good result.

Cities in general have a lot of problems and are very generous about wanting to dump their problems onto other people rather than solve them, and the suburbs voting with the cities sets up a city where the lion is going to eat the lamb. It is inexplicably foolish.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

And since the cities are so poorly governed in general, that spreads the problem to the state level.

The problem could be solved if the suburban areas went back to voting the opposite of the city. When I was growing up, that's how it was and it meant that the state was better governed and more politically competitive. One party government that can't be dislodged never produces a good result.

Cities in general have a lot of problems and are very generous about wanting to dump their problems onto other people rather than solve them, and the suburbs voting with the cities sets up a city where the lion is going to eat the lamb. It is inexplicably foolish.

This.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

And since the cities are so poorly governed in general, that spreads the problem to the state level.

The problem could be solved if the suburban areas went back to voting the opposite of the city. When I was growing up, that's how it was and it meant that the state was better governed and more politically competitive. One party government that can't be dislodged never produces a good result.

Cities in general have a lot of problems and are very generous about wanting to dump their problems onto other people rather than solve them, and the suburbs voting with the cities sets up a city where the lion is going to eat the lamb. It is inexplicably foolish.

The Moynihan report of the mid 20th century spelled out correctly the only answer for Ct inner city dysfunction, just like any other cities in any other state.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Perhaps. She’s better than any candidate, both democrat and republican. The problem is so many in CT’s most populous cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat (Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford, Hartford) regardless of candidate because of party loyalty. That’s what makes it so difficult for even great Republicans like Stewart to win.

I agree the Erin Stewart would be a great candidate for Governor. It’s not entirely impossible to imagine a good Republican like her to win. Remember we had 20 years of Republican Governors here with Weicker, Rowland and Rell. I believe that if the party had a reasonable candidate in 2018, they could have beat Lamont.

I’m not sure Stewart wants to be Governor though. She just had a child and being Governor would take her away from them. Without her though I don’t see anyone stopping Stefanowski from running again. I just can’t vote for him. I think he’d be horrible for our state. Jay