U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 06-24-2018, 02:16 PM
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,736,967 times
Reputation: 6945


Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
so you are saying that our social school experiment is failing to educate
In rural areas, yes, people have less education on average. There may or may not be good reasons for that, but it is factually true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 06-25-2018, 07:23 AM
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Originally Posted by Kevroqs View Post
Take a look at some of the liberal cities in this country (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, Oakland, St Louis, Los Angeles, etc...). There's lots of homeless, poverty, filth, and crime. People with money (and or families) would not live in those areas.
But a lot of people with money do live in Los Angeles, Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago and Oakland...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-25-2018, 07:47 AM
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,303 posts, read 11,541,269 times
Reputation: 4315
Originally Posted by dannyboy84 View Post
There are solid candidates, Sherrod Brown of OH, Casey in PA, Hickenlooper of CO, wyden of Or, I think to a degree the dems are their own worst enemy, they are too focused with a "trophy" candidate, where it MUST be a woman/minority (ethnic or religious) at the top of the ticket from a solid blue state (warren, Sanders, Harris) that the purple "fly over states" feel left out on. A white Male or non-coastal woman (for example former MI Gov Granholm who was moderately popular from a state Trump narrowly won would be left out because she is from a "tougher state" and had to cross the aisle more than Warren or Harris would) are practically told you need not apply. A solid but not too crazy progressive yet moderate from OH or PA or MI or similar could swing those narrow trump states back to the dems and maybe just maybe make the GOP sweat in some not so solid any-more red states...AZ, GA and a hail mary in TX (remember 2016 was the closest any democrat got to taking Texas in a generation, Trump 8% victory was a far cry from the double digit blowouts of the past several presidential elections) put that at the top with a coastal left wing darling to appease that wing, something Clinton failed to do with Tim Kaine it could be a strong ticket

Going back to my example of PA-17, the democrat ran for the district not lock-step with Nancy Pelosi +34D district, and he won. If dems looked at the WHOLE picture like Obama did instead of only NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Chicago and other "safe spaces" (he won friggin Indiana in 2008 for gods sake, also took Iowa twice among others) they could pull of something strong.
I have never heard a single Democrat talk like you claim, Republicans seem to simply assume this because people like Kamala Harris and because Warren long ago started to pick up support.

The truth is politics as we know it is mostly a lie, Donald Trump( a New York Coastal Elite by conservative definition ) has proven that and for all the attacks on Clinton, it would have taken 35,000 votes in 3 states in the other direction for her to be President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-25-2018, 08:11 AM
3,393 posts, read 4,337,990 times
Reputation: 2230
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
I'm neither Republican nor conservative, but I really don't trust Vox's polling.

The outcome in November really depends on if the economy keeps humming along. If we see more income growth, especially in the upper Midwest, then swing voters will shrug, go to the polls, and vote Republican. Of course, this assumes the Donald can put a sock in it during the month of October.
I have to disagree- the economy was doing well in 2000 and the nation went D to R. The economy improved greatly from 2009-2016 but we again went D to R. In 2006 the economy was seemingly going strong and Ds swept the House, Senate and Governorships.

Sometimes when things are going smoothly people are more likely to vote social or other interests first.

I think your last comment is pretty spot on- the whole shebang comes down to Trump managing to simultaneously fire up his base, not fire up the Dems and win over Independents. In 2016 he had the great benefit of an unpopular opponent with a dismal campaign. This year I think simple dislike of the new status quo is a bigger driver. Although the Rs have the benefit of an insane Senate map.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top