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.
While this is true, part of this is because even by then, the Catholic population of the Northeast was swelling, and Catholics were always hostile to prohibition.
Of course that was a factor, but checking the vote by congressional district map I posted many Republicans in New England voted against Prohibition. Presumably most of the Republicans were protestants and representing less catholic districts.
Quote:
Again, this is such a gross stereotype it makes my jaw drop. Somewhere like Great Barrington, Massachusetts is simply a lot more similar to Boston than it is to a small town in West Virginia.
Though Great Barrington's an extreme example: it's a rather "artsy" town and gets a lot of ex-city people. But small towns across the country are the same is obviously wrong.
I agree with your second paragraph. A good example of this is that Pennsylvania and Ohio have embraced fracking but New York and Vermont have declined it.
This is true, but there is further distinction between Ohio and Pennsylvania on that point, as PA has upheld local zoning control over fracking and prohibits extraction on public lands. Neither is the case in Ohio.
Really? Okay I stated Massachusetts is a Moralistic state in regards to politics. I would really love to see how exactly that is stereotyping. I guess since it doesn't conform at all to your theory that PA and Massachusetts are Libertarian that means it's stereotyping then huh?
One thing both states share in common is it's legal to drive and talk on your phone (unlike NY or CT). They're both secondary enforcement seat belt law states unlike NY, NJ or CT (Massachusetts was one of the last states to pass a seat belt law, neighboring New Hampshire still hasn't).
There are distinct differences between Pennsylvania and New England as well as the Midwest. That's the bottom line.
I agree with you here. The only thing I would add is that PA is closer to the Midwest then New England due to history in industry, politics, linguistics and settlement. I'm not trying to fight just to fight here I'm saying this because I honestly believe the facts support me on this.
Quote:
No one is wrong here. It's obviously a matter of perspective, and that's where we differ.
If you live in PA unless you are a transplant from New England I don't see how you can possible think that PA is close at all to Massachusetts or any New England state for that matter. There are just way to many differences and PA has way to many similarities to it's non northeastern neighbors. I'm really not trying to bash New England here. I know it might come off as that but all I was essentially doing was agreeing with posters from New England remarking about how different the area was to PA and even the rest of the nation.
Quote:
I think that's a misconception. I've found that top East Coast beach destinations are comparably expensive.
My Sister and Husband took there kids on vacation to North Carolina they rented a beach house at an extremely cheap price. At the time they wouldn't have been able to afford doing that in the Northeast. In the South you still get more for you money then you do in the Northeast that's why people in PA tend to head south for vacation. Your right though places in the south are starting to get expensive when I was a kid the price of taking a vacation to Myrtle beach was extremely cheap now it's not.
Quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying. You seemed to imply that all voters only use morals in MA as the basis for voting, and that everyone subscribes to "preachy" politics. If that's not what you meant, than I apologize for the misinterpretation -- but, as others have said, I think the political differences are overblown and political reputation doesn't necessarily represent the electorate as a whole.
I'm saying voters in state's were progressive politics dominate tend to vote for what they view as the moral thing even if it's not necessarily the most beneficial thing for them to vote for. Progressive politic states are states that are called moralistic. An example of what I mean is these states will willingly vote for something like getting more energy from "green sources" like wind turbines and solar and will pay higher electric bills. They also tend to vote against things like nuclear power viewing it as immoral and dangerous because of possible nuclear proliferation or reactor accidents.
People in PA would vote for the cheaper electricity provided by coal vs paying more for more green energy power. People in PA would also vote for nuclear power viewing it as a safe form of energy and wouldn't be concerned about nuclear proliferation or reactor accidents. I think that is pretty big difference.
I'm saying voters in state's were progressive politics dominate tend to vote for what they view as the moral thing even if it's not necessarily the most beneficial thing for them to vote for. Progressive politic states are states that are called moralistic. An example of what I mean is these states will willingly vote for something like getting more energy from "green sources" like wind turbines and solar and will pay higher electric bills. They also tend to vote against things like nuclear power viewing it as immoral and dangerous because of possible nuclear proliferation or reactor accidents.
I follow what you're saying a bit better now, but I think calling it "moralistic" confuses things and your use of the word "moral" is just odd. I don't think they're looked upon as moral issues, just a different view of what's beneficial. Many may consider green power more beneficial in the long run. I'm personally fine with somewhat more expensive electric power and less coal, electricity is a minor part of my budget and would rather pay more for cleaner air. Though I'm not against nuclear power.
If you live in PA unless you are a transplant from New England I don't see how you can possible think that PA is close at all to Massachusetts or any New England state for that matter. There are just way to many differences and PA has way to many similarities to it's non northeastern neighbors. I'm really not trying to bash New England here. I know it might come off as that but all I was essentially doing was agreeing with posters from New England remarking about how different the area was to PA and even the rest of the nation.
I think my final statement on this is just going to be this: I definitely agree that there are, overall, distinct differences between PA and New England, as well as the rest of the country, but I happen to believe it is more similar to the rest of the Northeast than anywhere in the Midwest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
People in PA would vote for the cheaper electricity provided by coal vs paying more for more green energy power. People in PA would also vote for nuclear power viewing it as a safe form of energy and wouldn't be concerned about nuclear proliferation or reactor accidents. I think that is pretty big difference.
Regardless of where you live, people want their energy sources to be as sustainable as possible. That may be "moralistic," but it's also common sense. This applies to all regions of the country. Pennsylvanians, of course, believe this, as well:
"A Summary of Key Findings in Pennsylvannia:
● 66 percent of voters favor the EPA’s plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants -- including 87 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents, and 46 percent of Republicans.
● 63 percent of Pennsylvania voters would be more likely to support a candidate who supports that EPA plan over one who does not.
● 65 percent of voters favor candidates who accept the scientific consensus on climate disruption over those candidates who do not.
● 67 percent of voters are more likely to support a candidate who wants to increase the use of renewable energy rather than a candidate pushing to increase the use of traditional energy."
I find only two categories - the cities that are mostly liberal with cosmopolitan culture and then the villages and small towns with conservative religious people..
Most of the cities have the same vibe no matter where they are located like Chicago in Midwest to Atlanta in the South to Seattle in the West. And the small towns and the villages have the same vibe no matter where they are like in the North East to Mid West to the South to the West..
People tend to view places through the stereotypical lens and try to find differences otherwise most of the cities are very similar and most of the small towns and villages are basically the same like most of the small towns have a main street in the middle of the town and a famous diner that everyone goes too..
Not all small towns are religious and conservative. Not all small towns even have a downtown. There are varying degrees of small towns, too - 2,000 people? 30,000 people? Some towns have 90,000 people. Maybe it's not small but it's also not set up like a city. A small farming town in Nebraska or something is very different than a small NJ town along one of the train lines on the way to New York City or a small town just outside Boston. There's even a rural/urban divide with small towns - is it in a large metro? Is it in the "middle of nowhere"? Is it a rural town? Do many of its people work in a bigger, nearby city? etc.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 02-17-2015 at 08:05 PM..
While this is true, part of this is because even by then, the Catholic population of the Northeast was swelling, and Catholics were always hostile to prohibition.
Again, this is such a gross stereotype it makes my jaw drop. Somewhere like Great Barrington, Massachusetts is simply a lot more similar to Boston than it is to a small town in West Virginia.
I know I kind of started the argument about differences between Cambridge, MA and rural PA...That wasn't my intention. I could have gone from Cambridge to my hometown of Billerica, MA and I noticed cultural differences and the towns are only 20 miles apart in the same state. I'd also argue that in a lot of ways, PA is very similar to Mass, only more affordable. Boston and Philly are similar with their histories and transit. When I was in Harrisburg, it reminded me a bit of Haverhill, MA. But the more distinctive differences I saw were in rural areas. In Mass, a lot of our more rural areas still have a fairly progressive mindset, the Berkshires being the best example. But when I traveled to the more rural areas of PA, there was a greater religious and blue collar culture. Once again, these are just generalizations and certainly you can find exceptions to the rule.
Why would they? I'm not trying to be rude but you have skiing available in PA and it's a lot cheaper to do in our state then it is to go to New England. You even have people from Maryland and other states coming up to go skiing in PA. It's really due to the cost and why would you pay more for it when you go elsewhere unless you have family up that way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
The other main reason outside of cost people from PA don't go to New England is because the region is out of site out of mind. The majority of PA's population lives south of I-80 and east of I-81. Which means most of the population of the state lives closest to the states Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware. Not close to New York which you have to travel through to even get to New England since the whole region is behind that state. That's why I said earlier that in PA we just don't interact with New England. It's a very isolated region and most Pennsylvanian's don't live close to it.
Because Vermont has a very good reputation for skiing?
I mean look, you mention that Marylanders come up to Pennsylvania for skiing. But Maryland herself has a few ski resorts, so why don't Marylanders just stay in their own state? Well maybe because they want something different or maybe they think they will find a better slope.
It is probably the same way for many Pennsylvanians. Who wants to do the same place all the time? Especially when you can easily travel to other states in just a few hours.
Since you mentioned New York - every summer the Philadelphia Orchestra appears in Saratoga Springs and also appears sometimes at Carnegie Hall in NYC. Both Saratoga Springs and NYC are a hop, skip and a jump to New England. So if it is close enough for the Philadelphia Orchestra, I think it is close enough for the Pennsylvanian traveler.
This is true, but there is further distinction between Ohio and Pennsylvania on that point, as PA has upheld local zoning control over fracking and prohibits extraction on public lands. Neither is the case in Ohio.
So if that is true then that shows at least some kind of cultural difference right there.
New York - no fracking
Pennsylvania - fracking but with more restrictions
Ohio - fracking but with less restriction
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.
that means it's stereotyping then huh?
