U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2017, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro (Cobb County)
1,558 posts, read 743,256 times
Reputation: 1668

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
the nice suburbs of ATL tend to vote Republican as do mnost burbs in the south.
The upcoming special election in Georgia's 6th district to replace Tom Price, who is now in Trump's cabinet, will most likely reinforce this tendency. But typically that district, which consists of "nice suburbs" like Dunwoody, Roswell and east Cobb County, has voted around 60-40 Republican. With Trump on the ballot and his support being less elevated with the most upscale demographics, it was about 48 R-47 D (with the remainder going to minor party candidates).

I would expect the Republican candidate for Congress to win there when the special election takes place this year, but if the district surprisingly votes for a Democrat, it could be a sign that Trump is damaging his party's support in affluent suburban areas.

 
Old 03-19-2017, 04:08 PM
 
5,449 posts, read 2,289,752 times
Reputation: 16431
Well, statistics are a strange thing. A lot depends on how you look at them. While it's impossible to actually measure racism, you'd think that average income would be a pretty definitive yardstick, right?

Well, not so fast. For while raw numbers for average include vary widely from state to state, state rankings change considerably when you add taxation levels and cost of living into the mix. For example, the chart below shows that the average person in California actually has less purchasing power than the average person in Mississippi. And New York isn't much better than Alabama:

https://taxfoundation.org/new-state-...me-differences
 
Old 03-19-2017, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
3,254 posts, read 1,630,168 times
Reputation: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradpaisley94 View Post
If we look at it from a neutral and statistical Point of view; most red states (mostly in the South) have low avarage income, many people under poverty line, high crime rates, high obesity rates, racism, lots of teen pregnancy etc., and just often rank low among US states in most terms. Are there any republican/red states that actually do well (per capita so to speak)? I'm thinking what about outside the Deep South, like Utah or Arizona? Or perhaps Alaska or Montana?


*Republican/red state = state that often/'always' vote republican in state/national elections and where a majority of the people view themselves as conservative and/or republican.
The conservatives states on the plains like Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming have very high per-capita incomes, low poverty rates and the cost of living are extremely low.

North Dakota and Wyoming are way up there on per-capita incomes, have extremely low poverty rates, low income disparity and relatively low crime rates.

Utah has relatively high median household incomes but a lower per-capita incomes because of the household size. Utah also an extremely low violent crime rate and extremely low poverty rates.
 
Old 03-19-2017, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Tampa - St. Louis
1,090 posts, read 1,625,651 times
Reputation: 1508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70 View Post
I'd say that Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are doing quite well. Virginia is also a red state outside the DC suburbs. Colorado traditionally was a red state though its being transformed by California transplants and illegal immigrants unfortunately. Alaska is very wealthy and residents actually get free checks from the oil industry revenue.

While blue states like New Jersey, New York, Michigan (and Ohio/Pennsylvania which might have finally learned their lessons at last) have been hemorraghing jobs for years with their overregulation and high taxes. Tennessee, Texas and Georgia have gained more automaking jobs than Detroit has lost.

And even in the Red States with poor stats, those stats are often driven down by Democratic areas. For example, both New Orleans and Baton Rouge are Democrat on the local level and drag down Louisiana in terms of crime, poverty, education levels, etc because of their ghettoes. The city of Atlanta itself (the inner city not the suburbs) also drags down Georgia's stats. Missouri's stats are definitely dragged down by St. Louis and by ghetto suburbs like Ferguson. Memphis is also a very bad Democrat city in a mostly Republican state, same with the illegal immigrant crime and drug trafficking in South Texas.
St. Louis area is like over half of Missouri's economy. If anything out-state, rural policies drag down St. Louis.
 
Old 03-19-2017, 09:59 PM
 
1,826 posts, read 1,248,326 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
First, Virginia isn't "red" outside of Northern Virginia. Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, Hampton, Charlottesville, Blacksburg and other smaller areas are blue. Overall Clinton won Virginia in 2016 by 5% (50%-45%). Additionally the areas in Texas, Georgia, Florida and North Carolina that are "doing well" are largely blue, look at the voting maps.
The parts of Texas that vote blue are either the poor border regions of central cities, like Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Austin. Outside of maybe Austin, those cities tend to be notably worse off than their suburbs. Especially in things the OP cares about like education and obesity.

EDIT: Just wanted to say, I am not "anti-Democrat." I have voted for politicians from both major parties. I just disagree with what you said about voting habits in Texas.

Last edited by Parhe; 03-19-2017 at 11:05 PM..
 
Old 03-19-2017, 10:17 PM
 
Location: New York Metropolitan Area
406 posts, read 287,705 times
Reputation: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
First, Virginia isn't "red" outside of Northern Virginia. Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, Hampton, Charlottesville, Blacksburg and other smaller areas are blue. Overall Clinton won Virginia in 2016 by 5% (50%-45%). Additionally the areas in Texas, Georgia, Florida and North Carolina that are "doing well" are largely blue, look at the voting maps.
I have to disagree that the parts of Florida and Texas that are "doing well" are blue. The bluest parts of Texas are very poor border towns that would not attract most people. Yes, like all major cities in the country, the inner core of the big Texas cities are blue, but once you get into the suburbs its majority red (the wealthiest suburbs of Dallas and Houston, for example, voted Republican this last election, thankfully)

With Florida, Miami/Broward County is not doing that great right now and they voted blue. The economy isn't anything special, COL to Wage proportion isn't good there, and cities in FL like Sarasota and Jacksonville that seem to be doing decent economically voted Republican. Only exception is Orlando, which is doing pretty well and voted blue (though the burbs voted solid red for the most part)
 
Old 03-19-2017, 10:47 PM
 
1,586 posts, read 1,538,178 times
Reputation: 2356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
that is Democrat party political propaganda. If they switched platforms, then GOP would support slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, etc. None of that is true.

You guys tried to say white racists started to switch with Nixon who was for civil rights. obviously that is not a plausible theory. you think if you repeat it enough, people will believe it.
You're being willfully ignorant of history. I don't think it's quite accurate to say the Democrats and the Republicans "switched platforms," but there was absolutely an ideological realignment in the 1960s and '70s. By the way, it wasn't the first party realignment, and it wasn't the last, either, as another one appears to be happening right now.

Here's what happened, and I suspect you've heard all this, but I'll say it anyway. Warning: This is going to be oversimplified, but I'm not going to write a dissertation here. The Democratic Party was a party based on economic populism; the Republican Party was based on fiscal responsibility. In the South, the type of working-class voter to which the Democrats traditionally appealed was also overtly racist. In the North, however, the Democrats' economic message increasingly appealed to black voters. So as the southern Democrats continued to promote their racist rhetoric, the northern Democrats were embracing civil rights, which historically had been more the domain of Republicans.

This split over civil rights worked for a while, but eventually it came to a head nationally, and the northern Democrats, being from a wealthier and more-influential region, started winning more and more battles over the party's direction. Many of the southern Democrats went so far as to break away and start their own political party, the States' Rights Democratic Party, aka the Dixiecrats. In 1948 their presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond, won four southern states.

The Dixiecrats failed, however, and most returned to the Democratic Party, where they were increasingly marginalized. Flash forward to 1964, when Barry Goldwater, a supporter of civil rights like many Republicans, becomes the first real modern conservative to be nominated for president. His political philosophy centers on limited government, and that includes federal government interference in racist state laws. As a result, he opposes the landmark Civil Rights Act.

This proves to be just the hook the Republicans needed to appeal to racist southern Democrats. Goldwater sweeps the Deep South en route to a landslide defeat that sees him add only his home state, Arizona, to his electoral tally. No other Republican presidential candidate had won a single state in the Deep South since Reconstruction.

At this point the worm begins to turn. South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrats' presidential candidate in 1948, switches to the Republicans. Four years later Richard Nixon, whose party has now been out of power for eight years, sees an opening. He runs a campaign calculated to appeal to southern Democrats without alienating northern Republicans by using coded language such as "law and order" (as a counterpoint to black criminality) and "states' rights" (to maintain racist laws without federal interference). The idea was that the concepts would go over northern voters' heads while southern voters would know exactly what he was talking about. Interestingly, Nixon does not win most of the Deep South because of the third-party candidacy of Alabama's Democratic former Gov. George Wallace, a more-explicit racist who runs against his own party's nominee as a third-party candidate. But the strategy still works, and Nixon sweeps the South (along with almost all of the rest of the country) four years later.

The following decades prove to be a slow progression of more and more Southern voters, as well as more and more Southern politicians running on overtly or covertly racist platforms, switching to the Republicans. Besides Thurmond, former Democrats with racist associations who do this include Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, David Duke and George Wallace's son George Jr. Finally you arrive at today, when the decades-long realignment is finally complete and I'm not aware of any current Democratic politicians with racist histories; meanwhile, you've now got a Republican U.S. Attorney General who's named after Jefferson Davis and was rejected for a federal judgeship in the 1980s due to allegations of racist views.
 
Old 03-19-2017, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,580 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
Nixon won almost every state in the USA in 1972. i think that it speaks to your agenda that you leave out this fact when you point out he won all of the south. lol Obviously McGovern was a horrible candidate. It has nothing to do with racism, and Nixon supported civil rights and integrations. You ignore this because you are a partisan Democrat with an agenda.

Moreover, most of the racists Democrats and DIxicrats who opposed civil rights stayed Democrat. This is includes Robert Byrd, an ex KKK member, who was praised and eulogized by the CLinton and Obama, and Al Gore's father, and William Fullbright, Bill CLinton's mentor.

My point isn't that most Democrats are racist now, it is that the GOP isn't racist now and there was no 'big switch'. That total Democrat party political propaganda.

i would say you are the one willfully ignorant of history.

the reality is as the south became more affluent and educated and thus less racist as more transplants moved in, it shifted to the GOP.

Last edited by ClemVegas; 03-19-2017 at 11:12 PM..
 
Old 03-20-2017, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Yakima WA
4,404 posts, read 4,603,729 times
Reputation: 3848
The reason the deep south ranks poorly in all the measures the OP mentioned has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with demographics.
 
Old 03-20-2017, 02:33 AM
 
Location: Western Asia
3,187 posts, read 1,440,670 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradpaisley94 View Post
If we look at it from a neutral and statistical Point of view; most red states (mostly in the South) have low avarage income, many people under poverty line, high crime rates, high obesity rates, racism, lots of teen pregnancy etc., and just often rank low among US states in most terms. Are there any republican/red states that actually do well (per capita so to speak)? I'm thinking what about outside the Deep South, like Utah or Arizona? Or perhaps Alaska or Montana?


*Republican/red state = state that often/'always' vote republican in state/national elections and where a majority of the people view themselves as conservative and/or republican.

As a conservative in a blue state (Washington), I think it's a fair question. However, I don't think after factoring in cost of living, you are going to see blue states and red states pretty close and I'm not sure which wins (people, I'm talking after factoring in cost of living).


The one that bothers me is average lifespan and there is a strong correlation of red state residents living shorter lifespans. I will say that much of the negative stats in places like Louisiana are coming from the Democrat areas of New Orleans & Baton Rouge. Also, Idaho, Utah & Arizona are red states that do well in most statistical areas.
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.


Closed Thread

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 > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
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