Conservative Relocating (Los Angeles, Fresno, Santa Monica: university, income, dangerous)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

I don't think so! Lot of the wealthy people here are liberals. Also bay area has large wealthy Asian/Indian population and vast majority of them vote democrat. This is not orange county! Sorry..

Some wealthy people are liberals, but the majority are not. Regardless, its not really "wealthy people" that matter but rather business. Also, wealthy Asians tend to vote republican.

Lower income folks far out number wealthy individuals in the bay area though, the liberalism in the bay area is not derived from the wealth but rather those in the lower income percentiles. The wealth in the bay area accounts for less than 1% of the votes.

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

They already left because they hated everyone, and San Francisco is still one of the wealthiest cities in the US and the Bay Area one of the wealthiest areas.

While San Fransisco is one of the wealthiest it also has one of the highest cost of living so the added income really does not mean much. Additionally, it has a very poor distribution of wealth as the middle-class have been slowly driven out.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by user_id

Regardless, its not really "wealthy people" that matter but rather business.

Last time I checked there is no dearth of businesses in the bay area and it is one of the most economically productive region in the world! The very wealthy areas of bay area like Santa Clara county and Marin county are heavily democratic! Are you suggesting that these counties are democrat because of a tiny minority of poor people who live there???? I can agree that some super wealthy entrepreneur type might be republican or libertarian but the vast majority of reasonably well off people in the bay area are indeed democrat! SF county is like 85% democrat...So are you suggesting that 85% of SF is poor???

The reason is simple.... Educated people in the bay area do not identify themselves with archaic conservative values and anti-intellectual and anti-scientific attitudes of republicans!

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by user_id

Some wealthy people are liberals, but the majority are not. Regardless, its not really "wealthy people" that matter but rather business. Also, wealthy Asians tend to vote republican.

Lower income folks far out number wealthy individuals in the bay area though, the liberalism in the bay area is not derived from the wealth but rather those in the lower income percentiles. The wealth in the bay area accounts for less than 1% of the votes.



While San Fransisco is one of the wealthiest it also has one of the highest cost of living so the added income really does not mean much. Additionally, it has a very poor distribution of wealth as the middle-class have been slowly driven out.

You are definitely going to have to prove your points with data because it is impossible to defend your statements. I don't know about the Bay Area but Los Angeles is comparable in Democratic strength and Asians are majority Democrat. Knowing the sheer number of Democrats in the Bay Area I think Asians there are likely similar to Asians in Los Angeles. And in California the heavily Republican counties are also mostly the poorest [primarily farm counties in the Central Valley] so your assumptions about Republicans being wealthy are not correct. One of the things that voting data showed in the 2008 election was that the middle-class\ upper middle-class suburbs went for Obama all across the nation. Republicans are losing almost every demographic group except white Southerns especially in the poorest states. The large cities across the country nearly all voted Democratic even in the South. Cities with universities and highly educated people also vote heavily Democratic.

If the Republican party went back to its libertarian roots and dumped the religious right than it would gain strength again. Until then Republicans in California will remain the minority.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

Last time I checked there is no dearth of businesses in the bay area and it is one of the most economically productive region in the world!

Businesses are slowly leaving the bay area, but it still generates a lot of start-ups. The unemployment rate in the bay area is around 12% so the economy is not exactly healthy.

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

The very wealthy areas of bay area like Santa Clara county and Marin county are heavily democratic!

I don't know why you think there are so many wealthy people in the bay area, the wealthy make up a very small percentage of the population. The median household income in Santa Clara is around $75k so the majority of the population is not even close to being wealthy.

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

Are you suggesting that these counties are democrat because of a tiny minority of poor people who live there????

Is this serious? You think the poor represent a tiny minority in these counties? They don't. Anyhow, I'm suggesting that those in the lower income percentiles are what makes the bay area so liberal.

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

So are you suggesting that 85% of SF is poor???

No, and if you actually read what I said you'd know that. Rather I said that the vast majority of SF is not wealthy. The median household income in San Fransisco is $65k, that is not a lot considering the cost of living.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by californio sur

I don't know about the Bay Area but Los Angeles is comparable in Democratic strength and Asians are majority Democrat.

I see that reading comprehension is not a strong point around here. I said wealthy Asians, Asians as a whole lean a bit Democrat.

Originally Posted by californio sur

so your assumptions about Republicans being wealthy are not correct.

Confusing me with someone else? I said that the wealthy tend to be republican, NOT that republicans tend to be wealthy.

Still not interested in your republican basing.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by user_id

Businesses are slowly leaving the bay area, but it still generates a lot of start-ups. The unemployment rate in the bay area is around 12% so the economy is not exactly healthy.


I don't know why you think there are so many wealthy people in the bay area, the wealthy make up a very small percentage of the population. The median household income in Santa Clara is around $75k so the majority of the population is not even close to being wealthy.



Is this serious? You think the poor represent a tiny minority in these counties? They don't. Anyhow, I'm suggesting that those in the lower income percentiles are what makes the bay area so liberal.


No, and if you actually read what I said you'd know that. Rather I said that the vast majority of SF is not wealthy. The median household income in San Fransisco is $65k, that is not a lot considering the cost of living.

It would really help your argument if you could back it up with facts. I know you can find the voting data and breakdowns of towns\ ethnic groups\ incomes, etc for the Bay Area [I'm too lazy to do it myself ]. But in LA county the data showed that all demographic groups from poor ethnic types to wealthy whites voted overwhelmingly Democratic in 2008. That included the suburbs and ghettos, Malibu to Compton, Asians and gays. In-fact the wealthiest white areas were the strongest Democratic regions of the city. But the most disturbing fact for Republicans was the number of young people who voted Democratic [almost 80%] and what that portends for the future of the GOP.

Here's are article written by a Republican who describes what is happening to the GOP in California and it isn't funny:
Death of the California Republican Party: Murder or Suicide? | Fox & Hounds Daily

[FresnoFacts]

Originally Posted by californio sur

So the voters are stupid? Since the Bay Area is overwhelmingly Democratic that would mean they are overwhelmingly stupid, in your opinion. Since Fresno voted for Obama, I suppose it is now also a stupid city?

Putting words in my mouth? I didn't say that. Did you see the smilie? You are making assumptions about my political views about a lot of things in that statement.

But because people vote Democratic does not reflect more intelligence or education as you tried to conclude. It simply reflects who they think most closely aligns with their values and concerns AT THAT TIME.

Nor do religion beliefs reflect stupidity as you concluded earlier.

That is simply the same intolerance you are accusing others of having.

Faith in anything and intelligence are two different things. Like with love, science cannot explain or discount faith.

Nor should we be intolerant of people who believe in biblical creation anymore that we should of someone who believes in say Native American creation stories. I accept that is their faith/belief and that does not make me a better (or worse) person because I do not agree with them.

Originally Posted by californio sur

Native Californian's used to vote Republican but now don't.

Can you prove that statement? I do not think you can show that is true, just your opinion too.

Originally Posted by californio sur

Historically you might want to study Nixon's "Southern strategy" that resulted in all Dixiecrats [former Democrats] leaving their life long party to join the Republican party. They left the Democratic party because the Republicans encouraged racism in order to get votes [real nice people, huh?]. Former Dixiecrats hated Republicans because they hated President Lincoln but they quickly left the Democratic party when it embraced integration. This process of the South becoming Republican took a while.

Do not forget Democrats/Independents like George Wallace were still encouraging racism in the Nixon years of the 1970s, it was not just one party playing to that.

BUT, several books/articles now argue that the movement in the south to Republican candidates was also economic driven.

Until the end of WWII the south was poor and heavily agricultural. After the war the south's economy changed, creating more middle class, upper middle class and upper class voters.

The values/interests of that type of suburban voter (such as fiscal conservatism) were represented more by Republicans rather than the Democrats.

Read this NY Times article titled "The Myth of the Southern Strategy". It reviews a book by 2 academics that uses election poll information to challenge the idea that racism was the only reason for the party flip. The book is “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” by Johnston and Shafer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma...ion2b.t-4.html

Just a short quote from the article:
"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

In other words it wasn't the stereotype of poor uneducated angry whites that switched to the GOP.

So while some Republican candidates did try to play to the dislike of Civil Rights and desegregation (as did some Dems like Wallace), there were also demographic trends that increased the suburban type voter in the south who typically votes GOP across the US.

Also some believe that the Democrats were viewed as too closely tied to unions in the non-union south. That perception also may contribute to the movement toward the GOP.

So the idea that the only reason for the change was Republicans pursuing whites upset about integration is not the only explanation, likely just one of several factors. Maybe the Dems need a new suburbia strategy?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by californio sur

But in LA county the data showed that all demographic groups from poor ethnic types to wealthy whites voted overwhelmingly Democratic in 2008.

The data does not show that, but feel free to post any data that you think demonstrates this.

I don't know why you keep talking about how bad republicans do in California.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by californio sur

How do you explain that Republicans do so poorly in the Bay Area?

PhD's are susceptible to group think, too, 'ya know.

[batransplant]

I think the bay area and much of California is democrat is because the wealthy dems vote for their socially progressive ideals (gay marriage, womens rights, environment etc), and the middle class and poor dems vote for bigger government, strong unions, and social programs geared toward them.