Conservative Relocating (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Monica: living in, move, wealthy)
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.
We are relocating for work to the SF Bay area. We are a very conservative Christian family with 2 small kids hoping to get the same family feeling community we have right now. I really like Brisbane, but was hoping for some input on areas like Brisbane close to down town SF.
What are you trying to conserve? Remember Jesus was a long haired hippie liberal in his time and had nothing to do with bwing a conservative of the status quo.
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.
Here's the data you requested for Los Angeles. Can you see anything encouraging for a Republican in the largest city in California [second largest city in America]? Read and weep my friend:
"All four of the city's largest ethnic groups -- whites, Latinos, blacks and Asians -- are more liberal and more heavily Democratic than their counterparts statewide".
"Some districts north of the Santa Monicas may continue to elect relatively more conservative City Council members while voting with the rest of the city's liberal majority on national, state and even citywide issues".
"Geographically, the Loyola poll overturned the longtime local political assumption that the San Fernando Valley is generally more conservative than the city south of the Santa Monica Mountains: 72% of Valley voters went for Obama, as opposed to 78% of the rest of the city's electorate."
Los Angeles' white voters emerged from Tuesday's general election as the most liberal constituency in the city
While 43% of the nation's white voters cast ballots for Barack Obama, 76% of L.A.'s white electorate went for the president-elect. Similarly, while the Democratic candidate won 66% of the Latino vote nationally, he carried 77% of L.A. Latinos. The city's African Americans matched national percentages: Obama got 97% of their vote. He also was the choice of 67% of L.A.'s Asian Americans"
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.
Can you prove that statement? I do not think you can show that is true, just your opinion too.
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?
I know your background and respect your opinion, FresnoFacts so perhaps I misread your sarcasm. I fully agree that a person can believe whatever they want regarding religion. My only problem is when they insert religious beliefs into textbooks or public policy. As a Catholic I was embarrassed that the church would so aggressively fight gay marriage and then try to cover it up with their Mormon connection [funneling $] to conceal their efforts. And the Catholic bishops have no credibility when it comes to sexuality as we sadly know.
It can not be under-estimated that universities are a significant strength for the Democratic party and why Republicans so often criticize them as being biased and "hot beds for liberalism." That is why many Republicans view education as something to fear and despise. That anti-intelligence stance only further erodes support for the GOP and why young people in particular vote strongly Democratic. There is no way a political group can survive if it accepts ignorance and the willingness to attack science.
Thanks for the input on the "Southern Strategy." The end result is that the Republican party is now referred to as the "Party of the South" as it's last stronghold.
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.
You are quite right. The coalition of wealthy white liberals\ middle-class suburbia & working class pro-union-big government means that Democrats have a tight grip on the California electorate.
I know your background and respect your opinion, FresnoFacts so perhaps I misread your sarcasm.
Thanks, its is not always easy passing saracasm online. But the SF B.O.S. is still not a good sign of intelligent voting on issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur
It can not be under-estimated that universities are a significant strength for the Democratic party and why Republicans so often criticize them as being biased and "hot beds for liberalism." That is why many Republicans view education as something to fear and despise. That anti-intelligence stance only further erodes support for the GOP and why young people in particular vote strongly Democratic. There is no way a political group can survive if it accepts ignorance and the willingness to attack science.
It is not anti-intelligence to be concerned about the intolerance and bias shown by many in academia. Academia should be about examining all sides/theories and allowing students the opportunity to determine their own views. Presenting only a single view as the "correct" view is closer to indoctrination than education.
Did you see what PZ Myers did two years ago? Myers is a biologist at the University of Minnesota. He claims he took a communion wafer from a Catholic church, pierced it (and some Qur'an pages) with a nail, then threw it in the trash. He posted pictures on his blog. He then condemed religion as promoting hate. Yet he did not consider his own actions one of hate.
His actions should be condemed by any tolerant, intelligent person. They are just as hateful and prejudiced as actions taken by those on the extreme right. Attacks on religion should not be tolerated either.
There are many intelligent people with closed-minds and more intellectually lazy than they want to admit.
Voting a straight Dem (or Rep) party ticket can be a sign that they do not want to listen to different viewpoints, a very dangerous behavior. That is not the mark of an educated or intelligent person. We should stop and say, I agree with this person about this but disagree about that.
I know many liberals who immediately have knee-jerk reactions and quit listening as soon as they see the words Republican or Conservative. That is not a sign of intelligence or wisdom or an open-mind when we refuse to ponder all views and ideas from someone because of a label.
We should agree or disagree with individual viewpoints on issues, not based on a broadbrush label. Discounting someone because of a Republican or Democrat (or Conservative or Liberal) label is to me the true mark of dumb.
Thanks for the input on the "Southern Strategy." The end result is that the Republican party is now referred to as the "Party of the South" as it's last stronghold.
The "Party of the South" label is incorrect. Many southern states still lean Democratic. If I remember right that includes Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc.
Republicans are also strong in states like Idaho, Wyoming, etc.
And the most recent nationwide trends have moved against Democratic registration in most states. In almost all states the Dem advantage shrank between 2008 and 2009. California is one of only 10 states where that did not happen. Party ID: Despite GOP Gains, Most States Remain Blue
It is not anti-intelligence to be concerned about the intolerance and bias shown by many in academia. Academia should be about examining all sides/theories and allowing students the opportunity to determine their own views. Presenting only a single view as the "correct" view is closer to indoctrination than education.
If you tell me that evolution did not happen am I supposed to say that you are possibly correct? And what would that accomplish other than spreading ignorance? Scientific facts are not a matter of opinion or belief!
Thanks, its is not always easy passing saracasm online. But the SF B.O.S. is still not a good sign of intelligent voting on issues.
It is not anti-intelligence to be concerned about the intolerance and bias shown by many in academia. Academia should be about examining all sides/theories and allowing students the opportunity to determine their own views. Presenting only a single view as the "correct" view is closer to indoctrination than education.
Did you see what PZ Myers did two years ago? Myers is a biologist at the University of Minnesota. He claims he took a communion wafer from a Catholic church, pierced it (and some Qur'an pages) with a nail, then threw it in the trash. He posted pictures on his blog. He then condemed religion as promoting hate. Yet he did not consider his own actions one of hate.
His actions should be condemed by any tolerant, intelligent person. They are just as hateful and prejudiced as actions taken by those on the extreme right. Attacks on religion should not be tolerated either.
There are many intelligent people with closed-minds and more intellectually lazy than they want to admit.
Voting a straight Dem (or Rep) party ticket can be a sign that they do not want to listen to different viewpoints, a very dangerous behavior. That is not the mark of an educated or intelligent person. We should stop and say, I agree with this person about this but disagree about that.
I know many liberals who immediately have knee-jerk reactions and quit listening as soon as they see the words Republican or Conservative. That is not a sign of intelligence or wisdom or an open-mind when we refuse to ponder all views and ideas from someone because of a label.
We should agree or disagree with individual viewpoints on issues, not based on a broadbrush label. Discounting someone because of a Republican or Democrat (or Conservative or Liberal) label is to me the true mark of dumb.
The action by the professor is inexcusable and a violation of private belief in my opinion. I remember gay groups taking communion and then throwing the wafer onto the sidewalk afterward. My mom went to mass at the local cathedral when a man handcuffed himself to the bishop's chair to protest clergy abuse of kids. There are demonstrations in front of the cathedral every Sunday. I don't agree with what the professor did or the gay groups but frankly was glad to hear about the guy interrupting mass and the weekly demonstrations in front of the cathedral.
Honestly, I think Republicans would improve their standing in California if they would just drop the connection to the evangelicals. The church should have no connection to politics in my opinion. Separation of church and state is vital.
Here's the data you requested for Los Angeles. Can you see anything encouraging for a Republican in the largest city in California [second largest city in America]? Read and weep my friend:
What you posted does not demonstrate what you said, nor does it conflict with what I said.
- You are citing information about race, I'm talking about income levels.
- Santa Monica votes more conservative, not less.
- I said nothing about the San Fernando Valley.
- Asians were the most conservative voters.
What's next an article about turtles in LA? Anyhow, this thread is turning into partisan nonsense. The OP is not going to find any truly "conservative" area in the bay area, so she/he should simply make the best of matters. The ocean, hills, etc don't care about your political ideologies.
If you tell me that evolution did not happen am I supposed to say that you are possibly correct? And what would that accomplish other than spreading ignorance? Scientific facts are not a matter of opinion or belief!
Evolution is not a "fact", its a scientific theory and as a result can be completely wrong. Nothing in science is certain, so yes you should say that they are possibly correct.
Science masquerading as religion is just as bad as religious bigotry.
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.
I do not think you can show that is true, just your opinion too.
