How liberal/open minded is Austin Comapred to... (Houston, Santa Fe: school district, to live in)

[Trainwreck20]

if I recall correctly, Houston also didn't vote for W, as with most of South Texas and a few other counties.

Going off memory, but Harris County did vote for W. I do not know about the city proper. I think there were 5 or 6 counties that did not, one was Travis, and two or three were in the valley. There was one near the Houston area, but don't remember which one...might have been East toward Beaumont.

Let us not forget that W only got 60% of the vote and the difference between the antithetical state of Mass. he received 40%, only a 20% difference.

20 percentage points difference, or 50% more percentage points than Mass. Not trying to talk politics, just statistics .

Edit: Opps, looks like a few more than 6 (although this is not official, either, I suppose, I did not check).

[BrooklynTx]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Going off memory, but Harris County did vote for W. I do not know about the city proper. I think there were 5 or 6 counties that did not, one was Travis, and two or three were in the valley. There was one near the Houston area, but don't remember which one...might have been East toward Beaumont.

20 percentage points difference, or 50% more percentage points than Mass. Not trying to talk politics, just statistics .

Edit: Opps, looks like a few more than 6 (although this is not official, either, I suppose, I did not check).

2004 Presidential General Election Results - Texas

Indeed, a few more than 6, mainly concentrated in South Texas. El Paso and Presidio Co. in Big Bend also went to the Dems. I was grossly incorrect in equating the city of Houston with the county of Harris. That extra 1.5 million at the margins of the county does wonders for the Republican Party.

Your memory served you correct regarding the far SE county (Jefferson) voting for Kerry in 2004. As far as the statistical comparison between Texas and Mass., both statements are correct.

I will fall back on my initial statement regarding Houston as a city. Granted, gentrification in the last 10 years has changed the politics a bit, the city still remains Democratic for the most part. Quite diffferent from the outlying suburban districts.

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by BrooklynTx

2004 Presidential General Election Results - Texas

Gee... ya think maybe the Texas Panhandle is fairly safe territory for Republicans?

Wow... a couple counties up there voted more than 90% for Bush!!!!

It's a bit odd that the map chose to reverse the colors that have been established by mass media (normally blue=democrat and red=republican) so for anyone who clicks the link, do take note that the deeper the blue, the more people voted for Bush, ONLY on this particular map!

Here's a more nuanced look at the nation's voting patterns using the usual blue for democrat and red for republican scheme, showing that the high plains and the Mormon regions of the country are the two most Republican areas:

[2lizards]

Originally Posted by TheHarvester

So, using your above criteria, I'd re-visit the Denver option and also look into Salt Lake City, Boise, Austin, and probably some other places that aren't popping into my head at this moment. Possibly Sacramento --- close to the best variety of white-water rafting opportunities in the USA! But it's kind of a gross city, in my snooty opinion.

Thanks! I know what you mean about the expenses. My wish list will probably bear little resemblance to my final place, but one can dream....

I did look into Sacramento at one point. It seems relatively inexpensive compared to the rest of California. I suppose there's a reason for that, but I've never been. If I recall, it's not too far from the Bay, which would be nice for occasional weekend trips.

[TheHarvester]

Sacramento has become very popular with Bay Area residents who can no longer afford their beloved homes. But Sacramento has the problem of being affordable only in those areas where you wouldn't want to live! Nevertheless, it's an option you might want to consider. Good variety of weather, very fast access to SF Bay Area, Lake Tahoe and other Sierras destinations, Reno (if you're into that scene), and a wide variety of choices of types of communities. I've also been hearing rumors that the city is transforming due to all the people moving there from the coastal areas. They're restoring some of the older neighborhoods. It could end up being a very nice city in 10 or 20 years, but for now it's best to head for the hills --- some of the communities east of Sac'to are most appealing and you'd be very close to outstanding recreational opportunities in the mountains, lakes and rivers.

[Trainwreck20]

Hmmm....we're veering way into the politics arena, and history is not on our side

How liberal/open minded is Austin Comapred to...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SF Bay area?
LA?
Mee-ami area?
DC?
Houston?
Atlanta?

[nomansland]

Originally Posted by 2lizards

Lawrence sounds nice, but I don't know if I could cope with the flatness of Kansas. .

Apparently, you've never visited Lawrence. It's actually very hilly and has lots of trees. In fact KU is considered to have one of the prettiest campuses in the country, as it sits on top of Mt. Oread. Not really a mountain but a big hill, but whatever.

[mimimomx3]

I think that Austin has historically been liberal, but parts of it have become more conservative. We do have a Republican governor after all who makes his home here... one thing to keep in mind is that our police force is very conservative, especially with regard to minorties. We are currently under investigation with the Department of Justice for the police's treatment of minorities.

[karnival96]

Just to clarify the police department situation a bit, I don't think it's possible to judge the department as conservative (or liberal for that matter). IMHO, the department does have some serious issues with regard to training, tactics and leadership. The department is under investigation primarily because of a handfull of questionable shootings, which for the most part were probably avoidable. I would consider the department to be conservative if the leadership was resistant to making the obviously needed changes, a la Daryl Gates in LA or Rudy Guliani in New York a few years back. For the most part, the City's municipal leadership has taken a progressive stance and seems genuinely interested in correcting the problems.

[l8blumr]

Originally Posted by TheHarvester

Austin is in Texas (if ya know what I mean), but it has sections of the central city that vote like Berkeley. It's difficult to respond to this comparison question, especially considering the fact that there is no universal definition of "liberal" or "conservative." During my lifetime these words have changed meaning as many times as Madonna has changed her hair style, image and personality.

The San Francisco Bay Area is obviously the largest concentrated location of leftists in the USA, but there are less-populated areas of Vermont and Massachusetts that surpass the Bay Area for extreme liberalism.

Los Angeles is socially liberal in certain areas, not in others. It's a mega-city with multiple smaller cities contained within, there's no way to compare it. West Hollywood will vote overwhelmingly in favor of gay rights but might vote more conservatively on economic issues, for example. And the Hispanic segments of LA will be more socially conservative because of the obvious influence of the Catholic Church, but they'll be more "liberal" about immigration and economic issues.

What does any of this mean? My take on Austin is that it's extremely progressive in the inner city, but the farther away from central Austin you get, the more conservative it gets. Williamson County, our largest suburban county, is ultra-conservative. To the south of Austin you'll find counties that have moderate voting records but that's driven by poverty and high concentrations of immigrants. Does it make you "liberal" if you happen to be a minority and/or an immigrant who happens to vote based on what you can get from the government? I think it's more complex than that.

In short, it's very difficult to compare politics here vs. the places you listed. The best thing I can say about Austin is that the progressive/leftist types here tend to be a lot more open-minded, less partisan and more independent than those I know on the west coast. You can express your views safely here no matter what you believe. But that only applies to the libertarian/funky side of Austin, especially South Austin. It's a "live and let live" type of liberalism, not a dogmatic fascist-leftist liberalism that excludes dissenting points of view.

I've lived west coast (SF and SD), and Austin is somewhere between on the politics.

Being ultra-conservative (Bush is a liberal), it's a relief not to have my car vandalized because of my beliefs, like in SF.