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.
Moot point. Even if the candidate was a bucket of rocks, Mass. would still vote Democratic over any other party. It is, by far, one of the most Democratic states in the US. Not to mention, both PA and Mass., have voted, twice, for a black presidential candidate.
That is to say, I think trying to associate biases on a large scale with voting patterns is quite silly. Neither of these states, like the rest of the country, is a post-racial utopia.
That is not true at all. The current governor of Massachusetts Charlie Baker is a republican so clearly a Democratic victory is not guaranteed because in more liberal states especially solidly Democrat states the locally running Republicans tend to be pretty moderate which is why Massachusetts and Vermont both have republican governors currently even though they are two of the most Democratic States in the nation.
And I do agree with you that no place in the country is a post-racial utopia and the differences between Pennsylvania and Massachusetts on race are not that big.
That is not true at all. The current governor of Massachusetts Charlie Baker is a republican so clearly a Democratic victory is not guaranteed because in more liberal states especially solidly Democrat states the locally running Republicans tend to be pretty moderate which is why Massachusetts and Vermont both have republican governors currently even though they are two of the most Democratic States in the nation.
You're exactly right, and I was being facetious, but the point does still stand that Massachusetts does have at least a propensity to vote for Democrats in statewide elections much, much more than most other states.
You're exactly right, and I was being facetious, but the point does still stand that Massachusetts does have at least a propensity to vote for Democrats in statewide elections much, much more than most other states.
Not for Governor, Its seen as a counter balance to the 90%+ democratic legislature, in fact Deval Patrick was the only Democratic Governor since Dukakis, a 30 year span.
Not for Governor, Its seen as a counter balance to the 90%+ democratic legislature, in fact Deval Patrick was the only Democratic Governor since Dukakis, a 30 year span.
I'm talking ALL elections of statewide consequence. That would include Senatorial and Presidential elections, also, which give it a very blue tilt, at least since the late 1980s.
I'm talking ALL elections of statewide consequence. That would include Senatorial and Presidential elections, also, which give it a very blue tilt, at least since the late 1980s.
Yes but Senate and President is totally different than Governor, Mitt Romney lost a Senate and Presidential Race by 35 points in Massachusetts, and won his Governor's campaign. Bill Weld won the Governor's race in 1994 with 73% of the vote but got 45% when he ran for Senate in 1996.
Yes but Senate and President is totally different than Governor, Mitt Romney lost a Senate and Presidential Race by 35 points in Massachusetts, and won his Governor's campaign. Bill Weld won the Governor's race in 1994 with 73% of the vote but got 45% when he ran for Senate in 1996.
I realize exactly what you're saying and agree with you, but I still think it's fair to say, even recognizing that gubernatorial races are different, Mass. has a generally strong Democratic orientation. I didn't think that would be so controversial to say.
It is quite interesting, if not strange, why Mass. is notably more Republican-inclined in electing governors as opposed to Senators/Presidents, even when they're the same candidate with very similar policy stances, at a statewide versus national level.
It's seen as a way to counterbalance the effect of a democrat dominated legislature. Its actually a relatively common situation in a few states that are overall very Democratic. The difference is at the presidential level Mitt Romney for example wasn't going to be opposed by a Democrat dominated legislature that would end up shaping the final look of the policies that are enacted anyways because the federal govt. is not dominated by Democrats like the Mass. legislature. Vermont is similar in this regard as well with many more Republican governors than Democrat.
No contest, but it is more about the state in which each city exists. Mass is a socialist, anti (legal) gun hell hole. Pennsylvania is a SHALL ISSUE state, and I can carry my concealed firearm, legally in Philadelphia with my PA LTCF. I won't live anywhere that disarms me.
No contest, but it is more about the state in which each city exists. Mass is a socialist, anti (legal) gun hell hole. Pennsylvania is a SHALL ISSUE state, and I can carry my concealed firearm, legally in Philadelphia with my PA LTCF. I won't live anywhere that disarms me.
Didn't mean to delve into a political discussion, but I don't think most folks in both states care all that much that about their ability to conceal carry a firearm. It's a something only sought by a minority of the population.
Regardless, contrary to popular belief, socialism is alive and well in this country and resides in every state (look no further than PA's state-owned liquor stores, for example), so I would have to disagree with your assertion.
One difference between Philly and Boston that I haven't seen mentioned is the people, especially from the perspective of race relations. With a much higher ratio of African Americans to Euro Americans, race relations in Philadelphia seem more even and integrated, with many interracial couples and families seen on its streets. Such mixed families are pretty common in Philadelphia, but can still seem novel in Boston, even in 2017. Though both cities still have exclusively black and white neighborhoods, the diversity one encounters in both downtowns are very different, with Philadelphia feeling and looking more diverse at all socio-economic levels. It is interesting also that Boston has never had a mayor of color, whereas Philly has had at least 2, the most recent of whom, Mayor Nutter, achieved approval ratings above 60% at different times during his tenure. So if you're uncomfortable in a downtown that can feel almost all white, go for Philadelphia.
Boston does generally feel more organized, upscale and polished, with fewer and less aggressive homeless people. But it has also been my experience that Philadelphians are more willing to help a stranger in the street, whether giving money, asking for directions, holding a door open, giving up a seat on the bus, etc. Boston can feel like it operates on a 'don't bother me and I won't bother you' ethos, whereas Philadelphians seem more willing to engage each other in their day to day encounters, for better or for worse.
Finally, this might just be my experience, but I never heard white people use the N word in Philadelphia, whereas on several occasions the word has been used by whites within my earshot at bars I've visited in Boston.
Cambridge and Newton both have black mayors currently. Both are a stones throw to Boston.
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.
