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.
That's quite a generalization in and of itself. Not to get even more off-topic, but I'd argue that the current generation of working-class whites is much less socially conservative than, say, 30 years ago, if only for the fact that there is much less fervent religiosity: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/bo...part.html?_r=0
The White working class is much less socially conservative than it was 30 years ago in a number of ways, including its views on racial segregation and intermarriage. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have culturally conservative views on other issues such as gun control, abortion, immigrants, civil rights, etc.
And yes, saying that White-working class voters tend to have more culturally conservative views is a generalization, but a valid generalization nonetheless. It is no different from saying that Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Or that African Americans tend to have more conservative views towards same sex marriage. The fact that there are some Mexican-Americans who will gladly line up to vote for Donald Trump doesn't negate the general trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
It seems like you're having difficulty in accepting the fact that a formerly somewhat socially-conservative area can transition into a more socially-liberal one, but that's exactly what has happened in the case of Pittsburgh. Do you accept that demographics can change over time?
And what demographic change would that be? The metro area is 87.5% non-Hispanic White. And only 31.2% of that demographic has a college degree or better. Pittsburgh also has one of the oldest populations of any metro in the United States. And its Whites are not particularly affluent even by the standards of smaller metro areas in the South. That's not exactly a recipe for a socially liberal electorate.
If anything, the core city will continue to become more blue as the more populous suburbs continue to become more red. Pittsburgh is not like Raleigh where heavy domestic in-migration and immigration is pulling the region to the left.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 01-20-2016 at 09:32 AM..
The debate about the political differences between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is interesting, but it's important to note these differences are solely because of the suburbs. I actually think "suburb" is a very generous definition for some of the counties in the MSA (Fayette and Armstrong most notably) because virtually no one in those counties commutes into Pittsburgh (and the Pittsburgh MSA lacks any strong suburban job anchors similar to King of Prussia). It's obvious if you live here that there's basically a fringe of exurbs on the edges of Butler, Westmoreland, and Washington counties, with the rest essentially slowly decaying old mill towns and totally rural areas - very different from most of the Philadelphia MSA.
I think it's worth noting that Pittsburgh has has 90 neighborhoods, and not a single one went for Romney in 2012. Here's a map of Allegheny County election districts in 2012. There are three Romney won, but IIRC when combined with the Obama districts in the remainder of these neighborhoods he carried all neighborhoods narrowly.
I don't have access to a similar map for Philadelphia for 2012. Here's a list though of ward totals. Romney came closest in the 26th ward in South Philly. I know from 2008 vote totals McCain won plenty of precincts here, along with precincts all over Northeast Philadelphia and in the river wards.
So the two cities proper are not dramatically different in terms of how working class whites vote. Perhaps Pittsburgh is a touch to the left honestly. Philadelphia is massively more Democratic because of the higher nonwhite vote, but that's about it.
The debate about the political differences between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is interesting, but it's important to note these differences are solely because of the suburbs.
That's also true when comparing the City of Atlanta and Philadelphia. Or the City of Raleigh and Philadelphia. Or Richmond and Philadelphia. The difference is almost entirely because of the suburbs.
Most people, however, live outside of the city limits, and in Pittsburgh's case about 87% of the MSA lives outside of the city of Pittsburgh. So if we focus on a small cluster of liberal enclaves in the city limits, we can say the two are similar, but they are not very similar when we focus on the entire voting population of the respective regions.
And that matters a lot. Just ask liberals in Atlanta proper how T-SPLOST worked out for them.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 01-20-2016 at 10:16 AM..
The debate about the political differences between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is interesting, but it's important to note these differences are solely because of the suburbs. I actually think "suburb" is a very generous definition for some of the counties in the MSA (Fayette and Armstrong most notably) because virtually no one in those counties commutes into Pittsburgh (and the Pittsburgh MSA lacks any strong suburban job anchors similar to King of Prussia). It's obvious if you live here that there's basically a fringe of exurbs on the edges of Butler, Westmoreland, and Washington counties, with the rest essentially slowly decaying old mill towns and totally rural areas - very different from most of the Philadelphia MSA.
Isn't your map just Allengheny County not the entire MSA? So most rural areas and exurbs wouldn't be included.
So the two cities proper are not dramatically different in terms of how working class whites vote. Perhaps Pittsburgh is a touch to the left honestly. Philadelphia is massively more Democratic because of the higher nonwhite vote, but that's about it.
While it Pittsburgh is more socially conservative, assuming most of the "blue" areas are poorer and more working-class, the working-class types of Pittsburgh still vote Democratic, even though they tend to be more socially conservative. Hard to tell, but most of the higher income areas tended to be dark red:
So the two cities proper are not dramatically different in terms of how working class whites vote. Perhaps Pittsburgh is a touch to the left honestly. Philadelphia is massively more Democratic because of the higher nonwhite vote, but that's about it.
You could also say NYC is only "massively more Democratic because of the higher nonwhite vote, but that's about it."
If you weigh the vote by borough, you get a non-Hispanic White vote that went approximately 60% for Obama.
Of course, there is a conservative religious vote in Brooklyn that tanks the numbers. But it is what it is.
Besides, I never argued that East Coast cities didn't have conservative, working-class voters (Sean Hannity comes to mind). I'm saying that those voters make up a smaller share of voters and a smaller share of Republican voters in particular on a metro-wide basis.
Out of curiosity, where'd you get those numbers from? They sound reasonable.
An Election Atlas thread. I wasn't sure if posting the link was against forum rules. I've been slapped across the wrist a couple of times for doing that.
That's also true when comparing the City of Atlanta and Philadelphia. Or the City of Raleigh and Philadelphia. Or Richmond and Philadelphia. The difference is almost entirely because of the suburbs.
That's not really true. Most southern cities have significant wealthy Republican neighborhoods within city limits (for example, Buckhead in Atlanta). Even the most gentrified white yuppie areas around Downtown typically top out at around 60%-65% Democratic, which is way less than similar neighborhoods in northern cities. Basically white urbanites are almost always more liberal than white suburbanites, but they still tend to be track somewhat with regional voting patterns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Most people, however, live outside of the city limits, and in Pittsburgh's case about 87% of the MSA lives outside of the city of Pittsburgh. So if we focus on a small cluster of liberal enclaves in the city limits, we can say the two are similar, but they are not very similar when we focus on the entire voting population of the respective regions.
As I said, a good deal of the "outer counties" of the MSA are basically rural with a smattering of old mill towns. They have essentially no suburban development except for small amounts of (old) suburbs which formed to serve the mill towns themselves.
As to the actual suburban areas in Pittsburgh, I think most of the difference boils down to the suburbs being much whiter, and the Jewish presence in Pittsburgh also being smaller (and mostly remaining inside of city limits). Most of the suburbs (outside of the wealthy North Hills) aren't that Republican really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Isn't your map just Allengheny County not the entire MSA? So most rural areas and exurbs wouldn't be included.
Yes. But the city limits are clearly demarcated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
While it Pittsburgh is more socially conservative, assuming most of the "blue" areas are poorer and more working-class, the working-class types of Pittsburgh still vote Democratic, even though they tend to be more socially conservative. Hard to tell, but most of the higher income areas tended to be dark red:
...
the income - party relation would be weaker in Northeast corridor cities.
This is also true. There is for the most part a direct relation in the suburbs with economic class and income - the wealthier a township/borough, the more Republican it is. Suburbs which have somewhat of a walkable core (Sewickley, Oakmont, Mount Lebanon, or Aspinwall) tend to be more Democratic even when they are wealthy however.
I do have to say that while I know there is a very weak relationship between the wealth of a town and its socio-economic class in New England, I'm not sure this is as true in the suburbs of NYC and Philadelphia. When I have looked up data about highly liberal wealthy suburban enclaves, I find it's pretty much always due to a high concentration of Jews.
I do have to say that while I know there is a very weak relationship between the wealth of a town and its socio-economic class in New England, I'm not sure this is as true in the suburbs of NYC and Philadelphia. When I have looked up data about highly liberal wealthy suburban enclaves, I find it's pretty much always due to a high concentration of Jews.
For various reasons, it's among the weakest in the country. Connecticut is weaker than Massachusetts, don't remember the link. If you check a map of Long Island, you can see an income - Republican voting correlation and many of the exception are heavily Jewish areas. Several particularly walkable areas also are an exception, and one around the state university.
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.
