Minnesota vs.Wisconsin (Duluth, Dayton, Madison: credit, home, neighborhoods)

[Schuman]

Which state would you say is most socially progressive?

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Schuman

Which state would you say is most socially progressive?

Well, Wisconsin has had some recent issues related to being a "right to work" state thanks in part to Gov. Scott Walker, which makes it somewhat less progressive than I would have given them credit for normally.

Minnesota is also home to the DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor (http://dfl.org/about/history - broken link)) party.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Schuman

Which state would you say is most socially progressive?

First, define what you mean by "socially progressive" so we're all working from the same definition.

[Clifford63]

I think both states have a fairly even division of conservatives and liberals. Elections seem pretty close recently. Walker came out on top in the east and Dayton on the west, but both elections were extremely close. A few thousand votes one way or the other can really change political landscape. Had Dayton and Walker both lost we may have seen flip flop of what is going on politically in the two states. Same issues are up for discussion, but Dayton has more or less blocked a lot of conservative agenda in MN, where Walker has been pretty successful in getting things passed in his conservative agenda. The recall election really speaks to the division between the two sides in WI and polls seem to indicate it could go either way.

[west336]

On the one hand Wisconsin has the Walker issue and MN doesn't, but on the other hand, WI is much more lax about drinking laws and closing time, and it's easier to "have fun" in WI than MN. They are both progressive, but I couldn't pick an obvious leader.

[tvdxer]

Socially progressive? You mean having a socially liberal populace? I would say Minnesota on that one. However, even Minnesota is conservative once you get out of the immediate Twin Cities (or perhaps neighborhoods of Duluth).

Madison, Wisconsin is a very liberal city, but Wisconsin also has its conservative areas - the Fox Valley is a well-known conservative stronghold.

[sholomar]

I don't think there's a big difference really. Socially progressive can mean many different things.. are you talking politically like gun restrictions, abortion rights, or more from a community development standpoint (bike paths, good roads, schools, etc?)

Twin Cities from my perspective has the same cultural and political style as Wisconsin.... it's only sports teams that make it seem otherwise. Get outside the cities and go west and it's more like out here (South Dakota) which in itself isn't that foreign either, it's just not as progressive in that there's not as much money to spend on roads and the like. It's not 'upscale' compared to MN and WI.

I don't think you can go wrong with the Twin Cities or Madison. I wouldn't pick Green Bay or Milwaukee personally but Milwaukee has nice suburbs and is close to Chicago.

[GBCommenter]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

First, define what you mean by "socially progressive" so we're all working from the same definition.

Agreed...without splitting hairs, what an (American) liberal defines as "social progress" is oceans apart from what a libertarian (or Libertarian) would define as "social progress".

[sholomar]

I'd still say at least democrats do have a somewhat progressive mentality, which is more than I can say for republicans. If republicans weren't so hard bent on their war on drugs and really wanted the individual to have more personal freedom, I might be more inclined to support them. But they have a 1950's style value system... they don't really believe in complete social freedom like libertarians.

In the end the gridlock we have now seems to be working.. it will be fun to try to see them save the economy when we continue to outsource real jobs and become paper pushers and office gossipers.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by stockwiz

I'd still say at least democrats do have a somewhat progressive mentality, which is more than I can say for republicans. If republicans weren't so hard bent on their war on drugs and really wanted the individual to have more personal freedom, I might be more inclined to support them. But they have a 1950's style value system... they don't really believe in complete social freedom like libertarians.

That's an interesting take on it. Why do you think it is that the Republican party has an influential libertarian wing while the Democratic party does not? That seems to be the gist of this paper from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf