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.
When cities have a Republican Mayor they are doing fine and growing/prospering.
New York City with Rudy Giuliani from the 90s to after 9/11.
Los Angeles in the 90s with Richard Riordan
Charlotte, North Carolina with Pat McCrory until 2008.
Oklahoma City today with Mick Cornett
Indianapolis today is the Largest US city with a Republican Mayor: Greg Ballard. San Diego lost that title in 2012. Ironically heres the census results for the 5 cities:
New York 1920s to today. 1920 5,620,048 17.9% 1930 6,930,446 23.3% 1940 7,454,995 7.6% 1950 7,891,957 5.9% 1960 7,781,984 −1.4% 1970 7,894,862 +1.5% 1980 7,071,639 −10.4% 19907,322,564 +3.5% 20008,008,288 +9.4% 2010 8,175,133+2.1%
Bold Indicates when a Republican/Independent Republican Mayor was in charge of New York City.
notice how since Democrats have taken control of LA after 2000 growth has plateaued.
These aren't your born at home hard working democrats. These are the liberals and leaning communist type.
Most of them have veered so off the middle that its leaning towards communism.
Now lets compare the most Democratic/Liberal cities by historical population.
my favorite example: Detroit 1920 993,678 19301,568,662 1940 1,623,452 1950 1,849,568 1960 1,670,144 1970 1,514,063 1980 1,203,368 19901,027,974 2000 951,270 2010 713,777
Since 1950 Detroit has lost over 60% of its population. Well at the same time Indianapolis is the biggest its ever been. //www.city-data.com/forum/gener...-city-usa.html
All of the Mayors of Indianapolis since 1968 with the exception of Bart Peterson in 2000-2008 were Republicans. Look at the pictures and see what Republican Mayoral leadership has done.
Our last liberal city comparison for population: Chicago which last had a Republican mayor almost 100 years ago.
19202,701,705 23.6% 1930 3,376,438 25.0% 1940 3,396,808 0.6% 1950 3,620,962 6.6% 1960 3,550,404 −1.9% 1970 3,366,957 −5.2% 1980 3,005,072 −10.7% 1990 2,783,726 −7.4% 2000 2,896,016 4.0% 2010 2,695,598 −6.9%
Now a scary estimate: Est. 2012 2,661,951−1.2%
at that rate Chicago will have 2 and a half million people by 2020. Assuming it doesn't pick up due to a better economy.
Finally some articles noteworthy to read about this. SPECIAL REPORT: Metropolitan Area Migration Mirrors Housing Affordability | Newgeography.com
Since 2000 when Republican mayors no longer were in charge of the Big cities. Notice how NY/LA/Chicago have a huge domestic out migration. In the case of New York only international immigration is keeping the population steady and growing. LA births and some international migration. Chicago doesn't have enough migration or births to counter it.
notice how since Democrats have taken control of LA after 2000 growth has plateaued.
These aren't your born at home hard working democrats. These are the liberals and leaning communist type.
Most of them have veered so off the middle that its leaning towards communism.
You don't even understand your own stats. Growth in Los Angeles declined during the 90s when Riordan was mayor. That 17.5% growth rate for Los Angeles was in the decade of the 1980s prior to 1990 when Tom Bradley(a Democrat) was mayor. During Riordan's term in the 90s, the growth rate for the entire decade was 6%. All the percentages are for the growth rate in the decade leading up to the date not going forward.
When cities have a Republican Mayor they are doing fine and growing/prospering.
New York City with Rudy Giuliani from the 90s to after 9/11.
Los Angeles in the 90s with Richard Riordan
Charlotte, North Carolina with Pat McCrory until 2008.
Oklahoma City today with Mick Cornett
Indianapolis today is the Largest US city with a Republican Mayor: Greg Ballard. San Diego lost that title in 2012. Ironically heres the census results for the 5 cities:
New York 1920s to today. 1920 5,620,048 17.9% 1930 6,930,446 23.3% 1940 7,454,995 7.6% 1950 7,891,957 5.9% 1960 7,781,984 −1.4% 1970 7,894,862 +1.5% 1980 7,071,639 −10.4% 19907,322,564 +3.5% 20008,008,288 +9.4% 2010 8,175,133+2.1%
Bold Indicates when a Republican/Independent Republican Mayor was in charge of New York City.
notice how since Democrats have taken control of LA after 2000 growth has plateaued.
These aren't your born at home hard working democrats. These are the liberals and leaning communist type.
Most of them have veered so off the middle that its leaning towards communism.
Now lets compare the most Democratic/Liberal cities by historical population.
my favorite example: Detroit 1920 993,678 19301,568,662 1940 1,623,452 1950 1,849,568 1960 1,670,144 1970 1,514,063 1980 1,203,368 19901,027,974 2000 951,270 2010 713,777
Since 1950 Detroit has lost over 60% of its population. Well at the same time Indianapolis is the biggest its ever been. //www.city-data.com/forum/gener...-city-usa.html
All of the Mayors of Indianapolis since 1968 with the exception of Bart Peterson in 2000-2008 were Republicans. Look at the pictures and see what Republican Mayoral leadership has done.
Our last liberal city comparison for population: Chicago which last had a Republican mayor almost 100 years ago.
19202,701,705 23.6% 1930 3,376,438 25.0% 1940 3,396,808 0.6% 1950 3,620,962 6.6% 1960 3,550,404 −1.9% 1970 3,366,957 −5.2% 1980 3,005,072 −10.7% 1990 2,783,726 −7.4% 2000 2,896,016 4.0% 2010 2,695,598 −6.9%
Now a scary estimate: Est. 2012 2,661,951−1.2%
at that rate Chicago will have 2 and a half million people by 2020. Assuming it doesn't pick up due to a better economy.
Finally some articles noteworthy to read about this. SPECIAL REPORT: Metropolitan Area Migration Mirrors Housing Affordability | Newgeography.com
Since 2000 when Republican mayors no longer were in charge of the Big cities. Notice how NY/LA/Chicago have a huge domestic out migration. In the case of New York only international immigration is keeping the population steady and growing. LA births and some international migration. Chicago doesn't have enough migration or births to counter it.
If you want to develop insightful conclusions, then don't cherry pick the data. There are quite a few well-growingmore cities with Democratic mayors that you conveniently overlooked.
When cities have a Republican Mayor they are doing fine and growing/prospering.
New York City with Rudy Giuliani from the 90s to after 9/11.
Los Angeles in the 90s with Richard Riordan
Charlotte, North Carolina with Pat McCrory until 2008.
Oklahoma City today with Mick Cornett
Indianapolis today is the Largest US city with a Republican Mayor: Greg Ballard. San Diego lost that title in 2012. Ironically heres the census results for the 5 cities:
New York 1920s to today. 1920 5,620,048 17.9% 1930 6,930,446 23.3% 1940 7,454,995 7.6% 1950 7,891,957 5.9% 1960 7,781,984 −1.4% 1970 7,894,862 +1.5% 1980 7,071,639 −10.4% 19907,322,564 +3.5% 20008,008,288 +9.4% 2010 8,175,133+2.1%
Bold Indicates when a Republican/Independent Republican Mayor was in charge of New York City.
notice how since Democrats have taken control of LA after 2000 growth has plateaued.
These aren't your born at home hard working democrats. These are the liberals and leaning communist type.
Most of them have veered so off the middle that its leaning towards communism.
Now lets compare the most Democratic/Liberal cities by historical population.
my favorite example: Detroit 1920 993,678 19301,568,662 1940 1,623,452 1950 1,849,568 1960 1,670,144 1970 1,514,063 1980 1,203,368 19901,027,974 2000 951,270 2010 713,777
Since 1950 Detroit has lost over 60% of its population. Well at the same time Indianapolis is the biggest its ever been. //www.city-data.com/forum/gener...-city-usa.html
All of the Mayors of Indianapolis since 1968 with the exception of Bart Peterson in 2000-2008 were Republicans. Look at the pictures and see what Republican Mayoral leadership has done.
Our last liberal city comparison for population: Chicago which last had a Republican mayor almost 100 years ago.
19202,701,705 23.6% 1930 3,376,438 25.0% 1940 3,396,808 0.6% 1950 3,620,962 6.6% 1960 3,550,404 −1.9% 1970 3,366,957 −5.2% 1980 3,005,072 −10.7% 1990 2,783,726 −7.4% 2000 2,896,016 4.0% 2010 2,695,598 −6.9%
Now a scary estimate: Est. 2012 2,661,951−1.2%
at that rate Chicago will have 2 and a half million people by 2020. Assuming it doesn't pick up due to a better economy.
Finally some articles noteworthy to read about this. SPECIAL REPORT: Metropolitan Area Migration Mirrors Housing Affordability | Newgeography.com
Since 2000 when Republican mayors no longer were in charge of the Big cities. Notice how NY/LA/Chicago have a huge domestic out migration. In the case of New York only international immigration is keeping the population steady and growing. LA births and some international migration. Chicago doesn't have enough migration or births to counter it.
Republican leadership usually clobbers my housing affordability.
Gee, why would Charlotte be having economic issues starting in 2008? Oh, I think the worst recession since the Great Depression might have something to do with that.
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.
