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.
It is silly to use a metro to make assumptions about the rest of the state. I live in the Bay Area, and it is not similar to most of the state geographically or even politically.
The most populous parts of the state do dominate the politics - as they should, since that is where the people are (and that is what matters in Democratic society).
I have no contention with this point. My issue is very specifically in making assumptions about an entire state based on a small part of it.
Again, with the California example: people come here expecting the entire state to resemble Hollywood...and the majority of it does not. Some of it does, yes... but we also have deserts, giant mountains, giant redwood forests, and anything in between.
And politically, there is a diversity in thought, even if it isn't seen in the total state polling.
Why is this important? Because, again, if you're aware of this diversity, you won't make silly assumptions like that the fires are just what the "libs deserve"... when many of the people living in these rural areas are not "lib" at all.
That's fair. I didn't connect the wildfires in Northern California to the politics of Oregon but it's a fair comparison. While there are a lot of Democrats among those wineries there are also a lot of conservatives among the vineyards and the same could be said of Oregon. When I think of Portland I think of what someone spray painted on one of the overpasses regarding Trump. Months later it was still there and if the OP lived there, they know what I'm talking about. Trump was definitely not popular in Portland.
The Republicans and Democrats in the Oregon State Legislature respect each other and cooperate to get things done and serve the people. That's one big thing that sets this state apart. But it used to be very conservative in most parts, as a carry-over from frontier days. In my lifetime, it has changed drastically in my city and in Portland and in those places, has become quite the opposite.
However, you can find areas almost within walking distance of these cities, that are mired in the past and as hard-right as could be. Medium-sized towns, such as Medford, Roseburg and Albany, are conservative to the hilt and even have Veteran's Day parades. I turned down two promotions to management positions, because I'd have had to live in a couple of them. For me, it would have been like serving time in Purgatory, to be stuck in such places.
The Eastern part of the state is cowboy country and hard to the right, although sparsely-populated. That high basin and range territory, that extends across several western states, has a culture all its own.
So there's a big selection of political and social extremes you can find here. But this is happening all over the country in many states. Even some big cities in Texas are shifting left, for example. I'd be proud to think that Oregon would be one of the leading states in that movement, that is going to pull this nation out of its current predicament.
It is silly to use a metro to make assumptions about the rest of the state. I live in the Bay Area, and it is not similar to most of the state geographically or even politically.
The most populous parts of the state do dominate the politics - as they should, since that is where the people are (and that is what matters in Democratic society).
I have no contention with this point. My issue is very specifically in making assumptions about an entire state based on a small part of it.
Again, with the California example: people come here expecting the entire state to resemble Hollywood...and the majority of it does not. Some of it does, yes... but we also have deserts, giant mountains, giant redwood forests, and anything in between.
And politically, there is a diversity in thought, even if it isn't seen in the total state polling.
Why is this important? Because, again, if you're aware of this diversity, you won't make silly assumptions like that the fires are just what the "libs deserve"... when many of the people living in these rural areas are not "lib" at all.
Re the bolded....I love Texans. By and large, most of the Texans I have encountered while living here are kind, salt of the earth people. However, some of them (ones I have spoken with) who have never been outside of Texas, have the vew you illustrated and I bolded about California.
The Republicans and Democrats in the Oregon State Legislature respect each other and cooperate to get things done and serve the people. That's one big thing that sets this state apart. But it used to be very conservative in most parts, as a carry-over from frontier days. In my lifetime, it has changed drastically in my city and in Portland and in those places, has become quite the opposite.
However, you can find areas almost within walking distance of these cities, that are mired in the past and as hard-right as could be. Medium-sized towns, such as Medford, Roseburg and Albany, are conservative to the hilt and even have Veteran's Day parades. I turned down two promotions to management positions, because I'd have had to live in a couple of them. For me, it would have been like serving time in Purgatory, to be stuck in such places.
The Eastern part of the state is cowboy country and hard to the right, although sparsely-populated. That high basin and range territory, that extends across several western states, has a culture all its own.
So there's a big selection of political and social extremes you can find here. But this is happening all over the country in many states. Even some big cities in Texas are shifting left, for example. I'd be proud to think that Oregon would be one of the leading states in that movement, that is going to pull this nation out of its current predicament.
you are aware that Oregon was created as a white only state? right? It was even written into the state constitution.
Not a thing to do with being a "blue state" or not.
Oregon is blue, albeit light blue rather than deep blue like California and Washington. It is actually the 2nd least liberal West Coast state of the 5 West Coast states, next to Alaska. Oregon is blue largely because of Multnomah County and to some extent Eugene.
Oh I'm aware. It's just a silly thing to use the metro areas to assume something about the rest of the state.
Not really. That's how the electoral college works. And that's how elections work for Governor and the State Legislature. Large metro areas dictate the political will of the entire state.
A state's politics tend to depend on the majority of the population. If a large metro leans Democratic and it comprises 65% of the total state population, the state is likely to lean Democratic. It doesn't matter if there are conservative voters in other parts of the state if their populations are collectively much lower than the metro. So it's not silly to use the metro areas to assume something about a state if the metro areas are large enough to determine the majority of the state's political leanings. I live in a city where the metro tends to determine the politics for the state. Other parts of the state complain but when we suggest we keep our taxes within the metro, they get quiet. They want our tax dollars to pay for their infrastructure.
You were more wordy , but yeah, I just posted essentially the same thing.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,571 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That's VERY typically a liberal thing. Chicago is the most racially segregated city in the US. Blue states have the most racially segregated schools. I thought everyone knew that.
I dont know why you keep posting this. I have already taken the time to explain to you why it is flawed.
For example, your link defined racial segregation based on the amount of minority students who go to majority white schools based on state population.
so the 900 black kids in tthe entire state of west virginia who go to schools that are 99.99% white are considered to go to racially mixed schools, but white kids in Harlem who go to schools that are 50% black, 20% hispanic , 20% Asian and 10% white arent considered racially mixed .
There is also the population size flaw in general.
it is hard to segregate the rural south when everyone in a 100 mile radius attends the same high school because there are only 2,000 high school aged kids, where as in that same area in New York City you have 200,000 high school age kids.
Because of the population in the North east, you get community based high schools.
Do you not understand the flaw in that logic ?????
and to be clear, your articles do not measure, white to minority, only minority to white.
so a 100% white school isnt considered segregated.
Last edited by dsjj251; 10-16-2017 at 04:28 AM..
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.
Oh! The horror!
, but yeah, I just posted essentially the same thing.
