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.
Would you say most of the prosperous ones are run by White Dems and these others listed are run by Black Dems?
Do you think that's the difference?
Kansas City's mayor, for one, is a black guy.
There are clearly demographic differences between the dumpy cities and the prosperous ones. But that tells you that the issue is demographics, not politics. If it were politics, and if the political issue was that liberal cities were dumps, then MOST liberal cities would be dumps. But they aren't. For every East St Louis somebody can show me, I can show them a Boulder, Colorado. Both are liberal cities run by democrats. But one is a crime-ridden dump, and the other could probably compete for Highest Quality of Life City in the World. The main difference between the two is the demographic composition. So that tells you it is the demographics which are (largely, at least) responsible for the different outcomes.
Every single thread on here started by Conservatives about California being some sort of failed state b/c of this stat or that stat is just laughable. The entire premise is that Blue policies are what's to blame, and they'd be better off with Republicans in charge...
No amount of mud-slinging about California is going to change the fact that any rankings of worst states to live in, by any measure, are dominated by DEEP RED states, states with Republicans in charge at every level.
We're supposed to believe California is some Democratic hell hole when we can pull up and compare the stats for Mississippi? Missouri? Alabama? Louisiana? Arkansas? West Virginia? Alaska? Lol... right.
We're supposed to believe California is failed Democratic experiment when Mississippi is ranked:
#48 in Medical Acceess
#47 in Public Health
#47 in Healthcare Quality
#45 in Education
#50 in Infrastructure
#50 in Household Income
#50 in Poverty Rate
#48 in Economy
#49 in GDP growth
#49 in Labor Force Participation
#50 in Patent Creation
No matter how "bad" it gets in California, they will always have the last laugh b/c they can just point to any of the 20-30 DEEP RED states that they are doing better than. California might be bad, but it's not Deep-Red-Republican bad.
There are clearly demographic differences between the dumpy cities and the prosperous ones. But that tells you that the issue is demographics, not politics. If it were politics, and if the political issue was that liberal cities were dumps, then MOST liberal cities would be dumps. But they aren't. For every East St Louis somebody can show me, I can show them a Boulder, Colorado. Both are liberal cities run by democrats. But one is a crime-ridden dump, and the other could probably compete for Highest Quality of Life City in the World. The main difference between the two is the demographic composition. So that tells you it is the demographics which are (largely, at least) responsible for the different outcomes.
Boulder is a college town with a major university. East Saint Louis is not.
To oversimplify the world and decide liberals are bad or conservatives are you miss out on all how things really work.
WV is considered the "dumbest" state and when I lived there I never saw a black person.
Arkansas is pretty far down the list - so is Kentucky - gotta be whites making these places dumb.
You can cherry pick statistics but there are just too many negative ones to win that game.
The best course of action is to to beat your chest about how smart you are or how dumb others are, but rather ask how we can get the South and other areas to become smarter and more civilized and healthy......and better off.
I'm aware of that, but it is not me who is simplifying everything into liberal city=dump and conservative city=paradise.
Well the country is more complex than that. Like I said before I have been all over and the country is a lot more similar than the antagonists want everyone to believe. Plus most folks are not fringy far left or right people like those on here. Most have more important priorities.
Neither ideology is paradise. Neither is horrible or hell. Those who push a different narrative have no idea what they are talking about.
It is foolish to point to major party policies as causative and ignore the 90% which is about demographics. Mississippi has always been heavily black and poor but California was a relative paradise before the Reconquista began 50 odd years ago .
Do you not remember the Watts riots or any of the civil unrest during this time of "paradise"? 50 years ago my people fought white supremacy tooth and nail just for the right to live... California is way better off today than it was 50 years ago.
Do you not remember the Watts riots or any of the civil unrest during this time of "paradise"? 50 years ago my people fought white supremacy tooth and nail just for the right to live... California is way better off today than it was 50 years ago.
The KKK was in South Central? I was born in Inglewood, CA. Lived off Imperial Hwy and went to Cimmaron Elementary school. My parents heard the gunshots during the Watts riots. And I am white. I can tell all sorts of stories about that area at that time from personal experience. You probably read about all this online.
California is doing better today because the high cost of living has pushed out many "undesirables" who cannot no longer afford to live there.
If that makes your proud good for you.
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.