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.
Thought this was an interesting read. It arguably should go in the POC forum, but I'm posting it here because it's highly unlikely any rational discussion will be generated in that forum.
Thought this was an interesting read. It arguably should go in the POC forum, but I'm posting it here because it's highly unlikely any rational discussion will be generated in that forum.
I think there are a few challenges for Republicans right now - they seem to have lost their focus on small government and government efficiency for big government when it comes to so called "social issues, women's issues and immigration issues." And a non cohesive vision for everything else.
They have lost moderate republicans and libertarians who would vote for smaller government and less regulations by alienating people, and you know cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
If Republicans are ever going to earn real votes in cities in the future, though, they'll have to do more than just talk about them differently. The real problem seeps much deeper. As the Republican Party has moved further to the right, it has increasingly become the party of fierce individualism, of "I built that" and you take care of yourself. Cities, on the other hand, are fundamentally about the shared commons. If you live in a city and you think government – and other people – should stay out of your life, how will you get to work in the morning? Who will police your neighborhood? Where will you find a public park when your building has no back yard?
It is a really hard to be a die hard individualist when you live in a place with a lot of shared commons! In "cities" people are more impacted by the greater health and structure of their community.
I skimmed the article, which was interesting, but seemed to put the cart before the horse. I will say that Pittsburgh hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1936, which sort of doesn't fit into their perspective that this is something new. In Denver, and throughout Colorado, municipal elections are non-partisan (though it's not too hard to figure out which party the candidates belong to usually).
I think Bajan's right, this would be trainwreck on P&OC.
I think Jade is assuming facts not in evidence. All the questions in her quote could be asked by people living in the burbs and other less dense areas as well. That is especially true of the police question. Does the author (not Jade, I know) really think people in suburbs and rural areas are a bunch of vigilantes? Probably, as some of these people don't get out much. Parks and rec facilities are usually important to suburban dwellers as well. In fact, in my burb, we are voting on a possible rec center expansion. There are plenty of isolated people in cities.
I skimmed the article, which was interesting, but seemed to put the cart before the horse. I will say that Pittsburgh hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1936, which sort of doesn't fit into their perspective that this is something new. In Denver, and throughout Colorado, municipal elections are non-partisan (though it's not too hard to figure out which party the candidates belong to usually).
I think Bajan's right, this would be trainwreck on P&OC.
I think Jade is assuming facts not in evidence. All the questions in her quote could be asked by people living in the burbs and other less dense areas as well. That is especially true of the police question. Does the author (not Jade, I know) really think people in suburbs and rural areas are a bunch of vigilantes? Probably, as some of these people don't get out much. Parks and rec facilities are usually important to suburban dwellers as well. In fact, in my burb, we are voting on a possible rec center expansion. There are plenty of isolated people in cities.
I think it is a little bit different. I think that the so-called "republican values" play well in suburbia. Mostly because I think the suburbs were created to give people a homestead - lots of your own space that you can use independently as you choose. You have your house, your yard, and can use your car to control your life.
No more of this pesky train thing where you are on someone else's schedule. No need for sidewalks where you have to share common space....
Obviously I am exaggerating here. But I think the rise of the suburbs gave people to create an narrowly defined community of like minded people. HOAs were a good reinforcement of making sure your neighbors had your values.
Cities (loosely) didn't have the same control over personal space and community. You would be forced to interact with them in the hallways in dense developments, or on transit or on the sidewalk. Less personal bubble available.
Of course now we are starting to create apps that create a bubble for you.
And I didn't post the last predictor of liberalism - college educations! And college educated people gravitate towards cities!
I think it is a little bit different. I think that the so-called "republican values" play well in suburbia. Mostly because I think the suburbs were created to give people a homestead - lots of your own space that you can use independently as you choose. You have your house, your yard, and can use your car to control your life.
No more of this pesky train thing where you are on someone else's schedule.No need for sidewalks where you have to share common space....
Obviously I am exaggerating here. But I think the rise of the suburbs gave people to create an narrowly defined community of like minded people.HOAs were a good reinforcement of making sure your neighbors had your values.
Cities (loosely) didn't have the same control over personal space and community. You would be forced to interact with them in the hallways in dense developments, or on transit or on the sidewalk. Less personal bubble available.
Of course now we are starting to create apps that create a bubble for you.
And I didn't post the last predictor of liberalism - college educations! And college educated people gravitate towards cities!
Which is why virtually all transit systems go out to the suburbs. Trains in particular are quite popular in suburbia. LOL! The local news just gave a "teaser" for a story about a train coming to the NW burbs! Doesn't seem to be on the website yet, but here's a page about trains: Search | 9news.com
Western cities' suburbs have sidewalks. So do most midwestern burbs. We've discussed this many times.
Really! Stereotype much? Frankly, speaking of politics, there are more Hillary Clinton signs in my burb than Trump signs, by a wide margin. Of course, in Colorado, also a few Gary Johnson signs.
"Bullfeathers"! I'd like to say something else, but this post has been a lot of work to put together, and I don't want to get it deleted. HOAs don't have a damn thing to do with anyone's "values" politically, which is what this is supposed to be about. I find that insulting. We don't have an HOA in my neighborhood, but my daughter does, much to her disliking. But HOAs have nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the homeowner's politics.
Please post some documentation of this. All the data I've seen shows that suburbs have more college grads. Cities have lots of people in poverty as well as the hipsters and the "upper crust".
Last edited by nei; 11-02-2016 at 07:58 PM..
Reason: trolling
I think you are missing my points. As I mentioned in my first post there are some original republican values around small government and individualism. The development of the suburbs are a reflection of these republican values. The republicans have lost sight of their values by trying to use race and morals to be divisive.
I am not looking at suburbia right this minute I am talking about how suburbs happened. And branched out for cities at their creation. And how suburbs become popular. Coincidentally I did see a really helpful video that talks about how suburbs developed in the US (though the video wanted to compare Europe to the US).
Separately, America's founding values are rooted in republicanism - we reward individualism, hard work, and using your own boot straps. We never wanted to be urbanized, we granted people 40 acres and a mule. Suburbs and government loans were a modern version of this. And those loans and neighborhoods had racist tenets that were exclusionary. Just like all previous laws in America.
I think it is a little bit different. I think that the so-called "republican values" play well in suburbia. Mostly because I think the suburbs were created to give people a homestead - lots of your own space that you can use independently as you choose. You have your house, your yard, and can use your car to control your life.
No more of this pesky train thing where you are on someone else's schedule. No need for sidewalks where you have to share common space....
Obviously I am exaggerating here.
Only on the sidewalk thing. The rest of them ARE advantages to the suburbs. Pack enough people into a small enough space and the only way they can sit down is if they all sit down together (paraphrase of Heinlein, I think); cities encourage totalitarianism.
Quote:
But I think the rise of the suburbs gave people to create an narrowly defined community of like minded people. HOAs were a good reinforcement of making sure your neighbors had your values.
Most HOAs are a result of environmentalists. They made it so you couldn't just build a subdivision and sell it off. You had to have an actively-maintained drainage (common) area, and thus an active corporation to run it. Thus the modern HOA. A lot of suburbanites hate them, but just about every new development has them and they're next-to-impossible to banish.
Only on the sidewalk thing. The rest of them ARE advantages to the suburbs. Pack enough people into a small enough space and the only way they can sit down is if they all sit down together (paraphrase of Heinlein, I think); cities encourage totalitarianism.
Most HOAs are a result of environmentalists. They made it so you couldn't just build a subdivision and sell it off. You had to have an actively-maintained drainage (common) area, and thus an active corporation to run it. Thus the modern HOA. A lot of suburbanites hate them, but just about every new development has them and they're next-to-impossible to banish.
HOAs are pre-environmentalists.
The original HOAs didn't regulate door colors. They were used to keep our "undesireable" people. I did see a deeper dive on them but I can't find it now. This find law article covers the highlights.
I read the article earlier today; it has some good points. But by just looking at density without controlling for race, it misses a lot. The densest neighborhoods are disportionately minority who vote much more Democratic than whites overall.
I graphed how Massachusetts precincts voted in the 2012 [Senate election, Elizabeth Warren was the Democratic candidate] compared to their population density. Density is a factor, but its clear that race is even more important. It's hard to tell as there are almost no high density nearly white electoral precincts. Massachusetts isn't typical of the country, besides being especially Democratic it has some unusual pattern, a lot of very liberal rural areas for examples. But there's still some density-voting correlation...
If education levels of the white population was factored, I suspect the density correlation would weaken. Testing this out with a linear regression if anyone's interested
Spoiler
I'm excluding the odd, mostly rural precincts with a density below 1000 / square mile, so the Vermont-like parts of Western Massachusetts don't skew a linear fit.
R^2 if election result just has % white non-hispanic as a varaible: 0.62
R^2 if election result just has log(density) as a variable: 0.46
So race is more of a factor than density, unsurprisingly. But density does help
R^2 if election result just has both % white non-hispanic and log(density) as variables: 0.7
but using % of whites with college degree and log(median household income) rather than log(density) gives a slightly better fit (R^2 = 0.73)
tacking density gives a slightly better fit (R^2 = 0.76) but most of the extra correlation with density could be explained by income and educational demographics, not density
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.
