[urbanactivist]

We all know that this is a stereotype, but most of the time, your conservative populations (Republican base) can be found in the US suburbs. There are of course many conservative Democrats as well, but the city populations tend to be a much more liberal base... Rudy Giuliani would be a good stereotype for most "urban Republicans".

But the current economic state has undoubtedly shaken the core values of many in the suburbs. As soon as gas prices began to rise, and home mortgages went through the roof, the suburban lifestyle suddenly became less of the "American dream" and more of a nightmare. So much so that many people ma be seeking social services and having to experience side of the government firsthand that they never would have otherwise. Do you think that this will have a major effect on future party affiliations??

[Reverberation]

I think alot of people just vote with whoever they feel that they should align themselves with based on their own self image. Maybe the inner city should redden?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCipmnYCKB0

[Pinion]

I think alot of people just vote with whoever they feel that they should align themselves with based on their own self image.

If that was the case, Obama wouldn't have a prayer.

That link was terrible. Anyone can find a bunch of dumbasses who don't understand anything to reinforce a stereotype: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfSN4fnXwKM

[Smoker]

The better looking guy is almost always elected. The Republican side should be favored a bit because of Sarah Palin.

[Smoker]

Site experiencing difficulties lately.

[alex1]

The better looking guy is almost always elected. The Republican side should be favored a bit because of Sarah Palin.

Are you saying that Palin is the best looking guy out of the bunch?

[alex1]

regarding the thread's question, I do think that the economy will push many people towards Obama. The change will be more evident in blue states and the 'burbs surrounding Chicago, Philly and other traditional cities.

You'll see Democratic improvements in Texan 'burbs but it should be more muted because of higher amounts of social conservatives and high GOP slant on the Likert scale. So places like Montgomery County (Houston) may go 65-30 for mcCain instead of Bush's 78-21 win.

Regarding the future, the GOP is up shit creek. Contrary to some people's beliefs, very few people (as a percentage of the population) change their political affiliation once past the age of 24. The Dixiecrat is the exception but only if you ignore racial policies that were many times at the core of the Southern Democratic party of governance. When the national GOP platform took over these divisive policies (race and gay issues mainly), the South was lost for Democrats (although at the local and state level, Democrats are still very strong in the South).

[urbanactivist]

regarding the thread's question, I do think that the economy will push many people towards Obama. The change will be more evident in blue states and the 'burbs surrounding Chicago, Philly and other traditional cities.

You'll see Democratic improvements in Texan 'burbs but it should be more muted because of higher amounts of social conservatives and high GOP slant on the Likert scale. So places like Montgomery County (Houston) may go 65-30 for mcCain instead of Bush's 78-21 win.

Regarding the future, the GOP is up shit creek. Contrary to some people's beliefs, very few people (as a percentage of the population) change their political affiliation once past the age of 24. The Dixiecrat is the exception but only if you ignore racial policies that were many times at the core of the Southern Democratic party of governance. When the national GOP platform took over these divisive policies (race and gay issues mainly), the South was lost for Democrats (although at the local and state level, Democrats are still very strong in the South).

The GOP isn't going to do well unless the US is comfortable with domestic issues (ecnomy, social services etc.) this year, the economy is so far in the hole, the GOP will just have to sit back and get slaughtered. It's going to weaken the party, but once the economy is stable again, we'll have a Republican wave.

LOL at "Dixiecrat"... that was the Clintons to a T. Which is why he was a two-term president.

But yeah, our country is diversifying really fast, and the Republicans are getting stuck in the white upper-class bracket. Unless you're a Rudy Giuliani, you don't stand much of chance of being elected as a Republican in 08.

[Reverberation]

I have seen it in the Houston suburbs. On Economic issues the voters seem to align with Republicans, but are socially liberal. It just depends on what they care about more. For example, Ron Paul was and still is very popular here. As with everywhere else, people are tired of the war and, in my opinion, speaking for myself, I don't want to be "scared" into voting republican. People see through that BS and don't respect it.

But the country is too complex and diverse to fit into any kind of formula. Immigration from Mexico is a huge issue for Texans while Healthcare may be more important in Ohio.

[ls1z28chris]

When the national GOP platform took over these divisive policies (race and gay issues mainly), the South was lost for Democrats (although at the local and state level, Democrats are still very strong in the South).

I've always found that odd about my home state of Georgia. Although the Republicans have an edge, at the state and local level it is generally equally split. In national elections, though, the Republicans have dominated for years.

As far as the suburbs changing, I don't really see it here in the suburbs of Atlanta. If there is a "blue" shift, it is only because of shifting demographics where traditionally Democrat urban voters have moved out into the suburbs. It won't be because the economy is forcing a change of mind among previously red voters.

[alex1]

LOL at "Dixiecrat"... that was the Clintons to a T. Which is why he was a two-term president.

I'm not sure that Bill Clinton fits the role of a Dixiecrat all that well. He has Dixiecrat tendencies but he's by and large above folks like Sam Zell or even Mississippi's Musgrave (who's currently running for senatate) when it comes down to social issues like race, immigration and gay rights. Hillary is no Dixiecrat IMO although her campaign team was pretty backwards in the primary (primarily on race).

[alex1]

I have seen it in the Houston suburbs. On Economic issues the voters seem to align with Republicans, but are socially liberal. It just depends on what they care about more. For example, Ron Paul was and still is very popular here. As with everywhere else, people are tired of the war and, in my opinion, speaking for myself, I don't want to be "scared" into voting republican. People see through that BS and don't respect it.

But the country is too complex and diverse to fit into any kind of formula. Immigration from Mexico is a huge issue for Texans while Healthcare may be more important in Ohio.

Unless there has been a radical shift in Houston demographics in the past 7 years, I'd have to disagree with you that the average suburban voter is socially liberal.

There are pockets of social liberalism in Houston but those are almost always exclusively inside the more urbane 'hoods.

Everything is relative but I've seen fewer suburban areas more conservative than Houston's. Having lived there, moving out and still having strong relationships with my friends, I'm sometimes appalled at what passes for the norm down there.

Now, that's not to say that the burbs aren't becoming more Democratic. An increase in minorities will increase the Democratic percentages for sure. But even latinos are mostly social conservatives.

[Reverberation]

The issues that have always been the most heated have been Immigration Reform and limiting national government. I'm not saying that suburban Texans are specifically liberal, keep in mind that we have very diverse suburbs and some that arent, but that the republicans here seem to be rooted in economic issues as opposed to social ones. There is a prevailing attitude of limiting the interaction of private and public.

[Don098]

Isn't this a skyscraper forum? Despite my extremely passionate political views, I'm a little uncomfortable with politics being on here when it's completely unrelated to development or planning...how did you get the authority to open this thread?

[Matty]

^ We discuss so much more than "development". Perhaps you should comb the forum more thoroughly -- this forum is more about Urban Issues in general than development. Hence "City Discussions".

Politics cannot be separated from it. It has a gigantic impact.

[Reverberation]

Isn't this a skyscraper forum? Despite my extremely passionate political views, I'm a little uncomfortable with politics being on here when it's completely unrelated to development or planning...how did you get the authority to open this thread?

Stay out of the US Elections section.....

[hudkina]

Detroit's suburbs (or at least it's inner-ring suburbs) have been blue for decades. The middle-ring suburbs are more purple while the outer-ring suburbs are red. In 2004, Kerry won Wayne and Oakland Counties, and lost Macomb County by less than 1.5%.

Here's a map from the 2004 election:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/2939977515_1e16021386_o.gif

The red represents the cities/townships where Bush beat Kerry by 10% or more, the blue represents the cities/townships where Kerry beat Bush by 10% or more, and the purple represents the cities/townships where the margin was less than 10% for either candidate. The gray represents Detroit, which is arguably the "bluest" city in the nation (Kerry won with about 94% of the vote).

[urbanactivist]

^Great info hudkina, I've been looking for maps like that of other cities.

Isn't this a skyscraper forum? Despite my extremely passionate political views, I'm a little uncomfortable with politics being on here when it's completely unrelated to development or planning...how did you get the authority to open this thread?

I happen to think that it's an important thing to discuss, and I've already learned alot from the thread so far. I didn't ask anyone to discuss their specific morals or affiliations, but to simply draw some broad connections about how different people in our country identify with each other.

What does this have to do with skyscrapers you ask??? Well considering that the economy and the government are literally joined at the hip right now... no better yet make that the economy is joined at the government's hip in a parasitic fashion... it has a lot to do with skyscrapers. Especially those that have yet to be built.

[MayDay]

^Here's your map:
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004.gif

And to the newbie complaining about a politically-oriented thread, this forum has had similar discussions for about ten years now. :rolleyes:

[Attrill]

I'm not sure that Bill Clinton fits the role of a Dixiecrat all that well. He has Dixiecrat tendencies but he's by and large above folks like Sam Zell or even Mississippi's Musgrave (who's currently running for senatate) when it comes down to social issues like race, immigration and gay rights. Hillary is no Dixiecrat IMO although her campaign team was pretty backwards in the primary (primarily on race).

Don't confuse Yellow Dog or Blue Dog democrats with Dixiecrats. Dixiecrats - AKA State's Rights Democratic Party - were an actual party founded in the late 40's, they were Democrats in every sense except that they strongly opposed integration. Strom Thurmond ran for president as a Dixiecrat and carried most of the deep south in the 1948 election. Bill Clinton is most definitely NOT a Dixiecrat.

[Samwill89]

^Here's your map:
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004.gif


It is funny how the "Bluest" counties are in the "Reddest" states.

[hudkina]

That's probably due to the fact that they are counties with largely black populations. Here is a map that distorts the counties so that the more populated counties are bigger, while the less populated counties are smaller.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Cartlinearlarge.png

[alex1]

It is funny how the "Bluest" counties are in the "Reddest" states.

it's easy to see why. Indian reservations are one explanation. The concentration of slavery in the south is the other.