The election showed that just like four years ago, urban areas tend to vote more Democratic, and tend to be areas with higher per capita income.
How does the cause-effect work? Do Democratic values make people live in cities? Does living in cities make for better income? Do Democratic policies lead to more opportunities which lead to higher incomes? Do higher incomes lead to living in urban areas? Or is there another force I haven’t mentioned influencing all of these?
Personally, I agree with Harry Truman’s analysis - if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat.
Living in urban areas means you get more exposure to a wider variety of people and cultures, whereupon you soon learn tolerance or get shunned as a close-minded jerk. From that, you then get such quaint liberal ideas, such as “Not everyone worships the same obscure variant of religion that I do” and “It’s easier to get things done when you cooperate with others instead of calling them ‘irrelevant.’”
I thought the common stereo type (which you included in your Truman quote) was that Republicans were richer than Democrats? Are you saying different?
To answer your question, IMHO, there is definately more money to be made in the cities. Living in cities leads to leftists ideologies or culture if you prefer.
I disagree with you rjung, leftists ideals tend to stress governmentally forced cooperation rather than simply cooperation. Perhaps living in cities leads people to learn that those “close minded jerks” need to be forced to cooperate in whatever activity is under discussion. Again, MHO.
Well, rjung, tolerance only goes so far, in some of these cities.
I was single and in my mid-20’s when I moved to the DC area. At that time, before my marriage and three kids, I was surely interested in things like nightlife and proximity to cultural events that come with living in a vibrant urban area.
However, I am a gun owner. And that simply won’t do in the District, where mere ownership of my hunting and heirloom firearms makes me, in the eyes of the law, a dangerous felon.
I moved instead to the Virginia suburbs, an area with a similarly vibrant cultural scene. Virginia’s more tolerant and enlightened firearms laws made me far more welcome.
DC chased me away, like it chases lots of folks away. I still work there, and love coming into the city, but I would never consider living there. I own a house now in Prince William County (which, incidentally, went for Bush). It’s heavenly down there, with nice housing, good shopping, good schools (something DC definately doesn’t have) and rifle, pistol, trap and skeet ranges a short drive away.
I think that there are both self-selection and causal influences on the link between urban residence and progressive/liberal/Democratic identification and voting. People who dislike diversity are going to move from it if they can, whereas exposure to differences may make one more tolerant. On the other hand, there is an element of familiarity breeding contempt, and there must be a fair number of people who would move if they could but are not able to.
There is also a cost-of-living factor partially explaining the link between incomes and urban residence.
Still and all, it is hard to escape the fact that the essential differences in clustering of voters is better characterized by an urban rural dichotomy than a red state/blue state distinction (i.e. Chicago versus Illinois; Philadelphia/Pittsburgh versus the rest of Pennsylvania; Southern Florida versus the “corridor” and the panhandle). The cartograms that others have linked to elsewhere of voting trends adjusted for population density reflect this pretty clearly.
Ah yes, that’s why leftists want the govt to lead the little children in the recitation of a prayer and then pledge allegiance to the state. It’s why leftists want to decide what drugs people are allowed to use, what sexual acts they can partake in, and what kinds of books, magazines, and movies they can buy. It’s why the left was out in the streets in the 60’s in support of the draft and why the left wants to tax you so that they can bomb foriegners into oblivion.
I think another connection between urban living and leftist politics is that cities generally need huge, expensive public works projects, at some point–subways, harbors, freeways, and so on. This usually requires Federal funding, and left-wing legislators are much more likely to vote to fund such projects than right wingers would be. Cities are vast, interdependent entitie, and living in such an environment makes one more amenable to the idea that the government should spend money on public works, and that the taxes to support such funding are not inherently bad, but good and even necessary.
SoP, how do you reconcile that with the fact that high-population-density blue states are generally net contributors to federal revenue, while low-density red states tend to be net recipients? Are right wingers just less aware of the extent to which they are benefiting from federal funds?
No, No, No. You are confusing leftist forced cooperation with rightist forced indocrination. They are two sides of the same coin. One side uses force for everyone’s own good. The other side uses force for everyone’s own good. You just have to adjust what you think is good as you look from one side to the other and back again.
Perhaps because the high population areas are where the money is at? When a public works project is proposed, is it really put in terms of taking money out of the city and spending it in the country? Or is it usually put in simpler terms like we need to build roads?
That’s part of it. It’s easier to see (and criticize) a huge but geographically compact project like the Big Dig in Boston than it is a long stretch of highway, even if the geographically smaller project benefits more people.
Another is that among the larger sources of disparity is defense and defense-related spending, something which conservatives are likely to see as “productive” uses of tax revenues. Not just military pay but contractor work, a lot of which ends up (entirely by coincidence, of course ) in states with Senators and Congressmen who support the Pentagon and are more likely to be Republican.
And, finally, many of the transfer payments are of the kind that were promised back in the first place – specifically Social Security and Medicare. A person who worked on Long Island and retired to Florida isn’t really tabulating that he paid FICA in a blue state but receives Social Security in a red one, nor should he.
The full study from the Tax Foundation is promised “shortly.” I’m curious to see exactly what data lies behind the headline.
In the meantime, if the Democrats really want to make some political gold from the straw, I have a free suggestion. Alter the AMT to allow for full deduction of state and local taxes under any circumstances. The Republicans will have to accept it – it’s a tax cut after all!-- and the Democrats can get back the lost revenue into the paying states by corresponding state tax increases. That I’m an AMT payer in a high-tax blue state which happens to have a Republican tax-cutter as Governor in no way plays into my advocacy of this plan.
When talking about ‘cities’ are we also talking about suburbs too as far as voting primarily for Dems over Pubs? Many times people move outside of the cities (like Mr. Moto’s example, I also don’t live in the city…when I was in that area I lived in Southern Maryland and commuted to DC/Northern Virginia for my various jobs)…are the suburbs also counted in this categoric statement that ‘cities’ vote for Dems primarily?
Is there any kind of cite showing that city dwellers overwhelmingly vote Dem over Pub? Or is it merely certain cities? The majority of cities?
Are cities counted as contiguous blocks, or are they broken down into districts? If districts, then what PARTS of the cities vote Dem over Pub…or is it across the board?
Before this could be discussed these things would have to be defined or how meaningful is a discussion about Dems=Urban Pubs=Rural, or even Dems=Wealthy voters, Pubs=Poor voters?
I think that the democrats are mostly middle class. The REALLY rich people are Republicans; those are who the middle class democrats are calling rich.
Frankly, I don’t think anyone should make more than $100,000 a year. Tax everything over that. But you see what perspective that puts me on who is “rich” and who isn’t. Growing up in a < $25,000 a year income bracket makes that much money seem that much more absurd. I don’t for a second believe that any person is worth more than $1,000,000, and that is being very generous.
I think the “urban/suburban” vs “other” lifestyle is the main difference. I noted on the popular voting map that every blue state was home to the major cities and communities, while the red states were much more, well, conservative. Smaller cities, different economies, different lifestyles, really.
The problem is that everyone still believe in the “American Dream” - that they can some day make it big, and go from rags to riches. I think that is the single most damaging (I hate this term but I can’t think of another) meme in America. It makes people afraid to tax the rich, because, my god, some day I could be rich, and I would have worked hard for it, so they must too! Some few make it big, especially during times like the '90s when low-income nerds became instantly rich and blew most of it, but most make it to middle-class life (which ain’t bad). But still, a call to raise taxes for those making over, say, $200,000 a year is met with boos by people who would probably be benefiting greatly from those missing taxes.
America’s middle class is so confused that it has sub-classes. “Middle class” can mean anything from $30,000 - $200,000 (being generous on the top end). The whole structure is a mess. Feh.
I thought the ‘middle class’ comprised the largest percentage of people in the country…something on the order of 70-80% (depending on exactly how you define ‘middle class’ of course). Er…if the ‘middle class’ mostly votes Dem…then what happened in this last election?
I’ll simply ignore the rest of your rant (did you REALLY say “Frankly, I don’t think anyone should make more than $100,000 a year.”???) and simply ask that question.
Fair enough…how about ‘the majority’ instead of overwhelmingly? I’m still curious if WHOLE cities voted Dem, or if it was certain districts within cities…and what that would tell us. Also, I’m still interested in if suburbs ALSO voted in the majority for Dems, or if they are counted as city or rural or what. And what THAT tells us. It kind of gets to Zagadka’s statement about the majority of the ‘middle class’ voting for Dems and only the ‘rich’ (and presumably the religious ‘poor’ I suppose) voting Pub.
I didn’t say the entire middle class voted Dem. I said the urbanites tended to vote Dem. Do you question this?
Yes, I really said that, and yes, I really mean that. No person needs more than $100,000 a year to live on, no? I’m sorry if this excludes people from 60 foot yachts and $5 million mansions, but those don’t matter a whit as long as there are people starving and living on the street.
