Why Do the Larger Population Areas Tend to Vote for the Democratic Candidates?

david starling

Well-known member
I would say, it's because the Democratic Party is better suited to run things in the Urban areas. The Republican Party is more suitable for the rural areas, unless they have a large percentage of minority-group citizens.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I would say it's because a lot of Republicans really are not interested in investing in poor people.

(There is a lot of rural poverty, as well, but numbers of rural poor people are fewer.) The flight to the suburbs after WW II left the older inner cities with a shrunken tax base; because oftentimes the suburbs were their own municipalities or in adjacent counties.

Democrats, the traditional party of labor, were able to make a stronger case about addressing poverty and social issues.

Just a brief history lesson. In the 1920s Congress enacted some very tough immigration legislation that dramatically cut foreign immigration to the US, and with it, a shrinking labor pool. Then came the manufacturing downturn of the 1930s and the austerity of WW II. When factories started humming again in the 1950s, African Americans, who predominantly still lived in the South, were lured north by the promise of factory jobs. This worked for a while, until manufacturers started off-shoring, moving to the suburbs, or into Sunbelt states.

Remember George W. Bush talking about being a "compassionate conservative"? That didn't exactly catch on with fellow Republicans who were complaining about social programs and taxes as "income redistribution."

Today under 2% of Americans are actively farming, but something like 11% (USDA) have jobs directly related to agriculture. With dwindling numbers of family farms, as the system bankrupts farmers, it's hard to give the Republican party high marks for addressing the economic issues of most rural people.

What the Republicans do offer is a set of conservative family values-- never mind that Big Business leaders tend to be Republicans and don't care much about poverty. (With a few notable philanthropic exceptions.)
 
Last edited:

blackbery

Well-known member
Democrat-run cities are a big problem, a big mess, a total failure. But large, urban cities have a large percentage of minorities from black to hispanic to asian. They largely vote Democrat. People living in cities are more progressive in general, many leave small towns & rural areas to move to large cities and majority hold no religious beliefs or they tend to be new age. People living in smaller towns, rural, tend to be more family oriented & religious. They are more patriotic and many military personnel come from these areas for they value American democracy.



A Backlash Against Democratic Control of Cities?



Atlanta has been controlled by Democrats for the past 140 years.
Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi’s father and eldest brother, have held the mayor’s office in Baltimore for all but eight of the last 89 years.
In Chicago, Democrats have been in charge of the nation’s third-largest city exclusively since 1931.
Detroit has been run continuously by Democrats since 1962, including 39 years of stewardship by African-American mayors between 1974 and 2013.
In Los Angeles, 13 of the past 15 mayoral terms have been held by Democrats. Their control of the city began in 1961 and was interrupted by Republican Dick Riordan’s two terms from 1993-2001.
Democrats have held control in Philadelphia since 1952.


My beloved NY has largely been run by Democrat Mayors & City Council but under Republicans Rudy Guiliani & Michael Bloomberg, the city became much safer, much cleaner.
Unlike Baltimore, Chicago, others run by the Democrats which are worse than war zones after dark. :sick::sick::sick:
With Left BLM advocate Bill de Blasio, the city is turning back in time to high crimes and out of control violence, rapes, assaults since he wiped out the Anti-Crime Unit & over 200 veteran police officers have quit.:crying:






Worse than
I would say, it's because the Democratic Party is better suited to run things in the Urban areas. The Republican Party is more suitable for the rural areas, unless they have a large percentage of minority-group citizens.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Democrat-run cities are a big problem, a big mess, a total failure. But large, urban cities have a large percentage of minorities from black to hispanic to asian. They largely vote Democrat. People living in cities are more progressive in general, many leave small towns & rural areas to move to large cities and majority hold no religious beliefs or they tend to be new age. People living in smaller towns, rural, tend to be more family oriented & religious. They are more patriotic and many military personnel come from these areas for they value American democracy.



A Backlash Against Democratic Control of Cities?



Atlanta has been controlled by Democrats for the past 140 years.
Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi’s father and eldest brother, have held the mayor’s office in Baltimore for all but eight of the last 89 years.
In Chicago, Democrats have been in charge of the nation’s third-largest city exclusively since 1931.
Detroit has been run continuously by Democrats since 1962, including 39 years of stewardship by African-American mayors between 1974 and 2013.
In Los Angeles, 13 of the past 15 mayoral terms have been held by Democrats. Their control of the city began in 1961 and was interrupted by Republican Dick Riordan’s two terms from 1993-2001.
Democrats have held control in Philadelphia since 1952.


My beloved NY has largely been run by Democrat Mayors & City Council but under Republicans Rudy Guiliani & Michael Bloomberg, the city became much safer, much cleaner.
Unlike Baltimore, Chicago, others run by the Democrats which are worse than war zones after dark. :sick::sick::sick:
With Left BLM advocate Bill de Blasio, the city is turning back in time to high crimes and out of control violence, rapes, assaults since he wiped out the Anti-Crime Unit & over 200 veteran police officers have quit.:crying:






Worse than

Good rebuttal to my initial premise! So, if, as you say, the Urban area populations really WOULD be better off electing Republicans rather than Democrats, waybread's question was, WHY haven't the Republicans been able to convince them of that?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
I would say, it's because the Democratic Party is better suited to run things in the Urban areas. The Republican Party is more suitable for the rural areas, unless they have a large percentage of minority-group citizens.

How is it that they are better suited when:
a) poorest cities in the U.S. are run by democrats.
b) highest crime rate cities in the U.S. are run by democrats.

?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Good rebuttal to my initial premise! So, if, as you say, the Urban area populations really WOULD be better off electing Republicans rather than Democrats, waybread's question was, WHY haven't the Republicans been able to convince them of that?

That is imposible to know david - because there are different variables for each city.

Some cities change because of demographics change/migration from other states. Others change for government benefits. Others change for political reasons.

Take Miami Florida, a good example of a large city run by Republicans.

The majority of generational cuban immigrants tend vote republican, or split the vote rather evenly. Clearly cuban exiles are not fond of leftist ideology.
 

david starling

Well-known member
How is it that they are better suited when:
a) poorest cities in the U.S. are run by democrats.
b) highest crime rate cities in the U.S. are run by democrats.

?

How do we know Republicans could do a better job than Democrats in running the poorest cities? Of course, they'd have to get elected first.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Truly, if the Republican right-wing agenda were so manifestly better than what the Democrats had to offer, more urban residents would vote Republican.

Maybe they know the right-wingers don't give a hoot about them.

I also think it's prejudiced to assume that the cities are "a big mess, a total failure," simply because Trump says so. Urban neighborhoods range from the super-rich to the homeless poor, with all gradations in between. (Check out the east side of Central Park in Manhattan, or the Georgetown neighborhood of DC.) Cities have a lot of culturally vibrant urban neighborhoods that are not so well-to-do.

Drugs have ravaged both cities and poor rural neighborhoods (cf. Appalachia.) Somehow the cities get the negative attention.

The poorest state in the union is Mississippi, not known for its urban population concentrations.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Blackbery, come to think of it, Donald Trump's primary residence was in Manhattan, before he switched to Florida. Was his Trump tower what made NYC "a big mess, a total failure" in your eyes?

I have no problem with people who claim no particular religious faith, but you apparently do. Just for the record, many urbanites are at least nominally Catholic, with historically Polish, Irish, Portuguese, and Italian neighborhoods. Today the largest groups of American Catholics are Hispanic: primarily of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Curban descent, but also from other Latin American countries. Many of these people are urban. Orthodox Jews tend to live in urban neighborhoods, in proximity to their synagogues, kosher food stores, ritual baths, and religious schools.

Of course, a lot of devout Mormons live in Salt Lake City.

I don't know what is the urban-rural split of historically Black churches, but it would be interesting to look into.

I don't know what you mean by "new age." Would modern astrology fit in this category?

I don't mean to upset you, Blackbery, but to me the Democratic agenda comes much closer to the actual teachings of Jesus in the Gospels than the Republican gospel of wealth: looking after the poor and homeless, feeding the hungry, and improved health care for the sick.

(Matthew 25: 35-40)
 

Dirius

Well-known member
I also think it's prejudiced to assume that the cities are "a big mess, a total failure," simply because Trump says so. Urban neighborhoods range from the super-rich to the homeless poor, with all gradations in between. (Check out the east side of Central Park in Manhattan, or the Georgetown neighborhood of DC.) Cities have a lot of culturally vibrant urban neighborhoods that are not so well-to-do.

Drugs have ravaged both cities and poor rural neighborhoods (cf. Appalachia.) Somehow the cities get the negative attention.

Its a matter of statistics. Take for example San Diego. Crime rises with democrats, and goes down with republicans.

From 1986 to 1992 when Democrats where in power. Maureen O'Connor (mayor). As soon as she takes office, violent crime skyrockets. The peak is in 1990-1991.

Right after her, comes a Republican mayor, Susan Golding, and during her entire tenure (1992-2000) crime goes down - to its pre 1986 numbers.

violentcrime100412.jpg


https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/how-crimes-changed-in-san-diego-12-graphics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_O%27Connor_(California_politician)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Golding
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Another well-known example (originally mentioned by blackbery): New York City.

Crime goes up during democrat tenure since the 1970's

Crime goes down during republican tenure in the 1990's
800px-NYC_murders2.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Dirius, so why don't more urbanites vote Republican, if what you say is correct?

As I said - that depends on the area. There are too many variables to provide a "general" reason.

For example, in Miami, the large Cuban-American population tends to vote republican. However this is particular to the state of Florida's demographics, and it is not the same in, for example, the state of Pennsylvania.

You would need to look at each particular city to find out why.
 

waybread

Well-known member
One other thing I might mention is that crime rates tend to be higher in populations with a lot of young-to-middle aged men. What begins to happen in the 1990s is a demographic shift, as the baby boomers age out of that cohort.

The Baby Boom is defined as births from 1946-1955, although the birth rate in the US remained high until the early 1960s, with the advent of birth control pills.

But then, if the correlation between crime and Democratic vs. Republican leadership were so telling, you'd expect the crime rate to jump after Democrats got back into the mayor's and city council offices.

San Diego had a Republican mayor from 1971 to 1986, when you show the rate of violent crime rising.
 

waybread

Well-known member
As I said - that depends on the area. There are too many variables to provide a "general" reason.

For example, in Miami, the large Cuban-American population tends to vote republican. However this is particular to the state of Florida's demographics, and it is not the same in, for example, the state of Pennsylvania.

You would need to look at each particular city to find out why.

Give us some hints, Dirius. I mean, if the Republican platform is so compelling, surely it should dazzle people around the country.

Cuban Americans are a special case, with their legacy of being the business class fleeing Castro's takeover of Cuba.
 

petosiris

Banned
Waybread, I agree with your post in the other thread that Trump being a man of faith sounds as a joke, though I believe that Christ being proclaimed in pretence is still a cause for rejoicing - Philippians 1:18. The Democratic agenda can't be closer to the actual teachings of Jesus since it supports abominations to him, people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. No one is forbidden from doing charity with a Republican agenda, in fact making one give involuntary by taxation makes him not able to do charity, since he is not giving of his own free will. Did the Lord ever support increasing taxes? I thought he made Matthew the tax collector repent.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
One other thing I might mention is that crime rates tend to be higher in populations with a lot of young-to-middle aged men. What begins to happen in the 1990s is a demographic shift, as the baby boomers age out of that cohort.

The Baby Boom is defined as births from 1946-1955, although the birth rate in the US remained high until the early 1960s, with the advent of birth control pills.

But then, if the correlation between crime and Democratic vs. Republican leadership were so telling, you'd expect the crime rate to jump after Democrats got back into the mayor's and city council offices.

San Diego had a Republican mayor from 1971 to 1986, when you show the rate of violent crime rising.
But such rates were slow rising, and crime only accelerates when a democrat gets in power, increasing in a matter of years - and then they plummet in a very short period when a republican gets elected.

There is no reason why democrats would then change the policy implemented by republicans in regards to crime - and are more likely to continue the policy which has been proven to work, at least for a couple of years.

The data seems to show republicans do a better work controlling crime, while democrats tends to be unable to handle rising crime.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Give us some hints, Dirius. I mean, if the Republican platform is so compelling, surely it should dazzle people around the country.

Cuban Americans are a special case, with their legacy of being the business class fleeing Castro's takeover of Cuba.

You posed the question, you need to provide the variables waybread, not me.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Waybread, I agree with your post in the other thread that Trump being a man of faith sounds as a joke, though I believe that Christ being proclaimed in pretence is still a cause for rejoicing - Philippians 1:18. The Democratic agenda can't be closer to the actual teachings of Jesus since it supports abominations to him, people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. No one is forbidden from doing charity with a Republican agenda, in fact making one give involuntary by taxation makes him not able to do charity, since he is not giving of his own free will. Did the Lord ever support increasing taxes? I thought he made Matthew the tax collector repent.

The Bible actually goes against the centralized authority of government.

Professor Jose Huerta de la Soto, a christian economists from Spain, has a very good lecture on libertarianism in the bible, and refers to the same exact arguments you've pointed out.

If you can understand spanish, I'd love to send you some links.
 
Last edited:
Top