Talk Elections

What you do is this: I will name a list of dem leaning metro areas and you respond to it based on the following:

1 - This area is democrat almost entirely due to the "gucci dems"
2 - This area has a mix of gucci and ghetto but it is mostly because of the "gucci dems"
3 - The reason for this area's democratic lean is evenly split between the gucci and ghetto
4 - This area has a mix of gucci and ghetto but it is mostly because of the "ghetto dems"
5 - This area is democrat almost entirely due to the "ghetto dems"

Boston
New York
Newark
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago
St Louis
Twin Cities
Seattle
Portland
Bay Area
Los Angeles
Austin
Tri County Region of South Florida
Memphis
DC
Baltimore

In My Opinion
Boston = 1
New York = 3
Newark = 5
Philadelphia = 5
Cleveland = 5
Detroit = 5
Chicago = 4
St Louis = 5
Twin Cities = 1
Seattle = 1
Portland = 1
Bay Area = 1
Los Angeles = 3
Austin = 1
South Florida = 4
Memphis = 5
DC = 2
Baltimore = 5

Boston = 1
New York = 3
Newark = 6
Philadelphia = 4
Cleveland = 4
Detroit = 4
Chicago = 4
St Louis = 5
Twin Cities = 1
Seattle = 1
Portland = 1
Bay Area = 2
Los Angeles = 4
Austin = 1
South Florida = 4
Memphis = 5
DC = 3
Baltimore = 5

"Gucci Dems"?

Have you guys been to Boston?

Boston=3
New York=3
Newark=5
Philadelphia=4
Cleveland=5
Detroit=5
Chicago=4
St Louis=5
Twin Cities=2
Seattle=1
Portland=1
Bay Area=2
Los Angeles=4
Austin=1
South Florida=3
Memphis=4
DC=4
Baltimore=4

Boston=3
New York=3
Newark=5
Philadelphia=4
Cleveland=5
Detroit=5
Chicago=4
St Louis=5
Twin Cities=2
Seattle=1
Portland=2
Bay Area=1
Los Angeles=4
Austin=1
South Florida=3
Memphis=5
DC=4
Baltimore=5

Why would anyone put 1 for Portland? Portland's actually pretty downscale and only a few neighborhoods have a preponderance of yuppie, out of state migrants. It's certainly "alternative" in nearly all locales but it's lower middle class or working class as well and it much of the city has a rundown feel to it.

ok, maybe gucci isn't the right word. A better word would be "alternative lifestyles" or "bohemians." It's just that a lot of areas with rich fashionable liberals (like Manhattan) also have a lot of bohemian types so I lumped them into the same category.

LOL Twin Cities are not 1. We're barely a 2 if even that.

OK after having read the last post I suppose we might qualify for 2 (I was going to argue that we don't have many particularly affluent uber-Dem areas and there is a strong income/voting correlation), but 1 would mean we have next to no "ghetto Democrats". What do you think Keith Ellison's old State House seat is like?

Also a good chunk of the white Democrats in most of St. Paul and some parts of Minneapolis (especially Nordeast), are just working class people who aren't particularly socially conservative, they aren't "bohemians" or "alternative" by any means just because they don't feel threatened by gays getting married or consider it a major crisis that some people on their block like to get stoned in their basement.

Philadelphia=3.  Still have Manayunk, Center City and the suburbs.

are those the only options?

As far as the metros as a whole"


Boston-3
New York-3
Newark-4
Philadelphia-3
Cleveland-5
Detroit-5
Chicago-4
St Louis-4
Twin Cities-3
Seattle-1
Portland-3
Bay Area-1
Los Angeles-3
Austin-3
Tri County Region of South Florida-3
Memphis-5
DC-2
Baltimore-5

These options don't leave any leeway for white Dems who aren't wealthy (relevant for Boston, Twin Cities, Philadelphia). I'd call them Sears Democrats.

Chicago also has significant areas like that. They are usually called the "white ethnic wards".

It's not like the whites in SF who vote for Democrats are wealthy either. Meh.

Not all of them maybe, but there is certainly is no shortage of super-wealthy white liberals in San Francisco. Kind of like Manhattan, it might be that all the few people who DO vote Republican are quite wealthy, but that doesn't mean that all wealthy folks are Republican.

Well most of them are not wealthy but yes even the wealthy vote Democrat. I just hate the bay area being described as "Gucci". Sounds so dumb. Also sf isn't as wealthy as people think. It's median income is only a little above the nation and well below the median income of the bay area which is around 70-75k. It just has a lot of single people making 40-50k. Not what I would describe as wealthy. I certainly wouldn't describe it as Gucci. The bay area is not Beverly hills or fashion island. People aren't as self absorbed there.

For example while my mom and sister were eating at an Ethiopian restaurant in the silicon valley, Larry Page dropped by to eat. He could have rolled up in any car, but he came in a fairly non descript, environmentally friendly Chevy volt. Rich people in LA would drive something more fancy.

This whole exercise is rather silly. There are no metro areas that lack poor Democrats. They're a staple pretty much everywhere because just about everywhere the poor are a strong Democratic constituency. They nearly always outnumber the rich. That's just how things are.