Talk Elections

Washington DC is so heavily Democratic that no Democratic nominee has ever received less than 74% of the vote.  Marion Barry was elected mayor even after serving time in prison for the infamous cocaine conviction.  Some of you have suggested that DC is so partisan that it would vote for Zell Miller over Lincoln Chaffee.

Because DC has had electoral votes only since 1964, it lacks a voting record under the earlier political alignment.

So what keeps DC so heavily Democratic?  Short of a presidential election taking place when a Republican president has a 90%+ approval rating (like Bush Sr. right after Gulf War I or George W. Bush right after Sept. 11th), what would it take for the Republican nominee to win the 3 electoral votes of Washington DC?

I think it has more to do with the Democratic nominee than anything else. George Wallace and Zell Miller are examples of Democrats who would not do well in DC.

The Democrats will never lose DC. Even if there is another realignment, it will stay with the Democrats, just like Kansas and Nebraska have always stayed with the GOP.

So why do these areas keep sticking with the same party?  Many constituencies have changed as the parties have changed.  For example, African Americans were heavily Republican until the FDR administration and then became heavily Democratic as a result of the New Deal.  The reactionaries of the South used to be heavily Democratic and then turned heavily Republican. 

I've wondered that myself. A while back, I started a thread on Kane County, Utah, which has always voted Republican except in 1916. It really irritates me that those people vote Republican when they're progressive, and still remain loyal when their platform is completely opposite. So why the hell weren't they Democrats back then?

These areas are inexcusable- they must not care about "issues", or "candidates"; they just care about the little R on the ballot.

(And all of that applies to always Democratic areas too, though there aren't many).

There would have to be a complete political realignment for DC to vote Republican.

Much of DC is non-citizens who can't vote, and many of the citizens who can vote are black.  Even the white citizens tend to be limousine liberals who vote Democratic.  It feeds upon itself - the atmosphere is so unfriendly to Republicans that they choose to live elsewhere.

It's no coincidence in my opinion that a city that is so strongly and mindlessly Democratic is also completely dysfunctional.  The two are usually strongly linked.

...Whereas the areas that are strongly and mindlessly Republican are virtual paradises in comparison?  Not in my mind.

Generally, they're a lot more functional than DC.

Fresno, California isn't that much more functional, it even boasts a higher poverty rate.

That is because they are generally not big cities and tend to be wealthier.

A foreign policy, economic, and socially liberal Republican.

A really confusing butterfly ballot.

^

It would take a nuclear strike from the Chi-Comms to kill virtually all of its inhabitants.  No, wait...that wouldn't do it either.  Nope, D.C. remains Democrat.

Even Zell Miller would win DC.  Anyone who has that (D) next to their name on the ballot would carry DC.  No Republican would win unless maybe the Democrat raped their wife and then ate their children on live TV.  If enough saw it, DC could go Repulican, but it would be close.

Lowell Weicker (R) would easily beat Zell Miller (D), it wouldn't even be close.

There would be enough Democratic pocket voters to push Zell over the top.

Ehem!

1896

()

That was only because Byran was from Nebraska, and the farmers were starving. Even then, his margins were fairly narrow. They reverted to their traditional Republicanism in 1900.

Seeing as how Vermont used to vote for the Republicans in terms of about 65%-80% for a large part of the 20th century, and now is probably the safest Democratic state after DC itself, I'd say anything is possible.  The reason Vermont switched is because of the political shifts of the two parties, and the demographic shift (rich liberal New Yorkers emigrating to the small towns up north).

So, despite the fact that DC currently votes Democratic in similar margins as Vermont used to for the Republicans, I'd say DC could actually vote Republican in the distant future.  But only under similar circumstances; i.e. another party realignment or a demographic shift.  Coupled perhaps with an economic boom.

A meteor hits DC, destroying the east half of the city.

Then, the Dems run a pro-life populist while the Reps run a pro-choice gay libertarian (why gay? well, there IS a gay libertarian Rep City Councillor up in the rich NW Dupont Circle area, right?), and some leftist Green lunatic runs a strong campaign.

Final result: 33.4% R - 33.3% D - 33.3% G

;D

Hitler (D) vs. Kerry (R)

The bigger question is, why are most cities so Democratic?

I don't think even that would make DC vote Republican.  I think the people there are pretty much brain dead, and the state of their city proves it.  If Congress hadn't basically taken over because it was a disgrace to have such a dysfunctional city as the nation's capital, DC, aside from the national mall area, would have descended to the level of a third-world city.

The more dysfunctional a city's population is, the more heavily Democratic it will vote.

The more bigoted and racist an area is, the more likely it will vote Republican. Also, the least educated states are all Republican.

Really?  Apparently, you are not living in the real world.  There is just as much bigotry in liberal northeastern states as in the south.  New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts all have virtually complete separation of the races, and hostility where they actually meet.  If you can't see that, you are really kidding yourself.  Latte liberals who wax poetically about tolerance and diversity, while living miles away from the nearest non-white person, are in practice just as bigoted as those who are more honest about their views.

Are they? From memory one of the least educated states in the U.S is Kentucky; where a majority of voters are Democrats.

This self-ID stuff is silly. We all know Kentucky is essentially affiliated with the national GOP.

It isn't self ID (although Democrats are a plurality with that as well), a majority of Kentucky voters are registered Democrats. The State House is held by the Democrats as are most local offices outside Northern Kentucky and South Central Kentucky. State offices are currently split, but are usually dominated by Democrats (Democratic candidates were hurt by the whole Patten mess last election). An unknown (at the time) and underfunded Democratic candidate came shockingly close to beating a Republican Senate incumbent last year (no one sane expected it to be that close; even after Bunning's madness came to light). All of the state's Congressional Districts are *potentially* winnable by both parties. Whatever Kentucky is it clearly can't be considered to be a Republican state.

Why do you still live in Connecticut if all us liberals are so horrible? Why don't you take the next flight to Oklahoma? Why? Because you know those places are horrible to live in and despite all the bad mouthing you actually like living in the Northeast.

Obviously that was a lot of assumptions but seriously, stop dissing the hand that feeds you (the "liberal" Northeast). You accuse me of having "a screw loose" and then you say that everyone who votes Democrat is "brain dead". Real intelligent dialogue there.

Can you refute anything I said about the northeast?

Quite honestly, I don't mean what I say as an indictment of the northeast.  It's simply a reality, and I myself am part of the behavior pattern I describe.  I have never denied that.  I live in a town that is all of 1% black, and I don't intend to move.  I am not particularly interested in more "diversity" in any case, at least not under the social conditions that currently exist, and neither are most of the people who live here, liberal or conservative.

I just think it's wrong to throw daggers at other sections of the country, when we have the same situation here, in a slightly different form.  There is no correlation between whether an area votes Democratic or Republican, and how tolerant it is of different races.  Right now, one of the most heavily Democratic counties in the country, Brooklyn NY, is in the grip of ongoing racially motivated violence from both blacks and whites.  It has been called the "borough of hate" and if I were to follow the philosophy of some people here, like Scoonie, I would think it had to be a Republican stronghold.

So just come down off your high horse, Pym Fortuyn.  If you can prove Connecticut to be a beacon of racial tolerance and integration, please provide some examples.  Otherwise, don't criticize me for telling the truth.

I would like to point out that this is not remotely true.

I hate to be one of the people who gives endless examples of local exceptions, but Seattle is hardly dysfunctional - it is one of the safest, wealthiest major cities - and it also is one of the most Democratic, being over 80% Kerry.

The solidly middle class Chicago suburb of Evanston is even more Democratic than Chicago itself.

Well then maybe it's true on the east coast.  West coast cities are different, with a higher percentage of latte liberal Democrats, as opposed to entitlement-oriented Democrats.

The problem you're fundamentally having is that you are confusing correlation with causation.

You assert that the more dysfunctional a city is, the more Democratic it is.

Dysfunction is generally related to poor economics, which often correlates with minority population.  And poverty and minority status are both things that generally cause people to vote Democratic.  So, yes, tangentially, dysfunction and Democratic voting are related.

However, it's odd that you measure this as entitlement.  It's more self-interest - people vote for what in the short term gives them the benefit, which might be the pro-welfare Democratic Party.  And CEOs vote Republican, not necessarily beceause they have always believed in the values of the free market, but because it benefits them.

I've never understood why people use "latte liberal Democrats" as an attack.  Rich people voting Democratic - which generally negatively affects them - is supposed to be a cowardly thing?  They could vote in their interest, but they don't, and that is a grounds for attack?  I may not agree with their positions, but I do admire that they are voting against their own interests for what they see as the better good.

It seems odd to attack the poor for voting in their immediate interest while at the same time decrying wealthy liberals as "latte liberals."

On one level, you may be right, but on another level, I think I am right.

I think for a lot of people, being saddled with a Democratic victim mentality is at least partial causation for, and not just correlation with, their poor circumstances.  This mentality tells people that they should wait for somebody else to help them, that there's no point in trying to help themselves.  Our attempts to help people in the past 40 years have probably done more damage than hundreds of years of neglect.

If people are raised with a mentality that they have no power over their lives, most likely they will never get ahead of the curve, and will not be able to produce good circumstances.  I don't suggest that liberal policies are the sole cause of this, but I believe they have made a contribution.  Liberal policies may make the misery some of their voters are suffering marginally more bearable, but at the price of deepening the underlying problem.

Latte liberal is meant to be a derogatory term not because those voters vote against their interests, but because they are hypocrites who choose not to live with the policies they inflict on others.  They favor leniency for criminals, while living far from centers of crime.  Therefore, they don't really suffer the effects of putting dangerous people back out onto the street.  They oppose giving poor children better educational options, while making sure that their own kids have only the best.  And as far as taxes go, they have enough money that they don't really care about a few thousand more a year in taxes; the middle class is hit much harder by the tax level that these people favor than the latte liberals are.

The problem is, there's not much you can do to help yourself when you're stuck in Detroit.  There are plenty of Democratic voters who cannot escape their world because they do not have the money.


I think that this is partially true, but I could say the same thing about conservative philosophy:  it makes people think they never have to help their fellow man, because those that are poor show no effort.  To bring philosophies down to such a simple level is to ignore their validity.


Of course, I could say the same thing about conservatives:  they favour economic ideals that help large industry before they help the smaller workers, while liberal economics immediately helps the "little guy."

By the way, at least where I live, we have crime even though we are an affluent area because we live near an area with high crime.  Yet people here are by and large liberal.

I don't think you really got my point.  I think their mentality is part of the reason they don't have any money.  In many cases, poverty is a thought process and state of mind first; the lack of money is the result that follows.

I am not trying to oversimplify this problem, but I think you have, in simply taking it as a given that poor people never had any control over their lives, and therefore are just responding to circumstances that have been pressed on them 100%.  Of course, I understand that many poor people were dealt a poor hand in life.  But maybe having that kid out of wedlock at 17 wasn't such a good move, either.  Many poor people simply keep adding to their problems and continuing the cycle, and a philosophy that condescends to them, and tells them that what they do is justified because of their poor circumstances, can only be part of the problem.

One thing I have noticed is that poor people who don't develop that thought process are far more likely to break out of poverty.  I've seen it many times.


I think economic policies are highly amorphous in certain cases.  I reject the notion that liberal economic policies definitely help the "little guy."  It may appear that they do in the short run, but if they undermine the economic foundation in the longer run by penalizing production, then they end up hurting the little guy.  I think your views can be shallow and short-term, while I am looking at a longer term model.  Economic policies must always be a balance, because neither big business nor workers can do well if policies tilt too far in one direction or the other.  The two are inextricably linked, even if they appear on the surface to have opposing interests.

As far as people living in an area with high crime and still being liberal -- well, let me pin a medal on them.  Your logic here is almost laughable, Alcon.  You think there is something inherently admirable about supporting a philosophy that puts criminals back on the street, even when that philosophy is hurting you.  I don't call that admirable; I call it masochistic and stupid.  And I resent that these latte liberals take a tone of moral superiority and try to force this stupidity on the rest of us.

I don't understand the northwest at all.  It seems the liberals there are even worse, and more out of touch with reality, than the liberals here, if that's possible.  I find that what most latte liberals seek is not the greater good, but to expiate the guilt they seem to feel for their superior position in society on the backs of other less fortunate people who don't enjoy "protected" status.  I think that in general, this is reprehensible.

I don't disagree with you on race, the situation in Connecticut is fine with me. But throwing around terms like "latte liberal" and "dysfunctional population" as if they actually meant something is not contributing anything to the debate. I've never had a latte in my life.

And you can stop trying to accuse the Northeast of being more segregated than the South. No one will ever buy it. Why do you defend the South by default yet only disparage the Northeast? So we have a superiority complex, there could be worse things.

Seattle is also white. Dazzleman should've said the more black majority a city is, the more dysfunctional it will be and the more dysfunctional it will be, the more Democratic it will vote.

Pym, I would not use the word segregated.  That term means that racial separation is imposed by government, so it does not apply.  The bastardization of that term by liberals to describe any situation without what they consider an optimal racial balance is typical of politically correct corruption of the language.

What we have nationwide is large-scale racial separation, imposed by millions of individual decisions.  That in its own way is worse than government-imposed segregation, because it's much harder to change.

Keep in mind, Pym, I am not criticizing the northeast for its racial situation.  I am a part of it, and I'm not clamoring to mix the minority-dominated cities with the white suburbs, considering the conditions that prevail in those cities.  People move to the suburbs to escape all that, and I am no exception.  What I do criticize is the tendency of people from the northeast to call others racist, when the situation here is not terribly different from the situation in, for example, the south.

As far as the northeast not being more "segregated" than the south, let me quote you a couple of statistics:

Percent of black students in schools with more than 90% minority:

South
1968 -- 77.5
1980 -- 24.6
1992 -- 26.5

Northeast
1968 -- 42.7
1980 -- 48.7
1992 -- 49.9

Percentage of white students in schools 90% white
South
1968 -- 68.8
1980 -- 32.2
1992 -- 26.0

Northeast
1968 -- 82.5
1980 -- 79.5
1992 -- 66.7

So by these measures, the northeast has a greater degree of racial separation than the south, at least in education.  That is largely because school districts in the south conform to county lines, while in the northeast they conform to municipal lines. 

Would you support creating regional schools in Connecticut whereby cities and suburbs were placed in the same district, and busing was used to achieve a consistent racial balance over the whole region?

As I said Pym, I am not criticizing the northeast for the degree of racial separation that exists here.  I think it is the natural and inevitable result of social conditions and a clash in cultures.  But perhaps with the numbers we have, we shouldn't be so quick to call southerners names.  And look up some numbers the next time you tell me that I can "stop trying to accuse the northeast of being more segregated than the south" because "nobody is going to buy it."  Numbers don't lie, my friend.  Your perception is a bit skewed, which comes as no surprise, but numbers don't lie.

And yet you mock me for wanting to live in a minority and crimed filled urban center than a lily-white suburb.

I'll say this about you.  Unlike a lot of hypocritical liberals, you seem to embrace the dreadful results of the idiotic policies that you advocate.  You will probably end up living your life poor and in unpleasant surroundings, just as the policies that you advocate dictate.  I guess that's better than advocating ridiculous policies, and then exempting yourself from the results they produce, as most liberals do.

Yet the South has can't even purcchase its own stop signs!

A lot of those states went Democrat in 1912, 1932, 1936, and 1964.

How exactly is Minneapolis such a terrible city in unpleasant surroundings? If it was my very educated (and very liberal aunt) would obviously move out since she could easily get a job elsewhere. And she's not exactly poor either.

Case in Point:

My hometown in NY.  83.5% White, 4.6% Black.  Great schools, etc.
Less than a quarter-mile from my house is a town: 59.6% Black, 24.4% White--cruddy schools, except for the one elementary school in the good part of town.

Not to mention the Bronx is right next door.

If Barack Obama appeared on the ballot as a Republican, even in error, he could not carry D.C.

Numbers don't lie? LOL. Who's going to fall for that line?
Not that I'm saying Pym's vision isn't a little skewed here...not saying that at all...
Main reason for those figures is of course the areas' different settlement history. There simply are large mostly rural areas in the North where there are next to no Blacks.

The Swann-Blackwell ticket gets an early Christmas present when the Democratic nominee shows up at a Rock the Vote event and, in a desperate ploy to be seen as hip, opens his speech by asking "Wassup, my niggaz?"

That's how a Republican wins DC without a realignment.

What is my vision and why is it skewed? I don't understand what you mean.

There's an old bitter joke..."In the South they don't care if the Negroes live next to them, as long as they don't get uppity. In the North they don't care if the Negroes demand equal rights, as long as they don't live nearby."

There's some truth to that.

Try to imagine John Kerry saying that. I just spent a minute trying, and just could not do it.

I imagined it, and it made my day.  I would have voted for Kerry if he did that,it was that funny when it happenned in my head.

Powell would have beaten Traficant in DC, I imagine.

DC is LIBERAL not Democractic.  I disagree with some who say a Bush supporting, anti-liberties, anti-all good Democrat (like Zell Miller) would win over Lincoln Chafee who has some sense.

I'd also like to say the DC isn't run by Democrats. Congress (which is controlled by Republicans) runs DC and gives little time and attention to it.

Have you ever been to New York City AT ALL? There is no way to be anywhere that city while being "miles away from the nearest non-white person"; you can't even find a place where you're blocks away from the nearest non-white person. The places in NY where you're miles away from non-white people are upstate where it might as well be the south, if it weren't for the snow.

I live in Westchester County, in the Town of Greenburgh. It's a suburb of NYC, and one of the richer and more Liberal/Democratic places in the country. At the 2000 census, the Town of Greenburgh was 72% white, 13% Black, 8% Asian, 9% Latino and 6% other races/mixed races. Personally, I've got a bit of Native American in me.

There would have to be no Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Independent, Natural Law, Reform, Grassroots, Worker's World, Communist, or Socialist Equality candidates on the ballot.

Under those circumstances, it would probably go something like this.

Republican: 51%
Write-In votes cast for "Democrat": 49%

I'm assuming this is a joke, but as we've seen from the 2004 Idaho Senate race, people are lazy as hell about write-ins.

Let's see, DC is full of government workers, blacks, and is entirely a city. It shouldn't be any surprise that the GOP has no chance in it.

So basically both parties would have to completely switch their positions on the issues.

Don't take Dazzleman so seriously Jacob. When he gets into his rants about how "racist" and horrible the Northeast supposedly is he doesn't pay too much attention to the facts. He loves to bash the region that pays his salary.

My relatives live in Greenburgh, in the village of Irvington.

No sh**t? I do too, and so does Defarge.

Who're your relatives?

Part of the issue is also a $$$ issue.  Home values tend to be much higher in the northeast than in the south.  Even in some of the heaviest minority neighborhoods the housing costs are quite high, but tend to be quite a bit lower than housing costs in mostly white neighborhoods.  One neighborhood to the next can have drastic differences in home values in the northeast, the housing value differencial from one area to the next n the south tends to be quite a bit smaller.  Whites tend to make more $$$ than African Americans. 

In other words the housing costs differencials in the south from one area to the next are smaller than the differences in the northeast.  As a result their tends to be more income diversity and more racial diversity in the south than in the northeast.

Also as mentioned by another poster the rural factor, you have a much larger amount of rural southern blacks than rural northeastern blacks

It will never happen (unless something really weird happens like a mass exodus of all the liberals--but then it'd be a ghost town).  It's mostly populated by African Americans, and what whites it has, are pretty much liberals.

Reestablish bans on black voting. Since blacks tend to vote for populists, I'd favor this policy(I'd also disenfranchise most of the working class and rural people too. This disenfranchisement is part of a plan to make social conservatives and populists a permanent electoral minority. Race is NOT an issue that I care about, its ensuring that people with my views more or less have a lock on political power)

A nuclear bomb destroying the entire city (except everything essential to our government) and then only Republicans moving in.

Rin-chan

My plan is actualyl workable.

Massive voter fraud.

Maybe an Abe Lincoln/Dwight Eisenhower GOP ticket vs. a James Buchanan/Walter Mondale Dem ticket.

Pretty much true. I've never been to NYC, but even in Minneapolis, which is over 60% white, the only time I've ever been in an area with only white people is when I'm seeing bands at the Triple Rock, since basically only white kids listen to my type of music. Plus that's right in the middle of a Somali neighborhood, walk outside and you'd have a tough time finding a white person who wasn't there for the show.