Which city is deader for the GOP: Chicago or San Francisco
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:13:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Which city is deader for the GOP: Chicago or San Francisco
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Worse city to be a Republican?
#1
Chicago
 
#2
San Francisco
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 82

Author Topic: Which city is deader for the GOP: Chicago or San Francisco  (Read 2956 times)
hangfan91
Rookie
**
Posts: 198
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 20, 2015, 08:44:07 PM »

I personally think Chicago. Some of the suburban areas around the city voted for GOP governors and Presidents before whereas for San Fran the entire metro area is Democrat leaning I believe.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2015, 08:45:30 PM »

Frisco.  At least Chicago suburbs are still quite Republican in midterm years.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2015, 08:50:00 PM »

In terms of % of the vote they're about the same, but the liberal culture and atmosphere of San Fran would probably drive a conservative crazier than Chicago, despite all the conservative rants about crime in Chicago.

And yeah, the Chicago suburbs are much friendlier to the GOP than the Bay Area.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,793
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2015, 11:09:16 PM »
« Edited: January 20, 2015, 11:13:30 PM by OC »

Same Sex Marriage will drive GOP voters off the wall in Bay area.

Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,930
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2015, 11:15:03 PM »

San Francisco. Up until a few years ago, Chicago had a Republican alderman.
Logged
RR1997
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2015, 11:16:23 PM »

San Francisco of course. Like others have mentioned, at least the suburbs of Chicago are Republican friendly.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,793
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2015, 11:18:38 PM »

Chicago had a Mayor named Richard M Daley who was conservatives, not always G O Pers best ally and as long as conservatives have the police union, they can keep the city in check and have a mainstream mayor like Rahm Emanuel or Richard Daley.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2015, 11:43:32 PM »

Chicago had a Mayor named Richard M Daley who was conservatives, not always G O Pers best ally and as long as conservatives have the police union, they can keep the city in check and have a mainstream mayor like Rahm Emanuel or Richard Daley.

Daley is not a conservative.  Period.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2015, 12:06:42 AM »

Really?!?

The city where Dukakis had to narrowly clench victory against the city that has  rejected GOP since 1928 (with Eisenhower as the exception)?

C'mon now
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2015, 12:18:20 AM »

     Both cities are deader than disco for the Republicans. Might as well ask which country is more gay-friendly: Uganda or Russia.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2015, 12:48:57 AM »

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2015, 01:06:53 AM »

The cities themselves are probably narrow-ish, but taking suburbs into account it's easily San Fran.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,055
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2015, 07:23:21 AM »

     Both cities are deader than disco for the Republicans. Might as well ask which country is more gay-friendly: Uganda or Russia.

I know what you meant here, but it's actually pretty clear that Russia is more gay-friendly than Uganda.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2015, 10:51:39 AM »

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.

The elitism your party manufactures about who its voters are is truly amusing.  The wealthiest people in Chicagoland are the ones who make the suburbs "GOP-friendly," SOMEWHAT offsetting the legions of poor people who make the city unwinnable.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2015, 02:53:29 PM »

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.

The elitism your party manufactures about who its voters are is truly amusing.  The wealthiest people in Chicagoland are the ones who make the suburbs "GOP-friendly," SOMEWHAT offsetting the legions of poor people who make the city unwinnable.

If by "legions of poor people" you mean black and Latino voters (not all of whom are poor, FTR) , educated urban white liberals, as well as (to a lesser extent) working-class "ethnic" whites and pretty much everybody else in Chicago proper, than you have a point.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2015, 04:25:40 PM »

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.

The elitism your party manufactures about who its voters are is truly amusing.  The wealthiest people in Chicagoland are the ones who make the suburbs "GOP-friendly," SOMEWHAT offsetting the legions of poor people who make the city unwinnable.

If by "legions of poor people" you mean black and Latino voters (not all of whom are poor, FTR) , educated urban white liberals, as well as (to a lesser extent) working-class "ethnic" whites and pretty much everybody else in Chicago proper, than you have a point.

My point is urban White liberals aren't enough to keep the area so Dem by themselves (hence relying on tons of working class votes), and it certainly wouldn't help to have more wealthy, college educated Whites (as he implied), who in Illinois vote Republican.
Logged
Libertarian Socialist Dem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2015, 07:41:28 PM »

Frisco has a lot of libertarian leaning types that I could see defecting under the right circumstances.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2015, 09:54:35 PM »

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.

The elitism your party manufactures about who its voters are is truly amusing.  The wealthiest people in Chicagoland are the ones who make the suburbs "GOP-friendly," SOMEWHAT offsetting the legions of poor people who make the city unwinnable.

If by "legions of poor people" you mean black and Latino voters (not all of whom are poor, FTR) , educated urban white liberals, as well as (to a lesser extent) working-class "ethnic" whites and pretty much everybody else in Chicago proper, than you have a point.

My point is urban White liberals aren't enough to keep the area so Dem by themselves (hence relying on tons of working class votes), and it certainly wouldn't help to have more wealthy, college educated Whites (as he implied), who in Illinois vote Republican.

Wealthy white well-educated urban folks tend to vote Democratic; wealthy white well-educated suburban folks tend to vote somewhat Republican outside the Bay Area and New England.  The exceptions might be some inner-core suburbs within the county of the city itself.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2015, 11:44:03 PM »
« Edited: January 23, 2015, 06:08:06 PM by PR »

Wealthy white well-educated urban folks tend to vote Democratic;

^^But not nearly to the extent that urban working-class (especially non-white) voters are Democratic.
 
Also, a lot of well-educated Americans (particularly in large metropolitan areas-i.e. those very friendly to the Democrats- where there is a lot of competition for higher-paying jobs/the kind of jobs that require a Bachelor's Degree or higher) are not wealthy. Many (particularly but not exclusively the younger ones) work in service-sector type jobs that they are overqualified for (in terms of educational attainment, at least). Those urban residents who are younger, highly educated, less economically secure, and more transient than most other groups would vote very heavily for the Democrats, I suspect-to the extent that they vote at all, of course.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2015, 04:29:07 PM »

Illinois, like NY, is less ideological than the left coast. So things can swing a bit more.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2015, 07:35:13 PM »

Wealthy white well-educated urban folks tend to vote Democratic;

^^But not nearly to the extent that urban working-class (especially non-white) voters are Democratic.
 
Also, a lot of well-educated Americans (particularly in large metropolitan areas-i.e. those very friendly to the Democrats- where there is a lot of competition for higher-paying jobs/the kind of jobs that require a Bachelor's Degree or higher) are not wealthy. Many (particularly but not exclusively the younger ones) work in service-sector type jobs that they are overqualified for (in terms of educational attainment, at least). Those urban residents who are younger, highly educated, less economically secure, and more transient than most other groups would vote very heavily for the Democrats, I suspect-to the extent that they vote at all, of course.

Good point.  For an educated person, it's probably easier to live in a red (non-Atlas) state than a blue state due to this education disparity.  A BA in Oklahoma probably takes you a lot further than a BA in say, NYC or San Fran.  It seems like the low amount of competition would make entering fields like law (which are notoriously over-saturated) far easier in Dixieland than the left coast and Northeast.  And doctors in those less-educated states probably have impeccable job security. 

The problem, of course, is that these conservative states have inferior educational systems to those of more liberal states, essentially creating a large "underclass" of people.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,793
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2015, 09:41:22 AM »
« Edited: January 24, 2015, 09:43:14 AM by OC »

Willie Brown and Galvin Newsome are much more liberal than Mayor Daley and Rahm Emanual, who allow the police to racial profile.

I was saying, conservatives, and middle class whites like the Mayors we have. Not too nuch liberals.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2015, 09:18:16 PM »

I was saying, conservatives, and middle class whites like the Mayors we have. Not too nuch liberals.

I don't know a single conservative who has a favorable opinion of Rahm Emanuel.  Do you mean "conservative" as in a conservative/moderate liberal or centrist Democrat?  Because conservative Republicans sure don't like him.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2015, 02:34:06 PM »
« Edited: January 29, 2015, 02:36:18 PM by Mr. Illini »

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.

The elitism your party manufactures about who its voters are is truly amusing.  The wealthiest people in Chicagoland are the ones who make the suburbs "GOP-friendly," SOMEWHAT offsetting the legions of poor people who make the city unwinnable.

Not necessarily.

Swaths of the near North Shore are incredibly wealthy and Democratic. Very Jewish areas plus granola types. Think Evanston, Highland Park, Deerfield, etc.

Meanwhile inland, Barrington and Wheaton area incredibly wealthy and Republican. Much more religious.

Chicago's suburbs have much more complicated voting patterns than you give off.

As for OP, SFO most likely, being the most liberal large city in the country, contested only by Seattle. It goes without saying that both are Democratic bulwarks, though.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,252
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2015, 09:49:43 AM »
« Edited: February 03, 2015, 09:51:57 AM by Badger »

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.

The elitism your party manufactures about who its voters are is truly amusing.  The wealthiest people in Chicagoland are the ones who make the suburbs "GOP-friendly," SOMEWHAT offsetting the legions of poor people who make the city unwinnable.

This ^ is not the kind of post one should make while throwing stones about 'elitism'.

Oh, and to OP, SF for sure.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 14 queries.