Which city is deader for the GOP: Chicago or San Francisco (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 03:22:51 AM
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 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
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 3007 times)
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


« 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
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


« Reply #1 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
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2015, 12:15:37 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.

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

Oh, and to OP, SF for sure.

Fair enough, with my only defense being I never would have made that statement if it hadn't been responding to one that was ridiculous in the first place.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.029 seconds with 15 queries.