In general, which are better places to live?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On principle I refuse to ever live in a precinct where Obama got less than 80%, so...

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

In general, both are likely hideous and dangerous places, and I would decline to reside in either under any normal circumstances.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In general, both are likely hideous and dangerous places, and I would decline to reside in either under any normal circumstances.

[dead0man]

In general, both are likely hideous and dangerous places, and I would decline to reside in either under any normal circumstances.

Indeed.  You can probably find some exceptions to prove the rule, but generally those are going to be pretty sh**tty places.  You'd need to be fairly well brainwashed to actually want to live in those places.....hence the OP.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In general, both are likely hideous and dangerous places, and I would decline to reside in either under any normal circumstances.

Indeed.  You can probably find some exceptions to prove the rule, but generally those are going to be pretty sh**tty places.  You'd need to be fairly well brainwashed to actually want to live in those places.....hence the OP.

Yeah you'd have to be quite brainwashed and delusional to ever want to live in any of those places I posted the pics of above.

[Simfan34]

Those are not your typical 80% Obama precincts. The typical such precinct is likely a below-average income inner city area.

BRTD, do you seriously choose where to live based off its voting history? That is, if you found a nice, affordable apartment in a precinct that was only 75% Obama or, God forbid, 60% Obama, you would flatly refuse to live there? Even for you that's absurd.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Those are not your typical 80% Obama precincts. The typical such precinct is likely a below-average income inner city area.

BRTD, do you seriously choose where to live based off its voting history? That is, if you found a nice, affordable apartment in a precinct that was only 75% Obama or, God forbid, 60% Obama, you would flatly refuse to live there? Even for you that's absurd.

60% Obama precincts don't exist in Minneapolis, and 75% Obama precincts tend to be quite expensive. Unless it's near the University of Minnesota, in which case I wouldn't live there for other reasons.

I should point out that I already live in a "below-average income inner city area." "Below average income" does not have to mean "poverty stricken ghetto".

[bedstuy]

If you like cities, >80% Obama precincts. 
If you like rural areas, >80% Romney precincts. 

But, both have great and awful examples, I'm sure.  I wouldn't want to live in Camden, NJ or East St. Louis, for example.

Let's be honest, if that's one of your main criteria, you're a crazy person. 

[TNF]

Depends on what you're going for, really. If you're doing well enough financially to afford the sky-high rents that come with living in an urban area, then an >80% Obama precinct is probably for you. If not, the >80% Romney precincts are probably better, as rent (and overall cost of living) tends to be cheaper in the red states.

[DemPGH]

Yeah, Romney over +80 sounds like some godforsaken place in the panhandle of Texas, Obama over +80 sounds like an urban nightmare. No thanks to both.

I would feel safer of course in a Romney over +80, and it's possible that it would be near a more diverse place where I could go to hang out. I would probably pick that, then, because I value safety and lower cost of living a great deal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Depends on what you're going for, really. If you're doing well enough financially to afford the sky-high rents that come with living in an urban area, then an >80% Obama precinct is probably for you. If not, the >80% Romney precincts are probably better, as rent (and overall cost of living) tends to be cheaper in the red states.

My rent is less than $600/month.

[TNF]

Depends on what you're going for, really. If you're doing well enough financially to afford the sky-high rents that come with living in an urban area, then an >80% Obama precinct is probably for you. If not, the >80% Romney precincts are probably better, as rent (and overall cost of living) tends to be cheaper in the red states.

My rent is less than $600/month.

Good for you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...in an >80% Obama precinct.

[The Free North]

The Romney precincts are likely to be in the middle of nowhere


The Obama percents are probably only in blighted inner cities or gentrified urban neighborhoods.


Obviously no sane person decides where to live based on this, but pick your poison.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

TIL I live in either a blighted or gentrified area.

[DavidB.]

Would depend on my phase in life. For now, I love living in an inner-city area, even though I wouldn't want to live in a real "ghetto" (my ancestors already did ). When I have a wife and kids, however, I would prefer living on the countryside.

[Simfan34]

Those are not your typical 80% Obama precincts. The typical such precinct is likely a below-average income inner city area.

BRTD, do you seriously choose where to live based off its voting history? That is, if you found a nice, affordable apartment in a precinct that was only 75% Obama or, God forbid, 60% Obama, you would flatly refuse to live there? Even for you that's absurd.

60% Obama precincts don't exist in Minneapolis, and 75% Obama precincts tend to be quite expensive. Unless it's near the University of Minnesota, in which case I wouldn't live there for other reasons.

I should point out that I already live in a "below-average income inner city area." "Below average income" does not have to mean "poverty stricken ghetto".

You gave an absolute statement. If there was an affordable, well-located apartment in a hypothetical 51% Romney precinct, would you refuse to live there?

[/]

In general, both are likely hideous and dangerous places, and I would decline to reside in either under any normal circumstances.

80% Obama - Poor, crime-ridden community

80% Romney - Poor, fanaticism-ridden community

[Хahar 🤔]

I live in a county where Obama won 89.73%. I doubt I would feel comfortable in a place where Romney won anywhere near that percentage. People in this thread attempting to draw a false equivalency are amusing.

You gave an absolute statement. If there was an affordable, well-located apartment in a hypothetical 51% Romney precinct, would you refuse to live there?

BRTD's answer would surely be that there's no place that's both well-located and in a 51% Romney precinct, because no place that fits his criteria for "well-located" would possibly have voted for Romney. Whether you agree or not, it's intellectually consistent.

[Goldwater]

I guess >80% Obama, but only becasue I don't want to live in the middle of nowhere.

[muon2]

BRTD in this thread epitomizes the Big Sort.

[ElectionsGuy]

>80% Obama, I guess. I would rather live in neither, since most >80% Romney ones lack civilization and >80% Obama ones are too urban. Though I bet I could find some nice inner suburban areas that are >80% Obama in the Atlanta area.

[RFayette]

Texas exurbs with >80% Romney voting would be pretty nice (I think The Woodlands has areas like this), and I like rural areas too.  That being said, a college town or nice part of Minneapolis or something that's >80% Obama would be cool too.  
 
I chose >80% Romney, but it depends on the area.  

[Türkisblau]

Exurbs with >80% Romney would be pretty nice, and I like rural areas too.  That being said, a college town or nice part of Minneapolis or something that's >80% Obama would be cool too. 

I chose >80% Romney, but it depends on the area. 

Well yes, there is a huge variation in places that fit into these categories. For example, people are talking about how all the >80% Obama areas are urban while the Romney areas are rural, when there are plenty of rural Obama areas (see: the former Shannon County, black belt areas in the South) so this isn't really an answerable question to me as there are a huge amount of different options that this "match-up" could possibly have me choosing between.

[RFayette]

Exurbs with >80% Romney would be pretty nice, and I like rural areas too.  That being said, a college town or nice part of Minneapolis or something that's >80% Obama would be cool too.  

I chose >80% Romney, but it depends on the area.  

Well yes, there is a huge variation in places that fit into these categories. For example, people are talking about how all the >80% Obama areas are urban while the Romney areas are rural, when there are plenty of rural Obama areas (see: the former Shannon County, black belt areas in the South) so this isn't really an answerable question to me as there are a huge amount of different options that this "match-up" could possibly have me choosing between.

Since it was BRTD, when he said "80% Obama area," I instantly thought of a college town or some relatively gentrified (but still quite diverse) part of a city.  

But for me, if by >80% Obama area we're talking about a ghetto or Native American Reservation, then no way for me.  College town, Vermont, or yuppie-ish type place?  Sure, I could go for it potentially, though I personally like the uber-conservative suburbs of the American Southwest a lot as a hot weather aficionado.

I think muon's post about "The Big Sort" is quite interesting, as I'm heading off to a very liberal university, but I do intend to move to a more religious, conservative place upon graduation.