Detroit's white population is increasing

[Brittain33]

Weird little article in the Boston Globe today:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/09/24/the-white-population-growing-many-cities-for-first-time-years/VOYgWUYYIT3V3qnjBXSppO/story.html

[ElectionsGuy]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not really that surprising. Think about it. Who are the only people who are actually moving TO Detroit? Probably people renting condos and upscale townhomes downtown.

[Nyvin]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

Most of the Republican's gains among whites has been in the South and Appalachia.     Outside of those areas there are actually places where Democrats are gaining white votes.     Which shouldn't be surprising, considering Romney lost places like Wisconsin by 7% while Bush only lost it by 0.4%.   Also Romney didn't win Iowa or NH while Bush won one in each of his elections.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Weird little article in the Boston Globe today:

Why is that weird?  Is there a big demand for $3,000 Shinola bicycles and small batch distilled bourbon in the black community?  Detroit is budget hipster heaven.

[Republican Michigander]

Weird little article in the Boston Globe today:

Why is that weird?  Is there a big demand for $3,000 Shinola bicycles and small batch distilled bourbon in the black community?  Detroit is budget hipster heaven.

Not really although it is compared to the coasts and Chicago.

Downtown and Midtown (Wayne State) areas are not cheap. Parts of Corktown is cheaper and is a more mixed area. Most of the incoming white areas are to those areas along with some of the wealthy black areas there like Indian Village, Palmer Woods/Park, etc. The latter areas are bargins, although the risk is proximity to some other neighborhoods where $10K for a house is a ripoff. Rosedale Park took a beating in property values, not because of that neighborhood, but due to Brightmoor being to the west.

There are areas you can get a home for $10K, but it's not exactly the area that hipsters, yuppies, and trustafarians are moving to.

While downtown and midtown (Dan Gilbert especially is investing there) are gaining, I'm not sure how true the story is for a few reasons. 1. Middle Easterners are considered white by census counts. That inflates some of the far west side near the Dearborn border. 2. The white populations in the far residential neighborhoods (Parkland, Warrendale, etc)  are still declining. Residual flight from city workers and retirees.

Even if it is true, there's still the issue nobody there talks about. Black flight. The black population is declining, and a lot of those who left were the black middle class who contributed heavily to the economy and tax base.

I AM sure that downtown and midtown have come a long ways, although those areas haven't been the big problem over the past 15 years. The school system, and a large number of the residential neighborhoods are the problem. If those come back, then Detroit is back. Those are also problems not unique to Detroit either.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Thanks for the intel, Republican Michigander.  Very interesting post.  I have no recolection of ever visiting Detroit so first hand experiences are always welcome.

I've read all kinds of articles about Shinola bicycles, tech startups, and small batch distilleries and that kind of thing so I assumed there were some white people moving there.  Frankly I wouldn't be surprised either way.  The population is a fraction of what it used to be so I could see it trending either way amongst various racial groups.  It's coming off such an extreme low all kinds of factors are perturbed.  Your summary sounds plausible.

[Skill and Chance]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

Most of the Republican's gains among whites has been in the South and Appalachia.     Outside of those areas there are actually places where Democrats are gaining white votes.     Which shouldn't be surprising, considering Romney lost places like Wisconsin by 7% while Bush only lost it by 0.4%.   Also Romney didn't win Iowa or NH while Bush won one in each of his elections.

I agree.  It seems increasingly like Democrats have a hard floor around 37-39% of the white vote.  Note that it has been stuck in that narrow range in 2010, 2012 and 2014.  Dem margins with minority groups, probably more so than turnout, were the difference between 2010 and 2012.  After all, what does the current GOP platform have to offer a white person who voted for Obama twice?

[pbrower2a]

Not really that surprising. Think about it. Who are the only people who are actually moving TO Detroit? Probably people renting condos and upscale townhomes downtown.

The Latino population is growing in Detroit -- and some of them consider themselves white.

[Republican Michigander]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

Most of the Republican's gains among whites has been in the South and Appalachia.     Outside of those areas there are actually places where Democrats are gaining white votes.     Which shouldn't be surprising, considering Romney lost places like Wisconsin by 7% while Bush only lost it by 0.4%.   Also Romney didn't win Iowa or NH while Bush won one in each of his elections.

I agree.  It seems increasingly like Democrats have a hard floor around 37-39% of the white vote.  Note that it has been stuck in that narrow range in 2010, 2012 and 2014.  Dem margins with minority groups, probably more so than turnout, were the difference between 2010 and 2012.  After all, what does the current GOP platform have to offer a white person who voted for Obama twice?

There's one issue that could peel off a narrow margin of those voters or those who stayed home. Competence. Many people outside of your super partisans don't always vote on ideology. Romney had Midwest problems over the auto bailout (some people I who hated Obama voted for him over that issue alone).

That's also a reason why I don't think Jeb Bush has a good chance to win. George W's 2008.

[hopper]

Weird little article in the Boston Globe today:

Why is that weird?  Is there a big demand for $3,000 Shinola bicycles and small batch distilled bourbon in the black community?  Detroit is budget hipster heaven.

Not really although it is compared to the coasts and Chicago.

Downtown and Midtown (Wayne State) areas are not cheap. Parts of Corktown is cheaper and is a more mixed area. Most of the incoming white areas are to those areas along with some of the wealthy black areas there like Indian Village, Palmer Woods/Park, etc. The latter areas are bargins, although the risk is proximity to some other neighborhoods where $10K for a house is a ripoff. Rosedale Park took a beating in property values, not because of that neighborhood, but due to Brightmoor being to the west.

There are areas you can get a home for $10K, but it's not exactly the area that hipsters, yuppies, and trustafarians are moving to.

While downtown and midtown (Dan Gilbert especially is investing there) are gaining, I'm not sure how true the story is for a few reasons. 1. Middle Easterners are considered white by census counts. That inflates some of the far west side near the Dearborn border. 2. The white populations in the far residential neighborhoods (Parkland, Warrendale, etc)  are still declining. Residual flight from city workers and retirees.

Even if it is true, there's still the issue nobody there talks about. Black flight. The black population is declining, and a lot of those who left were the black middle class who contributed heavily to the economy and tax base.

I AM sure that downtown and midtown have come a long ways, although those areas haven't been the big problem over the past 15 years. The school system, and a large number of the residential neighborhoods are the problem. If those come back, then Detroit is back. Those are also problems not unique to Detroit either.

Aren't a lot of Black People that lived in Detroit moving to Oakland County though and staying in-state unless they are moving to one of the Deep South States?

[RINO Tom]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

Most of the Republican's gains among whites has been in the South and Appalachia.     Outside of those areas there are actually places where Democrats are gaining white votes.     Which shouldn't be surprising, considering Romney lost places like Wisconsin by 7% while Bush only lost it by 0.4%.   Also Romney didn't win Iowa or NH while Bush won one in each of his elections.

I agree.  It seems increasingly like Democrats have a hard floor around 37-39% of the white vote.  Note that it has been stuck in that narrow range in 2010, 2012 and 2014.  Dem margins with minority groups, probably more so than turnout, were the difference between 2010 and 2012.  After all, what does the current GOP platform have to offer a white person who voted for Obama twice?

That depends on their income and the field they work in.

[RFayette]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

Most of the Republican's gains among whites has been in the South and Appalachia.     Outside of those areas there are actually places where Democrats are gaining white votes.     Which shouldn't be surprising, considering Romney lost places like Wisconsin by 7% while Bush only lost it by 0.4%.   Also Romney didn't win Iowa or NH while Bush won one in each of his elections.

I agree.  It seems increasingly like Democrats have a hard floor around 37-39% of the white vote.  Note that it has been stuck in that narrow range in 2010, 2012 and 2014.  Dem margins with minority groups, probably more so than turnout, were the difference between 2010 and 2012.  After all, what does the current GOP platform have to offer a white person who voted for Obama twice?

That depends on their income and the field they work in.

Anyone earning a fairly high income would have no reason to vote for Bernie Sanders, that's for sure.  If you make more than 100K a year, then your taxes would have to go up significantly to pay for Sanders's proposals, which, at an $18 trillion price tag over ten years, would increase federal spending by an annual fifty percent.

If Clinton is the nominee, then people will vote more on cultural preferences and those white voters likely still have some animus against Bush.

[publicunofficial]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

Most of the Republican's gains among whites has been in the South and Appalachia.     Outside of those areas there are actually places where Democrats are gaining white votes.     Which shouldn't be surprising, considering Romney lost places like Wisconsin by 7% while Bush only lost it by 0.4%.   Also Romney didn't win Iowa or NH while Bush won one in each of his elections.

I agree.  It seems increasingly like Democrats have a hard floor around 37-39% of the white vote.  Note that it has been stuck in that narrow range in 2010, 2012 and 2014.  Dem margins with minority groups, probably more so than turnout, were the difference between 2010 and 2012.  After all, what does the current GOP platform have to offer a white person who voted for Obama twice?

That depends on their income and the field they work in.

Anyone earning a fairly high income would have no reason to vote for Bernie Sanders, that's for sure.  If you make more than 100K a year, then your taxes would have to go up significantly to pay for Sanders's proposals, which, at an $18 trillion price tag over ten years, would increase federal spending by an annual fifty percent.

If Clinton is the nominee, then people will vote more on cultural preferences and those white voters likely still have some animus against Bush.

People who care more about social/domestic issues than what their taxes are exist, as do people willing to take a financial hit if its going to something that improves society.

[RFayette]

The end of the article is interesting. Whites in general are increasing in cities? Certainly that's reversing a trend. Maybe the Republican trend among whites will stop or be decreased by this.

Most of the Republican's gains among whites has been in the South and Appalachia.     Outside of those areas there are actually places where Democrats are gaining white votes.     Which shouldn't be surprising, considering Romney lost places like Wisconsin by 7% while Bush only lost it by 0.4%.   Also Romney didn't win Iowa or NH while Bush won one in each of his elections.

I agree.  It seems increasingly like Democrats have a hard floor around 37-39% of the white vote.  Note that it has been stuck in that narrow range in 2010, 2012 and 2014.  Dem margins with minority groups, probably more so than turnout, were the difference between 2010 and 2012.  After all, what does the current GOP platform have to offer a white person who voted for Obama twice?

That depends on their income and the field they work in.

Anyone earning a fairly high income would have no reason to vote for Bernie Sanders, that's for sure.  If you make more than 100K a year, then your taxes would have to go up significantly to pay for Sanders's proposals, which, at an $18 trillion price tag over ten years, would increase federal spending by an annual fifty percent.

If Clinton is the nominee, then people will vote more on cultural preferences and those white voters likely still have some animus against Bush.

People who care more about social/domestic issues than what their taxes are exist, as do people willing to take a financial hit if its going to something that improves society.

True, I admit I spoke too definitively there.  Nonetheless, those who make a fair amount of money will be hit pretty heavily by Sanders's proposals.  I tend to think that the social liberals who backed Obama (and haven't seen their taxes go up under him, for the most part) might have more pause when it comes to supporting a hard-left candidate who will raise taxes substantially.

My point is that the rich cultural liberals/moderates who supported Obama will likely vote more with their wallets if someone as far left as Sanders gets the nomination.