Why can't large urban areas be conservative?

[Virginiá]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

It's way more than that. Education and healthcare are pretty important too. African Americans / Hispanics like Obamacare, yet the GOP has made repealing it central to their campaigns for years now. Education is important to both groups as well, something the GOP has been cutting for years. Then you have things like the GOP's attempts to prevent minorities from voting, the anti-amnesty and so on. These things matter a lot.

I'm sure a lot of Republicans wish it was as simple as you put it, but it isn't.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

This.  Most urban areas are too racially and ethnically diverse to have any major strength for the GOP.

[5280]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

This.  Most urban areas are too racially and ethnically diverse to have any major strength for the GOP.

The conservatives need to appeal to all races and people of different ethnicity. What have they got to lose, the rural vote?

[5280]

Some random economic points to complement the ones already stated, off the top of my head:

It's important to realize how the economics of suburbanization affects politics. We're a suburban country (IIRC, by one measure some 51% of the country lives in areas considered suburban. Don't have the source, as I saw it a while ago). The building of suburban areas supports the automotive, construction, and home supply industries, and all the industries (steel, coal, oil, rubber, plastic, wood, ceramics, parts, etc.) that supply those industries. Suburban sprawl and building out provide quick and easy economic growth and income support in a country where land is plenty, and therefore cheap.

The Republican Party, being the party of business and believing that local governments should be leaders, are naturally going to enact policies that benefit industry (as suburbanization does). The building of the interstate highway system was begun under Eisenhower, after all, for primarily defense purposes but with the secondary benefit of promoting construction of cheap homes (remember, there was a severe housing shortage in the country for much of the late 1940s, and IIRC the early 1950s) and as automotive and other companies made big money, this led to big profits.

Americans are a individualistic bunch and owning land and a home full of nice things is ingrained into our culture. The post-WWI boom combined with wartime shortages to dam up savings to make the economy and the country as a whole ready to finally live out the American Dream of a nice home with a nice lawn with a nice family and a nice car in the suburbs. Cities were crowded, and high land & housing prices meant that you had to live in an apartment or flat if you could'nt afford a stand-alone house. So naturally, people went to the suburbs, driven by their wants but also enabled by government policy.

City housing often dates back to the pre-1940s, so upkeep can get expensive, as can infrastructure costs, so higher taxes are necessary to sustain services. A lot of inner suburbs built before the 1970s have been facing high costs to repair roads, schools, libraries, and utility infrastructure, and these costs resemble urban issues more than newer suburbs that have brand new or relatively new roads, schools, and infrastructure that do not require higher taxes and large, long-term bond issuances. I think that's a big economic factor to inner suburbs shifting Democratic in the 1990s as infrastructure began to show its age, in addition to more affluent minorities moving out of depressed inner cities.

The Republican Party has abandoned cities by virtue of being the party of suburbs and growth, really. There was a time before the 1970s when they and the Democrats focused on cities, suburbs, and rural areas, but as the population has become more suburbanized, that's where the votes lie.

Just let the infrastructure get old and deteriorate, forget about taxes paying for them. It's like a new car, once it gets old and doesn't work anymore, why throw money into it if the costs outweigh the value?

[TJ in Oregon]

Some random economic points to complement the ones already stated, off the top of my head:

It's important to realize how the economics of suburbanization affects politics. We're a suburban country (IIRC, by one measure some 51% of the country lives in areas considered suburban. Don't have the source, as I saw it a while ago). The building of suburban areas supports the automotive, construction, and home supply industries, and all the industries (steel, coal, oil, rubber, plastic, wood, ceramics, parts, etc.) that supply those industries. Suburban sprawl and building out provide quick and easy economic growth and income support in a country where land is plenty, and therefore cheap.

The Republican Party, being the party of business and believing that local governments should be leaders, are naturally going to enact policies that benefit industry (as suburbanization does). The building of the interstate highway system was begun under Eisenhower, after all, for primarily defense purposes but with the secondary benefit of promoting construction of cheap homes (remember, there was a severe housing shortage in the country for much of the late 1940s, and IIRC the early 1950s) and as automotive and other companies made big money, this led to big profits.

Americans are a individualistic bunch and owning land and a home full of nice things is ingrained into our culture. The post-WWI boom combined with wartime shortages to dam up savings to make the economy and the country as a whole ready to finally live out the American Dream of a nice home with a nice lawn with a nice family and a nice car in the suburbs. Cities were crowded, and high land & housing prices meant that you had to live in an apartment or flat if you could'nt afford a stand-alone house. So naturally, people went to the suburbs, driven by their wants but also enabled by government policy.

City housing often dates back to the pre-1940s, so upkeep can get expensive, as can infrastructure costs, so higher taxes are necessary to sustain services. A lot of inner suburbs built before the 1970s have been facing high costs to repair roads, schools, libraries, and utility infrastructure, and these costs resemble urban issues more than newer suburbs that have brand new or relatively new roads, schools, and infrastructure that do not require higher taxes and large, long-term bond issuances. I think that's a big economic factor to inner suburbs shifting Democratic in the 1990s as infrastructure began to show its age, in addition to more affluent minorities moving out of depressed inner cities.

The Republican Party has abandoned cities by virtue of being the party of suburbs and growth, really. There was a time before the 1970s when they and the Democrats focused on cities, suburbs, and rural areas, but as the population has become more suburbanized, that's where the votes lie.

Just let the infrastructure get old and deteriorate, forget about taxes paying for them. It's like a new car, once it gets old and doesn't work anymore, why throw money into it if the costs outweigh the value?

So just abandon all neighborhoods built before the 70s? If we followed that policy we'd either have 40% of the population homeless or the much more expensive task of building houses for close to half our population every 30 years. Pretty soon every major metro area would mostly look like inner city Detroit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clarke, yesterday's suburbs are today's inner urban neighbourhoods. Quite literally. A suburb is a particular type of urban environment, rather than a whole new category. Americans can sometimes be very funny about the supposed MASSIVE DISTINCTION between the two words, but that is entirely because 'urban' is often used as a euphemism in American English...

[YaBoyNY]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

"quick, we're driving away minority votes with almost every action we take, as these actions clearly benefit the minority communities in no way. how do we fix this issue?"

"blame democrats for playing identity politics"

[Nyvin]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

Yeah, I'm sure it's just coincidence that Trump has such huge support in the Republican primary with his comments towards minorities.   

It's not like there's any hostility or something in the Republican voter base that would turn minorities away or anything.....

[Sbane]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

No, it's because the Republican base is racist. And before you say anything else, Donald Trump.

[RINO Tom]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

No, it's because the Republican base is racist. And before you say anything else, Donald Trump.

For someone with as many posts as you, I'd expect a more articulate post like "there are racist elements in the Republican base that repulse minorities," rather than a statement some eighth grade "Democrat" would make like "Republican base = racist."

[RINO Tom]

And more importantly, nothing that the GOP leadership WANTS (lower taxes, less regulation, less government involvement in private economic affairs, etc.) appeals to inner-city minorities, and Whites in large cities (as has been stated) largely reject those ideas, too.  The future of the Republican Party, rather you want a return to their winning coalition of the '80s (suburban dominance and good performance with rural Whites) or a new Trump-like winning coalition (mediocre suburban performance and large margins with the ideological descendants of "Reagan Democrats" in the Rust Belt ... keep in mind Reagan only peeled some off, he didn't win them by these huge margins), the coalition does not involve people dependent on government assistance, be it welfare, heavy local taxes for infrastructure or anything else.

[Torie]

And more importantly, nothing that the GOP leadership WANTS (lower taxes, less regulation, less government involvement in private economic affairs, etc.) appeals to inner-city minorities, and Whites in large cities (as has been stated) largely reject those ideas, too.  The future of the Republican Party, rather you want a return to their winning coalition of the '80s (suburban dominance and good performance with rural Whites) or a new Trump-like winning coalition (mediocre suburban performance and large margins with the ideological descendants of "Reagan Democrats" in the Rust Belt ... keep in mind Reagan only peeled some off, he didn't win them by these huge margins), the coalition does not involve people dependent on government assistance, be it welfare, heavy local taxes for infrastructure or anything else.

The epic fail of the public school systems in inner cities in particular, is the way for Pubs to make progress with some of those otherwise hostile voters (the Dems won't do what is needed because of they are largely owned by the teachers' unions). But the sad truth, is that far too many suburban Pubs living in comfortable neighborhoods, with at least adequate public schools there, don't really give a damn, and certainly not many more rural voters do. So there is not the full court press on this issue that there needs to be.

[Boston Bread]

Harper won a plurality of Toronto seats in 2011.

[ag]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

It is the Republican party that chose the white identity politics, not the other way around.

[RINO Tom]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

It is the Republican party that chose the white identity politics, not the other way around.

Both parties are sadly more than content to keep playing either game.  Don't fool yourself.  Republican leadership doesn't give a sh^t about working class Whites, and Democratic leadership doesn't give a sh^t about minorities.

[Nyvin]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

No, it's because the Republican base is racist. And before you say anything else, Donald Trump.

For someone with as many posts as you, I'd expect a more articulate post like "there are racist elements in the Republican base that repulse minorities," rather than a statement some eighth grade "Democrat" would make like "Republican base = racist."

After seeing how much support Trump gets after all his comments...calling the Republican base "racist" really cannot be all that incorrect.    That's a very factual statement.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

No, it's because the Republican base is racist. And before you say anything else, Donald Trump.

For someone with as many posts as you, I'd expect a more articulate post like "there are racist elements in the Republican base that repulse minorities," rather than a statement some eighth grade "Democrat" would make like "Republican base = racist."

After seeing how much support Trump gets after all his comments...calling the Republican base "racist" really cannot be all that incorrect.    That's a very factual statement.

Do you think if a Democrat made racially incentive/distasteful comments about Whites, their base would eat it up?  Completely honest question from someone who hates what Trump is doing.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

No, it's because the Republican base is racist. And before you say anything else, Donald Trump.

For someone with as many posts as you, I'd expect a more articulate post like "there are racist elements in the Republican base that repulse minorities," rather than a statement some eighth grade "Democrat" would make like "Republican base = racist."

After seeing how much support Trump gets after all his comments...calling the Republican base "racist" really cannot be all that incorrect.    That's a very factual statement.

Do you think if a Democrat made racially incentive/distasteful comments about Whites, their base would eat it up?  Completely honest question from someone who hates what Trump is doing.

No, because much of the Democratic base is actually White. 56% of those who voted for Obama in 2012 were white, despite a record GOP showing with White voters. Hispanics and Asians don't have much problems with white people. And even though Blacks have historically suffered at the hands of White-led discrimination in this country, that doesn't mean that anywhere even close to a significant number hold the same kind of animosity towards Whites that a large number of Whites hold against minorities.

This most likely has to deal with the fact that since Whites make up 63% of the U.S. population, dealing with them is inescapable as a minority, while on the other hand vast swathes of this country are almost completely white-dominated with very few to close to no minorities. Our culture and media do not negatively portray Whites the way minorities are portrayed. And on top of that, the Democratic Party has not embraced the politics of resentment the way the GOP has, again simply because the majority of the Democratic base and the country itself is White. It would be/would have been political suicide (not to mention just straight up ridiculous and impossible) to try and unite all minorities under some common identity and try and stir up resentment against White Americans.

[SNJ1985]

And even though Blacks have historically suffered at the hands of White-led discrimination in this country, that doesn't mean that anywhere even close to a significant number hold the same kind of animosity towards Whites that a large number of Whites hold against minorities.

Why are black-on-white murders more common than the reverse, then? Doesn't that contradict the notion that whites are more hostile to blacks than vice versa?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls

[Young Conservative]

Urban dwellers are typically younger, more "diverse," and less religious. That doesn't equate to conservatives unfortunately.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

And even though Blacks have historically suffered at the hands of White-led discrimination in this country, that doesn't mean that anywhere even close to a significant number hold the same kind of animosity towards Whites that a large number of Whites hold against minorities.

Why are black-on-white murders more common than the reverse, then? Doesn't that contradict the notion that whites are more hostile to blacks than vice versa?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls

They're not getting murdered because of their race. You can cite statistics but you obviously don't know how to apply them.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Clarke, yesterday's suburbs are today's inner urban neighbourhoods. Quite literally. A suburb is a particular type of urban environment, rather than a whole new category. Americans can sometimes be very funny about the supposed MASSIVE DISTINCTION between the two words, but that is entirely because 'urban' is often used as a euphemism in American English...

I've heard it said that suburbanites love cities - provided that they don't have to associate with the people who live in them.

[Asian Nazi]

I've heard it said that suburbanites love cities - provided that they don't have to associate with the people who live in them.

The cultural difference between cities and inner suburbs seems to be vanishing in large parts of the country (though obviously there are many notable exceptions).  The stereotype of the wealthy white suburb and the diverse, crime-ridden city is really outdated, and while the perception has outlasted reality, I think attitudes are beginning to catch up especially with younger people.  There's a reason why so many white millennials are moving to the inner cities.

[muon2]

I've heard it said that suburbanites love cities - provided that they don't have to associate with the people who live in them.

The cultural difference between cities and inner suburbs seems to be vanishing in large parts of the country (though obviously there are many notable exceptions).  The stereotype of the wealthy white suburb and the diverse, crime-ridden city is really outdated, and while the perception has outlasted reality, I think attitudes are beginning to catch up especially with younger people.  There's a reason why so many white millennials are moving to the inner cities.

One of the drivers to the suburbs are the schools. School systems in the central cities are almost always weaker than their suburban counterparts. It will be interesting to watch what happens when the millennials in the central cities have school age children. The central city systems an offer a few good magnet schools, but probably not enough to accommodate the demands of the new generation. Will the millennials force change on city schools or will they move back to the 'burbs when the time comes?

[Asian Nazi]

I've heard it said that suburbanites love cities - provided that they don't have to associate with the people who live in them.

The cultural difference between cities and inner suburbs seems to be vanishing in large parts of the country (though obviously there are many notable exceptions).  The stereotype of the wealthy white suburb and the diverse, crime-ridden city is really outdated, and while the perception has outlasted reality, I think attitudes are beginning to catch up especially with younger people.  There's a reason why so many white millennials are moving to the inner cities.

One of the drivers to the suburbs are the schools. School systems in the central cities are almost always weaker than their suburban counterparts. It will be interesting to watch what happens when the millennials in the central cities have school age children. The central city systems an offer a few good magnet schools, but probably not enough to accommodate the demands of the new generation. Will the millennials force change on city schools or will they move back to the 'burbs when the time comes?

Yeah, this was something that occurred to me when I was talking about this issue with my mom.  She told me that the biggest reason why her generation moved to the suburbs was to raise families in a safe environment with good schools.  It was certainly true for her.  As soon as her and my dad had enough money, they moved us to a middle/upper middle class exurb with one of the highest performing public schools in the state.  For them, it was worth it to commute for hours each day just so my sister and I could have that environment to grow up in.  For me, it sucked, especially as I got older and resented living in the middle of nowhere, and I intend to move to a large city as soon as I have enough money.   And while I do want a family some day, I probably still have another 5-10 years before that's even something I seriously consider.  But the oldest millennials are already having children, so soon we should be able to observe what sort of philosophies my generation has regarding this.