Why are white Manhattanites more liberal than others in NYC

[Suburbia]

Why is that so? Hipsters, business-minded white Manhattanites seem very progressive. Why?

[King of Kensington]

Virtually no social conservatives among them, for one. 

[LLR]

Lots of people in the media/the arts, lots of Jews.

[Smash255]

Very few social conservatives, more Secular (Christian and Jewish).  Higher levels of education.  Fewer working class whites.  Less ethnic.

[ElectionsGuy]

I don't know if they're more liberal, but they are super upper class and elite, so its not surprising they would vote 80% Clinton in this election, if that's what you're getting at.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Lots of young, single, college/graduate school-educated people whom are, uh, "rootless cosmopolitans" (note that this is not necessarily a Jewish thing, by any means ) and thus, make Manhattan a far more transient place than...well, most places, including the rest of NYC.

What I mean is that Manhattan clearly epitomizes New York Values: socially liberal with a focus on money and the media. Duh.

[RINO Tom]

I don't know if they're more liberal, but they are super upper class and elite, so its not surprising they would vote 80% Clinton in this election, if that's what you're getting at.

It's not surprising that they voted 80% Clinton, but that's not why.  There wasn't a correlation of being upper class and voting Clinton, and in fact there was the exact opposite (assuming we use the ACTUAL best measure of class out there, which was income).

[Bigby]

Stereotypical Starbucks-drinking hipster demographic, plan and simple.

[LLR]

Stereotypical Starbucks-drinking hipster demographic, plan and simple.

As offensive as I find this, it's true.

[RINO Tom]

Stereotypical Starbucks-drinking hipster demographic, plan and simple.

Which, again, is hardly a mark of affluence, even if some associate it with (comically misplaced) elitism.

[The_Doctor]

Education is the controlling factor here. The more educated you are, the more Democratic you are. The more urban you are, the more Democratic you are, the more rural you are, the more Republican.

So white Manhattanites are at the nexus of being more educated and urban. So they vote Democratic.

[ag]

I don't know if they're more liberal, but they are super upper class and elite, so its not surprising they would vote 80% Clinton in this election, if that's what you're getting at.

Does not explain it all. For instance, the area in Washington Heights above the GWB (between Broadway and the Hudson, north of 181st, south of the Cloisters) is by no means upper class. Lots of rent-stabilised housing with frail elderly ladies, who arrived to the US 60+ years ago or were born 80 years ago to new immigrants: Jewish, Irish, German. Lots of Russians, actually (2 or 3 Russian delis have been there in continuous existence for decades now).  Some educated middle-class types (librarians, engineers, etc.) with kids.  I know: I used to live there Still, it voted, as it always does, like the rest of it: 85%+ for Clinton. And, in my personal observation, even the Russians there (i.e., my former neighbours) voted the same.

I think the better explanation is that people, who choose to face the inconvenience of constricted Manhattan housing in exchange for what the city gives to them, are, definitely, somewhat different. Even among the elderly Russians there (and I have known a few) it is a clear selection: they are much more likely to speak decent English (and, frequently, Spanish), go to theatres and museums on a regular basis (and, sometimes, even jazz bars in Harlem) and identify strongly as liberals. Very different crowd from Brighton Beach.

[RINO Tom]

Education is the controlling factor here. The more educated you are, the more Democratic you are. The more urban you are, the more Democratic you are, the more rural you are, the more Republican.

So white Manhattanites are at the nexus of being more educated and urban. So they vote Democratic.

The less educated you are, the more Democratic you are, too.

[ag]

Education is the controlling factor here. The more educated you are, the more Democratic you are. The more urban you are, the more Democratic you are, the more rural you are, the more Republican.

So white Manhattanites are at the nexus of being more educated and urban. So they vote Democratic.

The less educated you are, the more Democratic you are, too.

Do not be a Marxist: quantity does not always transform into quality. The better educated you are, the more you oppose the new US regime.

[RINO Tom]

Education is the controlling factor here. The more educated you are, the more Democratic you are. The more urban you are, the more Democratic you are, the more rural you are, the more Republican.

So white Manhattanites are at the nexus of being more educated and urban. So they vote Democratic.

The less educated you are, the more Democratic you are, too.

Do not be a Marxist: quantity does not always transform into quality. The better educated you are, the more you oppose the new US regime.

I'm just saying, there are several factors that contribute to being a Democrat that have a much better correlation than education ... even though the forum would prefer to think otherwise.  The poorest and least educated in the United States are solidly Democratic.  I often hear, "well, they're disproportionately minority!"  So what?  Rich and educated Whites still vote Republican ... it's almost like there's a much better party divider!!

[ag]

Education is the controlling factor here. The more educated you are, the more Democratic you are. The more urban you are, the more Democratic you are, the more rural you are, the more Republican.

So white Manhattanites are at the nexus of being more educated and urban. So they vote Democratic.

The less educated you are, the more Democratic you are, too.

Do not be a Marxist: quantity does not always transform into quality. The better educated you are, the more you oppose the new US regime.

I'm just saying, there are several factors that contribute to being a Democrat that have a much better correlation than education ... even though the forum would prefer to think otherwise.  The poorest and least educated in the United States are solidly Democratic.  I often hear, "well, they're disproportionately minority!"  So what?  Rich and educated Whites still vote Republican ... it's almost like there's a much better party divider!!

I know what you are saying. And I am saying something else

[King of Kensington]

So basically they're very socially liberal, highly educated, and urban.  Good numbers of successful people in "liberal" sectors or "creative" industries and even a fair number of "more educated than rich" types, though these numbers are likely smaller than they were in the past. 

[RINO Tom]

Education is the controlling factor here. The more educated you are, the more Democratic you are. The more urban you are, the more Democratic you are, the more rural you are, the more Republican.

So white Manhattanites are at the nexus of being more educated and urban. So they vote Democratic.

The less educated you are, the more Democratic you are, too.

Do not be a Marxist: quantity does not always transform into quality. The better educated you are, the more you oppose the new US regime.

I'm just saying, there are several factors that contribute to being a Democrat that have a much better correlation than education ... even though the forum would prefer to think otherwise.  The poorest and least educated in the United States are solidly Democratic.  I often hear, "well, they're disproportionately minority!"  So what?  Rich and educated Whites still vote Republican ... it's almost like there's a much better party divider!!

I know what you are saying. And I am saying something else

And I think you want that "something else" to be what defines the two parties.  It simply isn't.

[ag]

Education is the controlling factor here. The more educated you are, the more Democratic you are. The more urban you are, the more Democratic you are, the more rural you are, the more Republican.

So white Manhattanites are at the nexus of being more educated and urban. So they vote Democratic.

The less educated you are, the more Democratic you are, too.

Do not be a Marxist: quantity does not always transform into quality. The better educated you are, the more you oppose the new US regime.

I'm just saying, there are several factors that contribute to being a Democrat that have a much better correlation than education ... even though the forum would prefer to think otherwise.  The poorest and least educated in the United States are solidly Democratic.  I often hear, "well, they're disproportionately minority!"  So what?  Rich and educated Whites still vote Republican ... it's almost like there's a much better party divider!!

I know what you are saying. And I am saying something else

And I think you want that "something else" to be what defines the two parties.  It simply isn't.

No, that is not what I say. What defines parties is not education, but preferences. One of the parties now consists of people who dislike traditional values of liberal democracy - and, in general, everything that has made America great. The other is more of a mixed bag, with all sorts of people inside: including, as it happens, those who have better - not bigger - education.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I don't know if they're more liberal, but they are super upper class and elite, so its not surprising they would vote 80% Clinton in this election, if that's what you're getting at.

It's not surprising that they voted 80% Clinton, but that's not why.  There wasn't a correlation of being upper class and voting Clinton, and in fact there was the exact opposite (assuming we use the ACTUAL best measure of class out there, which was income).

I couldn't find the map anywhere but comparing 2012 to 2016 there still was quite a bit more Atlas blue, particularly on the Upper East Side which shifted rapidly to Clinton this year.

[Torie]

The same reason that the white gentry in Hudson is almost all liberal.  It's a function of "cosmopolitanism."

[Del Tachi]

There are no working class areas left on Manhattan.  The exorbitant cost of living there prices out anybody except the most well-off.

I bet cost of living would be one of the strongest predictors of an area's electoral tilt.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

Stereotypical Starbucks-drinking hipster demographic, plan and simple.

Bigby is right

[King of Kensington]

"Hipsters" are more in Brooklyn and probably Queens than in Manhattan at this point.  

[LLR]

"Hipsters" are more in Brooklyn and probably Queens than in Manhattan at this point.  

They're still a large demographic downtown.