Why northwest is so liberal?

[12th Doctor]

During the 1960's and 70's a lot of liberals began moving to the left coast (hmmm, that was a Freudian Slip, but I leave it )  Those people eventually took over the states.

[12th Doctor]

I suppose that there was economy boom in Northwest. Right? But how you explain these rural liberals?

I have to admit, I'm not a sociologist, but I can tell you that there was growth out west at the time.  The west coast became the Mecca of liberal culture (San Francisco, Berkley, Seattle).  So they started to move out there in droves.

Most of the people who moved to California were from the Northeast, so even the rural areas are very similar to the northest in voting paterns.

[12th Doctor]

But already in 1960 election Kennedy won almost all Washington and Oregon rural coast region counties, But he didn't win in Seattle and in Portland!

Kennedy wasn't very liberal though.  Many of his possitions were to the right of Nixon's.

[12th Doctor]

Exactly what is a "racist" area?  By your definition, that is an area that contains only white people, who claim to be extremely tolerant of minorities, as long as there are no minorities around to be tolerant of.  The term "limousine liberal" comes to mind.  Tolerance is very easy when it demands nothing of you.

I think there is something to the observation that whites who live with other races are more conservative than those who do not.  If you live in an area in which you are paying a real price for liberal policies, in terms of failing education, high taxes, and high crime, then yes, you may well become less "tolerant" of the liberal policies that are hurting your quality of life than you would be if you were living in areas where liberal policies don't have that same cost.  And because liberal policies hold that white people are to blame for all problems, these policies tend to pit white people against others, and push whites away from those policies, in a way that does not happen where the races do not live together, such as in Vermont or Oregon.

I live in a "liberal" area that is very "tolerant."  On the block on live on now, I have never seen a single non-white person (other than those who have come to visit me).  I live right now our local high school, and I have never seen a single black kid going into that school, though the statistics say that it is all of 1% black.  When I sold my last house, a couple of my neighbors passed warnings to me about not selling my house to blacks.  There is no public housing -- it would never be allowed.  And yet it is a mecca of "tolerance" according to those who live here.

Right next door to my town is a city with significant numbers of blacks and Puerto Ricans.  It has high taxes, high crime and bad schools.  Of course, the whites living there are very "racist" and make sure they live in separate neighborhoods from blacks, and that their kids are in private schools.  But are they really any less "tolerant" than those in my town who mouth tolerance, but make sure they live miles away from any minorities?  The people in my town simply have more economic options, and that allows them to make a fake pose of tolerance that those living in mixed areas can't make without significantly, and perhaps fatally, compromising their quality of life.

I personally have no tolerance for limousine liberals who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Good Job.  You said everything I was going to say.