Most Liberal and Most Conservitive cities in America.

[Radiogeek500]

The top 5 most liberal

1. Detroit MI
2. Gary IN
3. Berkley CA
4. Washington DC
5. Oakland CA

And the top 5 most conservitive

1. Provo UT
2. Lubbock TX
3. Abiline TX
4. Hialeah FL
5. Plano TX

The Bay Area center for voting Research was the company that did this study.

My thought: Seems that it is confirmed that San Francsico is a liberal city for those that didn't believe as both Oakland and Berkley make the list. And Utah and Texas are very much republican territories and will be for quite some time to come.<P ID="signature">______________
The old skool show@noon with Jeff G and DJ Rawn
Only on Power 106(KPWR Los Angeles)

JOSH, Moderating the whole Radio-Info radio state of California and Indiana too!</P>

 

[robbbc]

> The top 5 most liberal
>
> 1. Detroit MI
> 2. Gary IN
> 3. Berkley CA
> 4. Washington DC
> 5. Oakland CA
>
> And the top 5 most conservitive
>
> 1. Provo UT
> 2. Lubbock TX
> 3. Abiline TX
> 4. Hialeah FL
> 5. Plano TX
>
> The Bay Area center for voting Research was the company that
> did this study.
>
> My thought: Seems that it is confirmed that San Francsico is
> a liberal city for those that didn't believe as both Oakland
> and Berkley make the list. And Utah and Texas are very much
> republican territories and will be for quite some time to
> come.
>
OK let's see:

The liberal cities are far larger than the conservative "cities" listed in the other list. I wouldn't consider most African American Democratic voters in DC, Gary and Detroit as Liberals per se. Where is New York, Birlington, and Boston for the democrats? I don't think we gain much information from this list about the political beleifs of the residents. Maybe with the exception of San Fransisco- but when you are talking about cities that size a 15% Republican minority (800,000 people times 15% is 120,000, half the poulation size of Hialeah!) would represent more actual people than if twice that percentage, 30%, of Hialeah residents were democrats (that would be 30% of 240,000 or 72,000 actual democrats). Using those numbers San Fransisco has over 60% more republican voters than Hialeah has democratic voters. My numbers are all hypothetical. It may even be that the number of republicans in San Fransisco is actually larger than the number of republicans in one or more of the top 5 republican towns.

The conservative list is missing salt lake city, no mention of most major texas cities. In fact, IMHO, no mention of any "major city".

Is there a link to the bigger list? That might provide more insight then the top 5, too little information to make broad generalizations based on this info.

 

[954]

> > The top 5 most liberal
> >
> > 1. Detroit MI
> > 2. Gary IN
> > 3. Berkley CA
> > 4. Washington DC
> > 5. Oakland CA

What? No place in Chusamassets?

> > And the top 5 most conservitive
> >
> > 1. Provo UT
> > 2. Lubbock TX
> > 3. Abiline TX
> > 4. Hialeah FL

Hialeah may be more conservative than Miami-Dade county as a whole, but it surely doesn't make it one of the most conservative cities in the country.

If you're basing it on Republican votes in recent elections, you're assuming too much.

Please remember that the governor and president are popular among Cubans and to a lesser extent, other hispanics. Florida's first lady is Mexican. And the recently-elected junior senator is named Martinez. His election is more attributable to the religious right than the hispanic community.

All of these help justify recent voting patterns without assuming that Hialeah is one of the most conservative cities.

Now tell me your rationale for putting Hialeah at #4.

73s from 954

PS -- You spelled Abilene (www.ci.abilene.tx.us) wrong, too. That's all right. I knew there was one in Kansas but I didn't know Texas had one, too!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[Wilkins_Micawber]

> Is there a link to the bigger list? That might provide more
> insight then the top 5, too little information to make broad
> generalizations based on this info.

I didn't get that far. The full 48 page report is on their website.

I have no thoughts about the validity of the report unless I read it, which I'm not inclined to do.

 

[TheOriginalLarry]

> The top 5 most liberal
>
> 1. Detroit MI
> 2. Gary IN
> 3. Berkley CA
> 4. Washington DC
> 5. Oakland CA
>
> And the top 5 most conservitive
>
> 1. Provo UT
> 2. Lubbock TX
> 3. Abiline TX
> 4. Hialeah FL
> 5. Plano TX
>
> The Bay Area center for voting Research was the company that
> did this study.
>
> My thought: Seems that it is confirmed that San Francsico is
> a liberal city for those that didn't believe as both Oakland
> and Berkley make the list. And Utah and Texas are very much
> republican territories and will be for quite some time to
> come.

If you ever come to Washington State, you'll see not one, but TWO very different states.

The green and lush Western Washington (west of the Cascade mountains) is very liberal. However, you go to the dry, desert-like Eastern Washington (east of the Cascade mountains), you'll find it's very conservative. In fact, many in Eastern Washington want to form their own state because they feel the politicians in Olympia (the state capitol on the west side) are not responding to their needs. They actually want to name their new state Reagan.

There was a local comedy show several years back that lampooned such a division:

Capitol:
Washington: Olympia (named after the home of the gods in Greek mythology)
Reagan: Ritzville (named after a cracker)

State Bird:
Washington: The Goldfinch
Reagan: A swarm of gnats

State Motto:
Washington: Alki (Native American word for "By and by")
Reagan: This Space For Rent

Defense

Washington: Has Boeing
Reagan: Has Hanford Nuclear Power Reservation



>
<P ID="signature">______________
Seattle Hempfest, August 20-21, Myrtle Edwards Park, http://www.hempfest.org/

[email protected]


</P>

 

[Wilkins_Micawber]

> If you ever come to Washington State, you'll see not one,
> but TWO very different states.

This is pretty much true everywhere. The idea of "red and blue states" is kind of misleading. With few exceptions, there really are no politically homogenous states. Maybe Wyoming or Utah but I'm not even sure about those.

Large urban areas with large minority populations are very blue. Look at California, a very blue state but with lots of red counties.

 

[Jay_F]

> The top 5 most liberal
>
> 1. Detroit MI
> 2. Gary IN
> 3. Berkley CA
> 4. Washington DC
> 5. Oakland CA
>
> And the top 5 most conservitive
>
> 1. Provo UT
> 2. Lubbock TX
> 3. Abiline TX
> 4. Hialeah FL
> 5. Plano TX
>
> The Bay Area center for voting Research was the company that
> did this study.
>
> My thought: Seems that it is confirmed that San Francsico is
> a liberal city for those that didn't believe as both Oakland
> and Berkley make the list. And Utah and Texas are very much
> republican territories and will be for quite some time to
> come.
>



There are two different types of liberals and they have little in common with each other. The urban core of the big cities have a high concentration of economic liberals. They are in favor of government spending programs. Then in places like Portland Ore, Burlington VT, and many college towns you have cultural liberals. They are in favor of gay marriage, abortion rights, enviornmental issues, etc. Because economic and cultural liberals are so different from each other it's difficult to digest a "most liberal cities" list.

I suppose conservatives are more unified. Howard Dean got a lot a flack for calling Republicans the party for white Christians. But statistically he is probably right on target, religious areas with low minority populations such as Utah and much of rural America vote Republican in the largest numbers.

 

[RockManAC]

> The top 5 most liberal
>
> 1. Detroit MI
> 2. Gary IN
> 3. Berkley CA
> 4. Washington DC
> 5. Oakland CA

Madison, WI isn't on the list?

-A<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[Guy_Incognito]

> I suppose conservatives are more unified...

Not a chance.

There are indeed two kinds of conservatives too. There are fiscal conservatives -- among which I count myself -- who want to see lower taxes, lower government spending and more local discretion in spending.

Then there are the religious conservatives, whom I vehemently oppose. These are the folks who want to, broadly put, legislate morality. They want to control when, how and to whom you pray and when, how, and with whom you sleep.

To a degree, the extreme religious right and the extreme cultural left are a lot alike in as much as they both want to sanitize and control everything you think, say and do.

I am what talk-show host Dennis Prager would call a "passionate moderate."<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Guy_Incognito on 08/16/05 05:49 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[954]

Most Liberal and Most Conservative cities in America.

> I suppose conservatives are more unified. Howard Dean got a
> lot a flack for calling Republicans the party for white
> Christians. But statistically he is probably right on
> target, religious areas with low minority populations such
> as Utah and much of rural America vote Republican in the
> largest numbers.

Would you believe, there was a Republican party
for 126 years (1854-1980) before the religious
right took it over, and some of us still regard
them as interlopers.

Before the religious right, Republicans in Congress
supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a much
higher percentage than did the Democrats.

Dean's remark was an insult to all thinking Republicans,
and I'm sure he intended it as such.

Was that also your intention, I wonder?

Would you believe that some Republicans still believe
in separation of church and state, and also believe
that abortion is none of the #@#%$*& government's
business?

73s from 954

PS ... Please note spelling correction in subject line.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[954]

> > I suppose conservatives are more unified...
>
> Not a chance.
>
> There are indeed two kinds of conservatives too. There are
> fiscal conservatives -- among which I count myself -- who
> want to see lower taxes, lower government spending and more
> local discretion in spending.
>
> Then there are the religious conservatives, whom I
> vehemently oppose. These are the folks who want to,
> broadly put, legislate morality. They want to control
> when, how and to whom you pray and when, how, and with whom
> you sleep.
>
> To a degree, the extreme religious right and the exreme
> cultural left are a lot alike in as much as they both want
> to sanitize and control everything you think, say and do.

I've never heard the term "exreme cultural left" before. I
thought the only culture the left had was in its yogurt.

(Conservatives support opera. Liberals watch soap operas.)

Excellent analysis. But I think the religious/cultural
conservatives are closer to fascist than anything we've
had in this country in generations. Think Know Nothings.
Think Father Coughlin. Now we have Pat Buchanan and Jerry
Falwell. Scary.

> I am what talk-show host Dennis Prager would call a
> "passionate moderate."

How do you rank in the World's Smallest Political Quiz --
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html -- ???

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[Guy_Incognito]

> I've never heard the term "exreme cultural left" before. I
> thought the only culture the left had was in its yogurt.

Let's not get caught up in silly typos.

***********************************************************************
> (Conservatives support opera. Liberals watch soap operas.)

I know just as many cases where those shoes are on the other feet. Remember, all generalizations are false. ;-)

*************************************************************************
> Excellent analysis. But I think the religious/cultural
> conservatives are closer to fascist than anything we've
> had in this country in generations. Think Know Nothings.
> Think Father Coughlin. Now we have Pat Buchanan and Jerry
> Falwell. Scary.

I've encountered just as many people on the extreme left who have a similar approach on everything from the environment to college mascots. Patricia Ireland is the first name that pops to mind. The right includes marijuana in its "War on Drugs" but the left vilifies tobacco users in the same fashion.

The political spectrum is not a line but a circle. Go far enough to the fascist right and far enough to the socialist left and the two meet at totalitarianism.

************************************************************************
> > I am what talk-show host Dennis Prager would call a
> > "passionate moderate."
>
> How do you rank in the World's Smallest Political Quiz --
> http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html -- ???

Right about where I would have guessed: at the point on the graph where conservative, libertarian and centrist all converge. Straight down the middle on personal issues and 80% conservative on economics.

I'm just not the kind of cat who instinctively hates anyone who disagrees with me. Maybe that's why I shouldn't get into politics.

 

[dhett]

> Then there are the religious conservatives, whom I
> vehemently oppose. These are the folks who want to,
> broadly put, legislate morality. They want to control
> when, how and to whom you pray and when, how, and with whom
> you sleep.
>
> To a degree, the extreme religious right and the exreme
> cultural left are a lot alike in as much as they both want
> to sanitize and control everything you think, say and do.
>

That's simply not true. Most religious conservatives are only interested in preserving traditional social values, values that the Republican Party abandoned in the 1970's. Other than that, they have no interest in controlling what goes on in the privacy of one's home, and have no interest in controlling one's religious life. OTOH, most of their effort is spend in fighting those who are trying to deny them their religious freedoms. They are fighting the control of paranoid people who think that a display of a nativity scene or the Ten Commandments on public property, or a moment of silent prayer, will somehow lead to forced religious practice.

Religious conservatives put the compassion in Compassionate Conservatism, as they're the ones in the party that are feeding the poor and housing the homeless. They have no interest in the greed that has all but consumed the secular wing of the Republican party in the past 25 years, and they're the main reason that the Republican party isn't the uncaring, mean-spirited party that Democrats accuse them of being. Religious conservatives are also the sole reason that there is a Republican in the White House and Republican majorities in Congress. If the Democrats would ever cease their hostility toward traditional religious values, the Republican party would be in a world of trouble, because many of the religious right are socially conservative, but fiscally moderate, willing to spend government money on caring for the poor and needy.

That is what you are opposing.

 

[Jay_F]

Re: Most Liberal and Most Conservative cities in America.

> Dean's remark was an insult to all thinking Republicans,
> and I'm sure he intended it as such.

I would consider myself a "thinking Republican" yet was not insulted. Actually, I think his comments backfired and ended up hurting the Dems.


> Was that also your intention, I wonder?
>

No, that wasn't my intention at all. I tried to keep my personal views out of it. My point was that the most Republican voting districts are indeed mostly white and Christian. Howard Dean might have meant his comment as an insult, but there was some truth to what he was saying. It's a shame that when someone says the word "Christian" everyone equates that with "religious fanatic". The majority of Americans could be classified as Christian,but most are not religious extremests.

 

[westlife]

> That's simply not true. Most religious conservatives are
> only interested in preserving traditional social values,

Bah. Slavery was a "traditional social value". So was women's oppression.

> values that the Republican Party abandoned in the 1970's.

And for good reason: the little thing called "progress"!

> Other than that, they have no interest in controlling what
> goes on in the privacy of one's home, and have no interest
> in controlling one's religious life.

Then why are they trying to put their religious doctrine (the Ten Commandments) in public courthouses and their prayer in public schools?

> OTOH, most of their
> effort is spend in fighting those who are trying to deny
> them their religious freedoms.

The fundies are complaining because they're being denied the right to deny other people (i.e. women, gays, Muslims, immigrants, etc.) their rights. Well, tough cookies!

> They are fighting the
> control of paranoid people who think that a display of a
> nativity scene or the Ten Commandments on public property,
> or a moment of silent prayer, will somehow lead to forced
> religious practice.

They think allowing gay marriage will force everyone to accept homosexuality... so isn't it logical that allowing public display of Christianity will force everyone to accept Christian doctrine?

> Religious conservatives put the compassion in Compassionate
> Conservatism, as they're the ones in the party that are
> feeding the poor and housing the homeless.

...and they can do that just fine without ever getting involved in politics.

> They have no
> interest in the greed that has all but consumed the secular
> wing of the Republican party in the past 25 years, and
> they're the main reason that the Republican party isn't the
> uncaring, mean-spirited party that Democrats accuse them of
> being. Religious conservatives are also the sole reason
> that there is a Republican in the White House and Republican
> majorities in Congress.

I think you just defeated your own point there.

> If the Democrats would ever cease
> their hostility toward traditional religious values, the
> Republican party would be in a world of trouble, because
> many of the religious right are socially conservative, but
> fiscally moderate, willing to spend government money on
> caring for the poor and needy.

According to them, everyone who doesn't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior is "poor and needy".
<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[Jay_F]

> > > I suppose conservatives are more unified...
> >
> > Not a chance.
> >
> > There are indeed two kinds of conservatives too. There
> are
> > fiscal conservatives -- among which I count myself -- who
> > want to see lower taxes, lower government spending and
> more
> > local discretion in spending.
> >
> > Then there are the religious conservatives, whom I
> > vehemently oppose. These are the folks who want to,
> > broadly put, legislate morality. They want to control
> > when, how and to whom you pray and when, how, and with
> whom
> > you sleep.
> >
> > To a degree, the extreme religious right and the exreme
> > cultural left are a lot alike in as much as they both want
>
> > to sanitize and control everything you think, say and do.
>
> I've never heard the term "exreme cultural left" before. I
> thought the only culture the left had was in its yogurt.
>
> (Conservatives support opera. Liberals watch soap operas.)
>
> Excellent analysis. But I think the religious/cultural
> conservatives are closer to fascist than anything we've
> had in this country in generations. Think Know Nothings.
> Think Father Coughlin. Now we have Pat Buchanan and Jerry
> Falwell. Scary.
>
> > I am what talk-show host Dennis Prager would call a
> > "passionate moderate."
>
> How do you rank in the World's Smallest Political Quiz --
> http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html -- ???
>
> 73s from 954
>



I scored a Centrist on the border of Libertarian. I guess I could agree with that. I'm conservative on some issues and Libertarian on others. If you mix it all up I come out a centrist.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

> That is what you are opposing.
>

Don't presume to tell me what I oppose. You don't know me and clearly don't have a very good grasp of my position.

For the record, I oppose:

...government waste. I am not all that inconvenienced by how much I pay in taxes, but to see how much of it is wasted on bureaucracy -- to the tune of 83 cents of every dollar -- is ridiculous. The government has shown that it's not particularly efficient at doing much of anything, regardless of who lives at 1600. I want to feed the hungry and shoe the poor as much as you or anyone. The way to do it is let private citizens, community groups and, yes, CHURCHES handle that money and those tasks at the local level.

...anyone telling me what constitute a family, a marriage or a loving relationship. I was raised by my grandparents -- certainly a non-traditional family 30 years ago. I have watched straight marriages crumble after weeks or even days, seen long-term couples never marry and be happy for 30 years and gay couples more committed than many members of the clergy. Overly-religious folks criticized interracial marriage as recent as 20 years ago. Just because a man and a woman of the same race who both stayed virgins until marriage and only had sex to create their 2.5 kids may be your idea of marriage doesn't mean it has to be mine. Stop confusing the religious connotations of marriage with the legal matters. ...and stop telling me when, where and with whom I can sleep. What consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of your business.

...blind patriotism. I can "support the troops." I was a Marine during The Gulf War. I can want for them to do their jobs well and to come home safely. However, I don't have to happy about why they are there just because the President says so. I don't have to rally around poor choices made based on poor intelligence. I am NOT less of an America or less of a Christian for that.

...religious fanatics who decry religious fanaticism. It's disingenuous and just plain wrong for religious groups to promote the attacking of abortion clinics while complaining "those dirty Muslim terrorists." Somehow you think Islamic fundamentalists are evil and Christian fundamentalists are crusaders, even when both resort to the same violent methods. I don't like abortion either, but it is perfectly legal and killing the doctors only makes things worse.

...misuse of The First Amendment. The religious right has such a double-standard about this. You wring your hands and gnash your teeth about having your worship curtailed, about how we MUST have school prayer and The Ten Commandments should be printed on every napkin at Wendy's let alone displayed on the front lawn of every government building. Yet, you want to ban any naughty word or picture that may give anyone anywhere the slightest enjoyment. I have news for you: Thomas Jefferson was one of the least religious people in history, so was James Madison. The Freedom OF Religion prescribed in The Constitution also means Freedom FROM Religion for those of us who don't want to be whacked over the head with a Bible at every turn.

 

[954]

> > I've never heard the term "exreme cultural left" before. I
> > thought the only culture the left had was in its yogurt.
>
> Let's not get caught up in silly typos.
>
> > (Conservatives support opera. Liberals watch soap operas.)

> I know just as many cases where those shoes are on the other
> feet. Remember, all generalizations are false. ;-)

Well, can you deny that liberals support the arts
mainly by making everyone else involuntarily do so?

Like federal funding of PBS and NPR... And of course
those federal grants to untalented leftist loonies
that get the religious right in a snit, like the
famous flag in the toilet and the religious symbol
in a jar, and so on. I think there was a list in
the Ann Coulter thread.

*********************************************************

> > Excellent analysis. But I think the religious/cultural
> > conservatives are closer to fascist than anything we've
> > had in this country in generations. Think Know Nothings.
> > Think Father Coughlin. Now we have Pat Buchanan and Jerry
> > Falwell. Scary.
>
> I've encountered just as many people on the extreme left who
> have a similar approach on everything from the environment
> to college mascots. Patricia Ireland is the first name
> that pops to mind.

True.

> The right includes marijuana in its
> "War on Drugs" but the left vilifies tobacco users in the
> same fashion.

Well, I can't argue with the left about THAT. That's a major
inconsistency in the war on drugs.

> The political spectrum is not a line but a circle. Go far
> enough to the fascist right and far enough to the socialist
> left and the two meet at totalitarianism.

Absolutely right. But little known.

**********************************************************
>
> > > I am what talk-show host Dennis Prager would call a
> > > "passionate moderate."
> >
> > How do you rank in the World's Smallest Political Quiz --
> > http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html -- ???
>
> Right about where I would have guessed: at the point on the
> graph where conservative, libertarian and centrist all
> converge. Straight down the middle on personal issues and
> 80% conservative on economics.
>
> I'm just not the kind of cat who instinctively hates anyone
> who disagrees with me. Maybe that's why I shouldn't get
> into politics.

I'm borderline libertarian.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[954]

Re: Most Liberal and Most Conservative cities in America. (Part 2)

> Religious conservatives put the compassion in Compassionate
> Conservatism, as they're the ones in the party that are
> feeding the poor and housing the homeless. They have no
> interest in the greed that has all but consumed the secular
> wing of the Republican party in the past 25 years, and
> they're the main reason that the Republican party isn't the
> uncaring, mean-spirited party that Democrats accuse them of
> being.

I don't know. A party mainly concerned with coercively pushing
its religion down other people's throats -- while forgetting
traditional Republican values such as getting intrusive govt
pff people's backs -- fills my definition of "uncaring"
and "mean-spirited"!

(As opposed to liberal activists, some of whom who want to
shove something more tangible down other people's throats ;-))

> Religious conservatives are also the sole reason
> that there is a Republican in the White House and Republican
> majorities in Congress.

Considering that the GOP majority in congress enabled and
the Fla. legislature the shameful Terri Schiavo political
episode, I'll continue voting for gridlock. Keeps us safe
from extremists on both sides.

> If the Democrats would ever cease
> their hostility toward traditional religious values, the
> Republican party would be in a world of trouble, because
> many of the religious right are socially conservative, but
> fiscally moderate, willing to spend government money on
> caring for the poor and needy.

Liberals are also generous with other people's money.
That's why I never considered social conservatives to
be real conservatives. They're just evangelistic liberals.

73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
"http://www.univox.com/radio"><img</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by 954 on 08/16/05 12:58 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[954]

Most Liberal and Most Conservative cities in America. (part 1)

> That's simply not true. Most religious conservatives are
> only interested in preserving traditional social values,

Sure they can promote what they regard as traditional social
values, but let them do so within their church and family,
without using the power of government to harass people who
don't agree with their values.

> They are fighting the
> control of paranoid people who think that a display of a
> nativity scene or the Ten Commandments on public property,
> or a moment of silent prayer, will somehow lead to forced
> religious practice.

Excuse me. I'm neither a paranoid nor a liberal. But
display of a nativity scene or the Ten Commandments (or
any symbol of any religion) on public property is wrong,
regardless of whether it leads to sex or school prayer or
anything else.

> That is what you are opposing.

Yes.

73s from 943<P ID="signature">______________
"http://www.univox.com/radio"><img</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by 954 on 08/16/05 12:58 PM.</FONT></P>