Democrats Need Big Cities to Win

[Spare_change]

Take a look at the distribution of 'entitlement programs', and see if you can find any reason cities vote liberal. Get back to us on that ... we'll wait.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Illinois is a Red State. What swings us year after year after year are metro Chicago, metro East St. Louis, and a tiny county full of crazies at the far southern tip of the state.

PEOPLE vote, not land

Those blue areas contain more PEOPLE than all those red areas

And yet the blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive.

This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

You know that's not true. Nationwide, Republicans survive on the tit of big government. Red States have the worst schools and the largest number of ignorant and are the most polluted. 150 years of conservative policies in Red States and those states are disasters. It's been proven again and again right here at the USMB.

Even the cities in red states suck. It is an urban phenomenon. Big American cities are such shit holes. Small wonder anyone who wants to be safe and their children educated get the hell out and leave it to minorities and Democrats.

People tend to flee to the cities dipshit.

That's not ENTIRELY true.

More Americans move to cities in past decade-Census Reuters

In 2010, a total of 80.7 percent of Americans lived in urban areas, up from 79 percent in 2000.

A .8% increase is hardly people FLEEING.

Especially when you consider that

the population of urban areas grew by 12.1 percent, much faster than the country's growth rate of 9.7 percent from 2000 to 2010.

Could easily be explained by urban trash having more babies than rural people because well "urban youth" don't worry about actually paying for their children.

 

[Nyvin]

Illinois is a Red State. What swings us year after year after year are metro Chicago, metro East St. Louis, and a tiny county full of crazies at the far southern tip of the state.

PEOPLE vote, not land

Those blue areas contain more PEOPLE than all those red areas

And yet the blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive.

This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

You know that's not true. Nationwide, Republicans survive on the tit of big government. Red States have the worst schools and the largest number of ignorant and are the most polluted. 150 years of conservative policies in Red States and those states are disasters. It's been proven again and again right here at the USMB.

Even the cities in red states suck. It is an urban phenomenon. Big American cities are such shit holes. Small wonder anyone who wants to be safe and their children educated get the hell out and leave it to minorities and Democrats.

The rural population in the United States is in decline. In the 2010 census almost ALL growth was in metro areas (particularly the larger metro areas). That trend has only grown larger in the years since. Almost all population growth is in Metro areas. Name any state in the country and I can show examples of this.

A common social occurance is a "youth flight" away from rural areas to bigger cities....it can be seen by the sudden drop in the number of adults aged 18 to 26 in smaller communities, and a lot of times those numbers aren't recovered even after they finish college.

Also Suburbs don't vote Republican...they vote almost exactly 50/50, they're the swing area of the country.

Also big cities are the money makers of the country, take Maryland, one of the wealthiest states in the country. It's wealthy specifically because of Baltimore and the DC suburbs, not because of the rural parts. Or California. California is wealthy because of Silicon Valley and SoCal...nothing to do with the inland rural areas or the suburbs. Texas? It's wealthy due to Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, not the suburbs or the rural areas..

 

[BlackSand]

Even the cities in red states suck. It is an urban phenomenon. Big American cities are such shit holes. Small wonder anyone who wants to be safe and their children educated get the hell out and leave it to minorities and Democrats.

People tend to flee to the cities dipshit.

They flee because the blue cities are Progressive Liberal controlled hell-holes with corrupt officials, failing infrastructure, poverty, rampant crime ... And a short bus ride between the welfare office and the polling booth. **



** I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the Progressive Liberal hell-holes I might have offended in the production of this post.

.

 

[Political Junky]

It's hardly a secret that cities tend to vote Liberal.
I see the mystery has arisen, yet again, that land expanses don't generate votes. It's been discussed endlessly.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't know if this site has a political bias but it appears to approach this with a scientific approach. It says that as growth in suburbia was more than 2 million over those born in cities and suburbians tend to be conservative.

There are a lot of suburban areas that are not conservative: Boston, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, LA, San Francisco, Seattle. All of these cities have suburbs that are heavily Democratic.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

At least, that is what this piece seems to claim. Only those crowded together in dire circumstances will believe in and vote for the failed policies espoused by progressives and liberals.


I don't know if this site has a political bias but it appears to approach this with a scientific approach. It says that as growth in suburbia was more than 2 million over those born in cities and suburbians tend to be conservative.


So, what do Dems plan to do about it? This presents some interesting ideas @ The Progressives War on Suburbia Newgeography.com

On the converse then republicans rely on disconnected yokels who don't know what they're voting for.

Even trolling non inflammatory threads....

Just sad

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Democrats Need Big Cities to Win"

No, democrats are successful at the polls because most of the voters vote for them. That most of the voters live in cities has nothing to do with it, as most Americans live in cities.

Remember also that grass, trees, and jackrabbits don't vote.

 

[Spare_change]

"Democrats Need Big Cities to Win"

No, democrats are successful at the polls because most of the voters vote for them. That most of the voters live in cities has nothing to do with it, as most Americans live in cities.

Remember also that grass, trees, and jackrabbits don't vote.

The question isn't whether they do ... but, rather, why they do.

 

[007]

And yet the blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive.

This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

It's good to see you admit that the cities are parasitic. Rural and suburban America have to support the leeches in the inner cities. That's why the leeches vote Democrat.

Imagine if the entire nation was country bumpkins
.

Oh yeah... because you city trash are SOOOOOO much better... you filthy POS...

 

[007]

City FILTH and CORRUPTION... a DEMOCRATS utopia...

 

[Meathead]

People tend to flee to the cities dipshit.

Yup, and those stupid enough to stay behind vote 80-90% Democrat, the semi-literate and parasitic base of the Democratic party.

 

[rightwinger]

"Democrats Need Big Cities to Win"

No, democrats are successful at the polls because most of the voters vote for them. That most of the voters live in cities has nothing to do with it, as most Americans live in cities.

Remember also that grass, trees, and jackrabbits don't vote.

Why do Republicans have so many issues with "one man, one vote"?

They want to substitute popular vote with schemes where small, uninhabited counties have the same clout as cities with ten times the population

 

[Meathead]

They want to substitute popular vote with schemes where small, uninhabited counties have the same clout as cities with ten times the population

Brilliant stuff.

 

[rightwinger]

They want to substitute popular vote with schemes where small, uninhabited counties have the same clout as cities with ten times the population

Brilliant stuff.

So is one man/one vote

 

[Meathead]

They want to substitute popular vote with schemes where small, uninhabited counties have the same clout as cities with ten times the population

Brilliant stuff.

So is one man/one vote

I agree, but I think women should be allowed to vote too. To keep it to actual citizens, living, people and one vote per person, I support voter ID.

However, I've never heard of an uninhabited county nor do I think it's possible for a city to have 10 times the clout any such place. I don't care how simple-minded you are.

 

[TheOldSchool]

At least, that is what this piece seems to claim. Only those crowded together in dire circumstances will believe in and vote for the failed policies espoused by progressives and liberals.


I don't know if this site has a political bias but it appears to approach this with a scientific approach. It says that as growth in suburbia was more than 2 million over those born in cities and suburbians tend to be conservative.


So, what do Dems plan to do about it? This presents some interesting ideas @ The Progressives War on Suburbia Newgeography.com

On the converse then republicans rely on disconnected yokels who don't know what they're voting for.

Even trolling non inflammatory threads....

Just sad

Non inflammatory? Are you kidding me?

 

[kiwiman127]

This is dopey beyond words.

People who work in the "big cities" running the big corps, they live in the Suburbs.

You tea bags are so dopey.

You bet they live in the suburbs ... Constantly growing in number as they escape the utter ruin of trying to live in crime infested hell-holes liberal administrations create.

The thing you didn't notice about what you mentioned is that they don't live where they work ... There is a reason for that.

.

Actually, people moving from the suburbs into the city is becoming more and more commonplace.
More Americans Moving to Cities, Reversing the Suburban Exodus
More Americans Moving to Cities Reversing the Suburban Exodus - The Wire

The New American Dream Is Living in a City, Not Owning a House in the Suburbs
Americans Increasingly Want to Live in Cities Not Suburbs

Oh, oh! That means more people will become Democrats!

 

[Nyvin]

They want to substitute popular vote with schemes where small, uninhabited counties have the same clout as cities with ten times the population

Brilliant stuff.

So is one man/one vote

I agree, but I think women should be allowed to vote too. To keep it to actual citizens, living, people and one vote per person, I support voter ID.

However, I've never heard of an uninhabited county nor do I think it's possible for a city to have 10 times the clout any such place. I don't care how simple-minded you are.

Los Angeles county has a population of 9.8 million. Love County, Texas has a population of 82. That means Los Angeles county has about 119,512 times more clout...

dur dur durrrr...

 

[rdean]

And yet the blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive.

This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

It's good to see you admit that the cities are parasitic. Rural and suburban America have to support the leeches in the inner cities. That's why the leeches vote Democrat.

Imagine if the entire nation was country bumpkins
.

Oh yeah... because you city trash are SOOOOOO much better... you filthy POS...

What you said: