Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both Texas and Florida have also experienced large numbers of hispanic immigrants but that hasn't made the Republican party irrelevant in those states. I am certainly not aware of any stories like this in Texas or Florida.
I think one big difference is that housing is a lot less expensive in both Texas and Florida. In California, you have a wealthy class and a fairly large underclass, but I think its a lot harder to join the middle class. In Texas and Florida, I would argue its a lot easier to join the middle class for everyone (including immigrant hispanics) than in California. In Coastal California you can be making more than a 100K a year and still not be able to afford to buy a house, so you feel poor and demand that government strengthen rent controls to keep your rent from going up. Similiarly if you are poor and can't afford to buy a home, but instead need a section 8 voucher to pay for rent, you are going to vote in the party that promises to defend and expand section 8 vouchers. I think dysfunctional housing policy in California is the big reason why the Republicans are currently dead in California.
I will also say if you can afford to a buy your own home, get married and have kids you aren't real interested in democratic socialism no matter what your ethnic heritage is. Instead you are worked up about what you can do to keep up property values and how to make your neighborhood and community better. In any community where you can afford to buy a house, get married and have kids the Republican party does very well. Single women vote for Democrats, married women vote Republican. There are a lot more Hispanics voting Republican in both Texas and Florida, why do you think that is the case? I am saying it is much more affordible housing that leads to more marriages and families.
In Florida, Cubans make up the largest segment of the Hispanic population. There is also a decent-size South American population. Many vote Republican because of their experiences with left-wing government in their respective countries. Alot of Cuban-Americans hate socialism.
Housing in Florida is rising in price. Alot of Floridians (including some Cuban-Americans I've met) have been priced out of Florida and are living in places like Georgia, Texas, and Alabama.
Texas is getting more expensive, particularly in the large metro areas like Houston, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth areas. People are moving there. However, in the big metros, it's not as cheap as it used to be. As for the Hispanic population in Texas, it's trended more Republican than that of California. In Texas, there is a segment of the Hispanic population known as Tejanos. Hispanic Texans who have lived there BEFORE Texas broke away from Mexico. They remained. Many Tejanos tend to be as conservative as White Texans.
Something else to consider. Texas has one of the lowest rates of voter participation in America. Whites have the highest voter turnout in Texas. Hispanics have the lowest voter turnout. There are a variety of reasons why. Many who are too young to vote, many who aren't registered to vote for one reason or another.
Economics would certainly making voting Democrat a factor in California. Another factor is Prop 187. Pete Wilson, former governor of CA, campaigned for it. Prop 187 would keep illegal immigrants from having access to any public services. Many Hispanic voters turned against Republicans in California as a result.
Something else I want to add. Being rich and upper class might vote Republican, but it's not the case for everyone. Black Americans vote Democrat regardless of income, to the tune of 90%. Interestingly, according to the Pew Research polls, Black Republicans are more likely to be lower-income than Black Democrats.
In Florida, Cubans make up the largest segment of the Hispanic population. There is also a decent-size South American population. Many vote Republican because of their experiences with left-wing government in their respective countries. Alot of Cuban-Americans hate socialism.
Housing in Florida is rising in price. Alot of Floridians (including some Cuban-Americans I've met) have been priced out of Florida and are living in places like Georgia, Texas, and Alabama.
I acknowledge your point about Cubans. Life spent living under either socialism/communism definitely makes people more weary of promises of left wing utopias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Texas is getting more expensive, particularly in the large metro areas like Houston, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth areas. People are moving there. However, in the big metros, it's not as cheap as it used to be. As for the Hispanic population in Texas, it's trended more Republican than that of California. In Texas, there is a segment of the Hispanic population known as Tejanos. Hispanic Texans who have lived there BEFORE Texas broke away from Mexico. They remained. Many Tejanos tend to be as conservative as White Texans.
First generation Italians and Irish were overwhelming Democrats, but by the third generation, they were indistinguishable from the rest of the country in terms of how they voted. I think that is part of what is going on with the Tejanos and likely more generally with hispanics more broadly. At some point you stop thinking of yourself as an immigrant and you just start seeing yourself as an American, but I see being able to buy a house as a big part of that too.
The places where housing policy doesn't work and it becomes unaffordible to buy a home, get married and start a family where the ratio of housing costs to income goes out of whack, I think those areas will trend increasingly left, I expect that will happen in Austin and maybe some other areas in Texas and Florida. Hawaii, California, the east Coast, all of the areas where people have trouble making enough money to buy a home and get married are all of the places the left does well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Something else to consider. Texas has one of the lowest rates of voter participation in America. Whites have the highest voter turnout in Texas. Hispanics have the lowest voter turnout. There are a variety of reasons why. Many who are too young to vote, many who aren't registered to vote for one reason or another.
Economics would certainly making voting Democrat a factor in California. Another factor is Prop 187. Pete Wilson, former governor of CA, campaigned for it. Prop 187 would keep illegal immigrants from having access to any public services. Many Hispanic voters turned against Republicans in California as a result.
I am less convinced of this argument. Prop 187 was passed in 1994, that was almost 30 years ago. I think it was a big deal 30 years ago, but today, I think it has less of an impact. If you are a voter under 40, you were 12 or younger when it passed, I just wonder how many voters still know about it?
I think people vote about issues that are relevant to their lives today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Something else I want to add. Being rich and upper class might vote Republican, but it's not the case for everyone. Black Americans vote Democrat regardless of income, to the tune of 90%. Interestingly, according to the Pew Research polls, Black Republicans are more likely to be lower-income than Black Democrats.
The Republicans are the part of the middle, the Democrats do best with both the most educated and the least educated. The wealthiest counties in the state vote overwhelmingly left. But those are areas where housing policy doesn't work for one reason or another too. The Marin Agricultural Land Trust makes it really tough to build in Marin. In SF, its the need to protect rent controlled units, that tends to kill projects. There is also the California Coastal commission. The left is really good at inventing novel reasons to oppose new construction so it takes a lot of time and effort to get anything approved and that keeps housing prices unaffordible.
I did look at the Pew research poll and that was interesting, thank you.
It appears younger African Americans are much more likely to be Republican. Younger people just haven't saved as much. But the African Americans I know who are Republican it happened because they bought a house and got married and had kids.They are Republican because they thought it was important that their kids be raised by a family with a father in the home. They remind me a lot of Zuby here.
When I was in grade school in Newport Beach in the early 60’s, there were no non-white kids, at, all. It was pure vanilla back then. My uncle married a Hispanic girl from Santa Anna, that was a big deal back then in Costa Mesa.
I acknowledge your point about Cubans. Life spent living under either socialism/communism definitely makes people more weary of promises of left wing utopias.
I've seen the same thing among some Vietnamese-American voters.
Quote:
First generation Italians and Irish were overwhelming Democrats, but by the third generation, they were indistinguishable from the rest of the country in terms of how they voted. I think that is part of what is going on with the Tejanos and likely more generally with hispanics more broadly. At some point you stop thinking of yourself as an immigrant and you just start seeing yourself as an American, but I see being able to buy a house as a big part of that too.
Within the New York City area, many Italians were the most likely to be Republican. In places like New York and Chicago, alot of voting goes along racial and ethnic blocs. In Chicago, Polish-Americans are the most likely to vote Republican.
Another thing I think about is how the Catholic faith has influenced how some people vote, in some cases anyway. I think about this when I think about many Italian-American and Polish-American voters.
What you're seeing might have taken place among 3rd generation Mexican-Americans. However, with Tejanos, they've been in Texas since (and before) Texas was a state. They've been American for close to 200 years.
Quote:
The places where housing policy doesn't work and it becomes unaffordible to buy a home, get married and start a family where the ratio of housing costs to income goes out of whack, I think those areas will trend increasingly left, I expect that will happen in Austin and maybe some other areas in Texas and Florida. Hawaii, California, the east Coast, all of the areas where people have trouble making enough money to buy a home and get married are all of the places the left does well.
Hawaii and California tend to be quite expensive in housing due to geography. A lion's share of California's population lives in the coastal valleys. Hawaii doesn't have much room due to it being islands.
Austin proper crossed north of 1 million, making it the 2nd state capital to reach that milestone (Phoenix might reach 2 million soon enough). Everyone wants to live there, so it's driving the cost of living up.
Seattle is a classic example of a liberal city with a prohibitively expensive housing stock, and very few families. There are more dog owners in Seattle than people who have children. Seattle is basically surrounded by water on two sides and ringed by mountains. It has gone through a rapid population rise.
I think what happens is that people who want to get married, buy a home, and start a family, they leave. Unless they make the money to stay, they go somewhere else. Married people with kids are more likely to be conservative (in most cases) than the single and childless.
North Dakota and South Dakota aren't going blue anytime soon. Sparsely populated states with room to grow. People currently living there can afford to buy a home a start a family. And not alot of people want to move to the Dakotas for any reason. I suspect harsh winters and a reputation for being "boring" keeps many people away.
Quote:
I am less convinced of this argument. Prop 187 was passed in 1994, that was almost 30 years ago. I think it was a big deal 30 years ago, but today, I think it has less of an impact. If you are a voter under 40, you were 12 or younger when it passed, I just wonder how many voters still know about it?
I think people vote about issues that are relevant to their lives today.
I would say what happened is that it had a chain reaction. Prop 187 played a factor back then. While other issues play a role today, Prop 187 was the start.
Quote:
The Republicans are the part of the middle, the Democrats do best with both the most educated and the least educated. The wealthiest counties in the state vote overwhelmingly left. But those are areas where housing policy doesn't work for one reason or another too. The Marin Agricultural Land Trust makes it really tough to build in Marin. In SF, its the need to protect rent controlled units, that tends to kill projects. There is also the California Coastal commission. The left is really good at inventing novel reasons to oppose new construction so it takes a lot of time and effort to get anything approved and that keeps housing prices unaffordible.
Marin County is a county where alot of wealthy people have flock to. San Francisco has become a city of the elites and poor, and it's a hard place for the middle class to live in. I've never heard of the Marin Agricultural Land Trust. Where I live, there's a land trust that functions like a state park.
I've learned that it's really hard to build things in California. California geography makes this even more difficult. California's big, but only a few places can be lived in without excessive strain.
Quote:
I did look at the Pew research poll and that was interesting, thank you.
It appears younger African Americans are much more likely to be Republican. Younger people just haven't saved as much. But the African Americans I know who are Republican it happened because they bought a house and got married and had kids.They are Republican because they thought it was important that their kids be raised by a family with a father in the home. They remind me a lot of Zuby here.
There are caveats to this. Lower income individuals are less likely to vote than middle and upper class individuals. The Black Republican vote does skew very young. It also skews male. I brought up that lower income persons don't vote as much as upper income individuals. Black voters turnout among males has dropped, especially towards the lower income strata. Black people who might have voted Democrat were more likely to not vote at all than vote for Biden. Younger people don't have as much money, so that can play a role too.
On another note, I haven't met many Black Republicans at all. Most of the Black Republicans I've met, it was during the Bush administration. And ironically, I was in college. The first time I met any Black Republicans, it was a Black couple, married with a child. They took the bus to get to college. They seem to be more on the working class side of economic scale. Another Black Republican I met, middle class Black male, very humble, not flashy. Very involved in his church. I ran into him years after college. He was married.
From 2008 to now, I've personally met maybe one or two Black people who are Republicans.
Most married Black people that I've met are Democrats. While there are a higher percentage of Republicans among Black married couples, the majority of married Black couples are still Democrats. And I've noticed something else. The married Black Republicans I've met, all married to Black spouses. In my experiences, nearly every interracial couple I've met where the spouse was a Black male, far more likely to be Democrats.
The fact that CA was an amazing place to live up until the early 90s, then it started to turn to garbage. That just so happens to be around the time illegal immigration exploded and CA became a minority majority state. Coincidence?
The Republicans are the part of the middle, the Democrats do best with both the most educated and the least educated.
I did look at the Pew research poll and that was interesting, thank you.
I think what happens is that people who want to get married, buy a home, and start a family, they leave. Unless they make the money to stay, they go somewhere else. Married people with kids are more likely to be conservative (in most cases) than the single and childless.
But the African Americans I know who are Republican it happened because they bought a house and got married and had kids.They are Republican because they thought it was important that their kids be raised by a family with a father in the home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelato
I will also say if you can afford to a buy your own home, get married and have kids you aren't real interested in democratic socialism no matter what your ethnic heritage is. Instead you are worked up about what you can do to keep up property values and how to make your neighborhood and community better. In any community where you can afford to buy a house, get married and have kids the Republican party does very well. Single women vote for Democrats, married women vote Republican. There are a lot more Hispanics voting Republican in both Texas and Florida, why do you think that is the case? I am saying it is much more affordible housing that leads to more marriages and families.
I'm married, a practicing Catholic, have grown children and grandchildren, I hold two graduate degrees and a professorship at a local college. I'm a liberal Democrat. I live in a middle class suburban California neighborhood and I own a home. I paid $350k for my current home in 2021. I'm not flashy. I lead a pretty mundane life, so to speak.
I find your correlation between marriage and social stability to be intriguing. It is true that marriage affords a certain level of social stability to each party of the couple, as well as their offspring.
When you talk about democratic socialism and marriage being mutually exclusive, it's puzzling.
Some of the most robust, family-oriented societies in recent history were buttressed by a strong social safety net. FDR's "New Deal" was such a boost to families that it's influence lasted over 50 years in the voting booth. Families didn't forget the party and the programs that helped them.
Back to your point about marriage, though. It's a very feudal notion to suggest that people need be married to enjoy social stability and the creature comforts that it entails.
Not everyone is cut out for marriage. Not everyone has the opportunity to be in a marriage. Marriage can be fleeting. An individual can be married for a certain point in their life, and then not married in another. One partner can pass away, and leave the other single thereafter. Marriages work, until they don't. Nobody should be trapped in a marriage just to receive social benefits.
The right wing in the US wants to prescribe marriage as a sort of "fix all" for societies ills. It wants to reward marriage with access to insurance benefits and tax write-offs. It wants religion to sanction all marriages. In doing so, it seeks to "other" and differentiate the single, the widowed, the childless, the ones who never had good luck.
Democratic socialism says, "...hey, you're married, that's great! Let me support that, and let me also support the people who can't be, or who were never given the chance, or who lost their marriages for one reason or another. Let's not let those people fall through the cracks either!"
Democratic socialism prevents the "othering" of people and seeks to minimize the division between the married and un-married.
Last edited by apple92680; 12-16-2022 at 05:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
