If Chicago was removed, would Illinois be a red or purple state? (Rockford: crime, house)

[RayHammer]

Originally Posted by FoxValleyTrotter

Illinois would still be a blue state without Chicagoland. This is because the Metro East, a historically blue region, is the largest the largest metro area outside of Chicago. In short, most medium-sized to large metro areas in the state would have to be "removed" before it is truly red.

Doubtful. It's the same anywhere else.


Chop off Philly and PA is as red as Alabama.


Enclave off Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Minnesota becomes just as red as either of the Dakotas.


Lop off LA and San Fran and California is probably a light shade of pink.


The US has more of an Urban/Rural divide than anything else. Other nuances exist of course.

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by FoxValleyTrotter

Illinois would still be a blue state without Chicagoland. This is because the Metro East, a historically blue region, is the largest the largest metro area outside of Chicago. In short, most medium-sized to large metro areas in the state would have to be "removed" before it is truly red.

Metro east population = ~700k.
State of Illinois = 12.7 Million.
Chicago MSA (this includes parts of NW Indiana and SE Wisconsin, but we'll be generous) = ~9.5 million.


So, lets remove 9 million from 12.7 M. That leaves 3.7 milion.

3.7 million - 700k in STL Metro East area.

That leaves 3 million.

So, the vast majority of the state would still be elsewhere outside Metro East (primarily RURAL)


Saying Illinois would still be a blue state if Chicago were removed because of East Saint Louis area, is a laughably delusional take.

IL would still be a red state even considering that. And, as if that entire region is solidly blue anyways. It isn't.

Illinois would be just like Indiana politically, culturally, and economically if Chicago were removed. In fact, it would more likely be more red, as there woudn't be a city the size/scale of INDY in the state.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

Metro east population = ~700k.
State of Illinois = 12.7 Million.
Chicago MSA (this includes parts of NW Indiana and SE Wisconsin, but we'll be generous) = ~9.5 million.


So, lets remove 9 million from 12.7 M. That leaves 3.7 milion.

3.7 million - 700k in STL Metro East area.

That leaves 3 million.

So, the vast majority of the state would still be elsewhere outside Metro East (primarily RURAL)

No, outside of the Metro East, the vast majority of the state lives in the small and medium-ish sized cities in central Illinois (Peoria, B/N, Champaign, Springfield, Decatur) and in northern Illinois (Rockford and the Quad Cities), not rural areas.

[Doughboy1918]

Originally Posted by RayHammer

The US has more of an Urban/Rural divide than anything else. Other nuances exist of course.

Are you speaking on an international level here?

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

No, outside of the Metro East, the vast majority of the state lives in the small and medium-ish sized cities in central Illinois (Peoria, B/N, Champaign, Springfield, Decatur) and in northern Illinois (Rockford and the Quad Cities), not rural areas.

You could say the same thing about Indiana where such mid-sized cities also exist.... and those college towns like Champaign or Bloomington/Normal are not large/blue enough to change the state to blue either. Still would be a solidly red state.

Illinois is a fairly large state by land, so there is a large rural population. It only seems minute because Chicago is such a behemoth area.

2016 Election Map for reference :
https://onewaystreet.typepad.com/.a/...cf20970c-popup

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

You could say the same thing about Indiana where such mid-sized cities also exist.... and those college towns like Champaign or Bloomington/Normal are not large/blue enough to change the state to blue either. Still would be a solidly red state.

Illinois is a fairly large state by land, so there is a large rural population. It only seems minute because Chicago is such a behemoth area.

2016 Election Map for reference :
https://onewaystreet.typepad.com/.a/...cf20970c-popup

But what does a map of one presidential election have anything to do with population and population density? Land doesn’t vote, people do. The fact is that the majority of the population of Illinois outside of Chicago lives in small and medium sized cities in central and northern IL as well as the metro East. The rural population in IL is fairly small and shrinking. The remaining population centers sometimes vote blue (1992, 1996, 2008, 2012) and sometimes vote red (2000, 2004, 2016)—this is the very definition of a “purple” state.

[Hemlock140]

The same could be said for other places. For example, if King County WA were removed (Seattle area) the very blue state of Washington would turn red. I'm not quite as familiar with Oregon but would expect the same if Portland were removed.

[wjj]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

The same could be said for other places. For example, if King County WA were removed (Seattle area) the very blue state of Washington would turn red. I'm not quite as familiar with Oregon but would expect the same if Portland were removed.

Which is why the Greater Idaho movement has gained so much traction in Oregon (and acceptance in Idaho). The process of a dozen (soon to be more) counties in Oregon becoming part of Idaho has already passed in county-wide votes and the political process of moving the border has begun in both Idaho and Oregon. This happened due to Portland (which is a disaster currently) driving the political agenda which is reviled in eastern and central Oregon. The proposed new border is interesting in that about 2/3 of Oregon would become part of Idaho with just the remaining 1/3 western side continuing as Oregon. Who knows where this will end up - certainly a steep uphill battle - but interesting to see people organizing and actually trying to do something within the "system" rather than just yelling about it.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

No, outside of the Metro East, the vast majority of the state lives in the small and medium-ish sized cities in central Illinois (Peoria, B/N, Champaign, Springfield, Decatur) and in northern Illinois (Rockford and the Quad Cities), not rural areas.

Everything is relative. For people that grew up in the Chicago metro, the rest of the state is "rural". Even Peoria, Champaign etc. which are basically viewed as islands in the corn.

For those of us that grew up in towns of a couple thousand people there is more delineation but that's a common view in Illinois.

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

But what does a map of one presidential election have anything to do with population and population density? Land doesn’t vote, people do. The fact is that the majority of the population of Illinois outside of Chicago lives in small and medium sized cities in central and northern IL as well as the metro East. The rural population in IL is fairly small and shrinking. The remaining population centers sometimes vote blue (1992, 1996, 2008, 2012) and sometimes vote red (2000, 2004, 2016)—this is the very definition of a “purple” state.

You are going off the notion that any mid sized city will vote blue, which is just not the case. Overall these areas lean red. Just because they are population centers does not mean they are democrat strongholds. Indiana also has towns like Bloomington, Fort Wayne, Evansville, South Bend.... even considering them, the state is still staunchly red.

The small/mid size cities in IL are not blue enough or large enough to swing the state blue... nor are they particularly purple either (maybe with the exception of Champaign and Springfield). Even if they were purple, the rural population would swing the state to the right.

So when you take the staunchly red rural population.... plus the leaning red MSAs of Blo/No, Rockford, Quad Cities, Decatur etc... and combine them. You still will have a red state.

As for the rural population shrinking, you'd have to also consider if this would be different if the states' politics were completely inverse what they are currently with Chicago controlling everything. Rural population leaves the state for other low tax, business friendly and red states. IL would probably be all of those things of Chicago were gone; the rural population would probably not be fleeing.... not as much as they are now at least.