Why does Illinois vote Democrat? (Chicago, Rockford: upper-class, living in, residential)

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

You know I'm not even that fond of Republicans right now, but sheesh the arrogance and condescension.

The are cities in the "top 50 cities" with Republican mayors: Dallas, San Diego, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, and Oklahoma City. Many to most of those are moderate Republicans, but there is such a thing.

Rural and small-town people often highly value education even if they may not have access to the most elite Universities. Towns on the "top 101 with the most people having master's or doctorate degrees" or just "most doctorate degree" mostly is "liberal" places but also includes

Clemson, South Carolina - In a county that hasn't went Democratic since Carter in 1976 and was won by McCain with over 70%.

Oldenburg, Indiana - A town of less than a thousand in a county that last went Democratic in 1964. (Although the county went for Evan Bayh and Frank L. O'Bannon they don't seem to even go much for Democrats in Senate or Gubernatorial races)

Sewanee, Tennessee - In a county that used to be Democratic, but went strongly for McCain.

https://www.city-data.com/top2/h185.html
https://www.city-data.com/top2/h180.html
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

There are many highly educated Republicans. Bobby Jindal and Richard Lugar were Rhodes Scholars. Roscoe Bartlett, Tom Cole, Chuck Grassley, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have PhDs. Vern Ehlers, a Republican, was the first research physicist in Congress and is still in when I checked. Scott Brown graduated kum laude from Tufts University.

Lastly the South is the biggest in population, but the most reliable regions for Republicans are probably the Great Plains and Northern Rockies.

You are, of-course, correct. But the trend in the Republican party is alarming to people uninterested in merging church and state. A recent article about Ronald Reagan's years as governor of California showed that Republicans today would never vote for Reagan because he was pragmatic and uninvolved in promoting God. The reason Republicans do so poorly overall is that the party has moved so far to the radical right that urban people can not relate anymore. Reagan was a great governor and raised taxes more than any governor in California history.

Today's GOP could snub even Reagan - latimes.com

Places like Chicago, NYC, California did not leave the Republican party but rather the Republicans left by becoming narrow and preoccupied with religion and so-called morality.

[Thomas R.]

As I am a social conservative I think I should probably just stop now.

However there is really no mainstream group that wants a theocracy. Many of the social conservatives just want to maintain the status quo or return to what was before the counter-culture. If you think the US during JFK was a theocracy or church-state than all this means is that you don't understand the meaning of the words theocracy or church-state.

NYC and Chicago have been fairly Democratic since 1960 or earlier. As for California even if Reagan as governor was socially liberal Reagan the Presidential candidate was for the most part not as he supported Pro-Lifers and courted the "Moral Majority." California went for him and Bush Sr. I do think it's plausible California has changed in the last 20 years. I mean I really doubt that in 1988 California favored same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization. (I'll grant it was Pro-Choice even then)

Where the Republican Party went wrong wasn't social conservatism because they had that then and people could overlook it. Because, even as a social conservative, I have to say only a little gets accomplished on that matter. Anyway the voters who care about social issues either way tend to be the social conservatives so social conservatism is something of an advantage if done the right way. No where they went wrong is more in economic, security issues, and immigration. They developed an unrealistic belief in their own ability to nation-build in the Islamic world. Also they either showed detachment from economic problems (Bush Sr.) or detachment from reality by emphasizing increased spending while lowering taxes. (Bush Jr.) On immigration they allowed a vocal wing to express views that were basically anti-Mexican and not just anti-illegal.

True social conservatism is very upsetting to trendy young urban people, but there's no need for Republicans to care what Yuppies think about much of anything. I try not to myself except the Internet is rather full of them. What hurts is the Republicans are not giving non-Yuppies much of anything in the way of solutions to their problems. If Mike Huckabee had viable solutions to the unemployment problem and had diplomatic experience he would likely do well regardless of his social views. If Bobby Jindal was a better speaker it wouldn't matter that he attended an exorcism or whatever.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by danielj72

Have you ever been here??? Im in Michigan and once you leave Detroit its as conservative as Alabama. Same is true in most other midwest states too, even Illinois. Now the northeast, your right they are true blue liberal. ANywhere from Ohio west there is a much greater rural, and conservative culture just like much of the south. Only the big dirty failed cities in the midwest states give pinkos a slight edge. There is a reason they call most of these states swing states anyway, dems only win them by a few points in most election years. Oh and your comment about bible belt superstitions is very revealing about your values. For the record the bible is not a superstion, but the word of God.

No, that's just a stereotype. Check out Central PA, many rural areas of upstate NY, NH and parts of ME, for instance.

[Pretzelogik]

Originally Posted by TruthBeautyGoodness

When I think of Midwest states that usually vote Democrat, I think about the progressives in Minnesota and Iowa, and the Unions of Wisconsin. But when I stop to think about Illinois, I don't understand why they like in the Democratic party. They certainly are not progressive, at least compared to Minneapolis. And unions don't seem to be as prevalent in Illinois as they are in Wisconsin.
Could someone help me about? Thanks!

Congenital defect?

[lmkcin]

Urban centers are 90% likely to be liberal and/or Democrat. Illinois is Chicago. Chicago has always been democratic.

Same thing can be said for every state dominated by a single city-or has many large urban centers. Massachusetts, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, New York. Even cities in Texas are far more liberal than their rural neighbors.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by lmkcin

Illinois is Chicago.

Well technically only 68% of the state's population live in the Chicago MSA (leaving roughly 4 million people who don't), but we understand what you mean

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

Well technically only 68% of the state's population live in the Chicago MSA (leaving roughly 4 million people who don't), but we understand what you mean

Anything over 40% of the states total population is just crazy powerful.

I will repeat what lmkcin said, Illinois is Chicago.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by lmkcin

Urban centers are 90% likely to be liberal and/or Democrat. Illinois is Chicago. Chicago has always been democratic.

Same thing can be said for every state dominated by a single city-or has many large urban centers. Massachusetts, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, New York. Even cities in Texas are far more liberal than their rural neighbors.

I am thinking you can plot out party-vote by population density. (especially among whites) I bet you will get a line that trends in one direction. Makes me think a lot of the debate over metro area land use and density stems from this fact.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by TruthBeautyGoodness

When I think of Midwest states that usually vote Democrat, I think about the progressives in Minnesota and Iowa, and the Unions of Wisconsin. But when I stop to think about Illinois, I don't understand why they like in the Democratic party. They certainly are not progressive, at least compared to Minneapolis. And unions don't seem to be as prevalent in Illinois as they are in Wisconsin.
Could someone help me about? Thanks!

I would have guessed it was the state with the highest percentage of welfare recipients but I would have been wrong. That dishonor goes to California.

[pvande55]

Originally Posted by LauraC

I would have guessed it was the state with the highest percentage of welfare recipients but I would have been wrong. That dishonor goes to California.

According to recent reports, States with the highest welfare rate are Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Oklahoma and DC. At least two of these voted solidly Republican for President, an additional one has a GOP governor and another has GOP senators. In fact, only DC has no GOP Senators or Governor. Of course, it is not a State, so it has none of either party.