It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help Me Understand Why Big City Residents Love Democrats.

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Hmmmm, I take issue with that report; I suspect its skewed to confirm a bias. What struck me about the report is that yea, incidents per resident. What it fails to take into account is the low density population figures for "Red" states in general. You have for example 700 homicides a year in Chicago, but because it has a reported population of X millions, it reports a lower per resident crime statistic.

I found this report to be somewhat helpful: 247wallst.com...

Although that report is flawed as well; you'll note that it lists the top 10 most violent states, but Illinois, New York and California are not listed..........because again its a "crime incident per resident" report. Even though that's the case, the report reflects a pretty even split between red/blue states.

I've found crime statistics in general to be the most difficult to parse because crime "reporting" is skewed. I know from personal experience that the FBI audits big city police crime reporting statistics and routinely finds that the number of crimes reported out of big city (Democrat) police departments routinely under report. There is of course, the obvious political reason for that; big city police chiefs are routinely lobbied by the Mayors to under report to bolster their administrations. As well, the Democrat controlled MSM and even local news papers under report intentionally to avoid panic of the rodents living in the large cities.

As to the OP's question as to why big cities are magnets to Democrats, the explanation should be relatively obvious. Big cities are occupied, for the most part, by two groups; the extremely wealthy and the very poor. The wealthy are the most highly educated and have for a variety of reasons adopted Progressive Democrat ideologies. Its hard to get ahead without being popular and to be popular you have to appear to be "smart" and to appear "smart" your going to rattle off Progressive Democrat talking points.

On the other hand, if you're poor, you're more or less dependent in some way upon the government for assistance and of course the Democrat party is the party of handouts and freebies.

I'd suggest, based upon my personal experience and observation, that while it is the case that Democrats are attracted to big cities, its also the case that Republicans are repelled by them and have moved out! They no longer vote in big city elections and the big cities have become one-party city states.

The election maps circulated on ATS clearly demonstrate this "divide", and to such an extent, its made me wonder if HRC shouldn't just declare herself "Legitimate President of Democrat States, Cities, Counties and Precincts".




posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
2 Words

Lead

Pipes




posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I think it's more an expression of the law of large numbers. As population increases you'll see the political leanings of that population deviate towards the middle. Despite what some people on this site may say the DNC platform is pretty moderate. The GOP platform is also pretty moderate but thanks to their position on certain things (ie abortion, immigration, etc) they come across leaning more to the Right than the DNC leans to the Left.

Most people are moderate. As population increases this fact becomes more and more evident. The DNC is perceived as the more moderate of the two parties. Thus, as population increases so to does support for the DNC.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
It's not because of jobs alone, the OP listed suburbs. White people migrate to the burbs when they have kids for safety, bigger homes and better schools at the trade off of city life and a long commute.

Single educated white people move to the city for their job, the culture, the experience and places to drink and mingle with same aged people in large numbers. Some also have this disdain for their rural childhood, because it was backwards and not happening. They have no family to raise.
These white single educated whites who are looking for that "cultural experience" and see the rural life as backward are novelty seekers. There is actually one gene DRD4 that makes one more open to experiences and that trait is correlated to liberalism.

As for minorities and immigrants, They or their ancestors seen jobs and opportunity in the city and thus have not left. These groups of people for whatever reason(I'm not here to debate why) have had more pro-big government opinions(Pew research) for a long time.
Opinions are heritable and it takes quite a bit to change.
big-government beliefs=democrats
whites typically=small governments beliefs, but those with novelty seeking behavior are going to deviate from their cultural norms, often rebel. These ideas are most novel when first met, See College, and they are hip and rebellious.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
The documentary, "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" may contain information that is both interesting (to some members) and pertinent to this thread. I was a bit shocked by it, I suppose because most of the stuff covered is never even hinted at in public schools. I do not claim to have done any fact-checking- please use your own faculties and common sense!

The film briefly outlines the origins of the Democratic Party, then examines the blatant racism of one of its founders, President Andrew Jackson. It goes on to describe how President Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party passed and signed into law legislation that brutally expelled Native Americans from their land and created the reservation system. This is followed by an examination of the historical record of the Democratic Party in the North and South in supporting and defending the institution of slavery, and ensuring the spread of slavery into the western territories. It examines the founding of the Republican Party as a reaction to the support of slavery by the Democratic Party and their endorsement and defense of fugitive slave laws.

Trailer:

Ok, so critics gave this film scathing reviews and horrible ratings. But, that doesn't mean it's all bunk. I'm not saying that it is 100% accurate, and I'm sure there are aspects that could have been researched more thoroughly... but, it is full of conspiracy theories and I suspect that some of you may enjoy it.
More info: HERE
or Here



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Cities are where the good schools are.
Simple better education.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

People who live outside of urban areas are more self-reliant than those who live in urban areas.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Cities are where the good schools are.
Simple better education.


Nope. People leave the city to go to suburbs when children come for better schools. Only the wealthy have access to good public schools in most major cities.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
It appears to be a combination of factors.

  • Service.

    As some have already pointed out, it's nice to have someone else do the stuff you just don't want to do. If the lights go out, you can call an electrician; if the sink backs up, you can call a plumber; if the car makes a weird noise, you can call a mechanic; if you're hungry, you can call for pizza delivery. Every day, in every way, there is someone there to take care of things for you that you can't (or won't) do yourself.

    In the country, the wide spaces mean less specialization, because in a given area there are less people to need specific services. Therefore people tend to learn how to handle problems on their own. If the lights go out, you check the fuse box yourself. If the sink backs up, you crawl under the house and fix it yourself. If the car makes a weird noise, you park it under a shade tree, grab some tools, and pop the hood.

  • Ability.

    Service is also a vicious spiral. The more others do for you, the less you can do for yourself. And the less you can do for yourself, the more you tend to specialize in doing one thing only. The more you specialize, the more you need others around to do everything else for you. People over time lose the ability to survive without others and this leads to total dependence on others.

    In the country, most people are skilled to some degree in a wide range of trades.

  • Fear.

    When you know in your heart that you are incapable of surviving without assistance, you tend to fear being alone. Being without constant assurance of assistance is akin to being stranded on a deserted island... not good.

    In the country, we are used to handling life's challenges on our own. There are days when I never see a human who doesn't live here, and it doesn't bother me in the least. Socialization is a pleasure, not a necessity of life.

  • Over-developed sense of community.

    There seems to be a more hive-minded sense of community in the city versus in the country. In the city, it appears to me that the good of the community takes precedence over the good of individuals in the community. This, again, is a vicious spiral: as the community becomes primary even to the detriment of the individual, the individual must conform to societal expectations, which are to place the community before the individual.

    In the country, individualism is respected because the community is broader in area and less able to control individuals. That does not discount community, however, because people tend to enjoy being around others. Humans are inherently social animals. In some ways, this actually strengthens community ties because people gain respect for others when those others show strength and resilience. Community is a pleasure to be treasured, not a fact of life to be taken for granted.

The downside of country life is that it is hard. Even living a more modern lifestyle (not farming), the days are long and there's always something that needs fixing or something you want to improve. Of course, those long hard days over time result in a healthier lifestyle that makes one more capable of dealing with a harder life.

The downside of city life is pretty well spelled out in the OP: a loss of privacy/individualism, higher crime rates, more corruption, and a lack of intimacy. When faced with an impossible situation, people will do what it takes to survive. If that means stealing instead of working, and there are dozens of defenseless potential targets nearby who are essentially nameless and faceless, the temptation to steal becomes too great for some to resist. If there are only one or two potential targets nearby, who you know well and who are quite capable of defending themselves, the decision to steal becomes much more problematic.

And of course, since theft is bad for the community and community trumps individuals, more police and surveillance is required. That by definition equates to a loss of individual freedoms.

There is a huge divide between the two in the area of charity as well. Cities seem to have institutionalized charity. There is no need to give individually, because simply by paying taxes one is giving to the poor through social programs. In the country, charity is more of an individual decision, wherein people tend to help each other out, not as a duty, but as a compassionate act. We don't generally get to hear about millions of individual acts of charity and compassion, because it is easier for news outlets to report on single massive institutionalized charities.

The thing us in the country see, however, is that these massive charities do not replace individual acts, because institution does not give one the choice of whether to help or not, and are therefore not true charity and do not give the same feeling as watching someone's face light up when they receive help directly from a stranger. We also see that the extensive rules and regulations that are necessary under institutionalized charities invariably lead to situations where someone undeserving of help receives help while someone desperately needing and deserving of help does not. Admittedly, these situations are the exception rather than the rule, but they do exist.

All in all, it is a completely different lifestyle. What works to benefit one can be harmful to the other. And this is the danger of a powerful Federal government: that one lifestyle can be destructive to another. Outlawing hunting would have little effect on the lives of most city slickers, but it would remove a major source of enjoyment and actually decrease food supplies in the country. Outlawing guns as well, might be beneficial in the city (although I personally doubt it), but would make country folk subject to more crime, more susceptible to animal attacks, and threaten food supply. Raising gasoline taxes means little when one walks to work or school, but when the nearest town is 10 miles away it becomes an onerous detriment to the ability to thrive. Lax building codes are actually beneficial in the country where most have a good idea of how to build a structure safely, but in the city it would be disastrous to allow those with no such knowledge to build a dangerous structure next to neighbors. One flaw in human thinking is believing that everyone lives the same life.

Politically, this has led to the problems we see today. The United States was developed to allow everyone to live in peace as they see fit, but the lifestyles between city and country are so vast and so incompatible as to ensure division on almost all issues. The only real solution is to downsize the Federal government and return power to the states... or better yet, to the communities themselves.

...as was originally intended...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I am wealthy and live on the east coast in a city.
I donate time to our city community center taking care of children while mom or dad has a swim or works out.
I volunteer at the food bank.
At Christmas I visit a retirement home and give out baked from scratch cookies.
I've held charity events in my own home.
Don't paint with such a wide brush.

Good people come from every walk of life but it seems anyone not struggling is looked upon as evil. Money is bad.
The rich are evil.
Bull#e!

PS I worked my ass off building a business from when I was still in my twenties. I wasn't born into a wealthy family but one that valued entrepreneurial endeavors. My grandfather was a stone cutter. Many of the corner stones of buildings in NYC from the 1930s and 40s bear his mark.
He later opened a monument company of his own.
edit on 12282016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

LOL

Mostly all in Democrat voting pockets.



The high poverty areas are in Democrat voting pockets too.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope the better schools are in the cities as cities tend to grow around places of higher education.
And the poor can get scholarships and financial aid. Stop.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Seems one party rule has gone on so long and is so entrenched using handouts, graft, cronyism, corruption, primary rigging, election rigging, outright lies and pandering that any real choice for change is non-existent

Overton window like view of the situation.

The kind of change needed for real improvement is too scary for dependants to contemplate.

Hence no change at all, if not slow decline al la Detroit.

Anyone with half a lick common sense moves out and leaves the socially blinded and truly inept to stew in their own mess of high tax, low service, high violence and pollyannish belief those same ol politicians will improve things if they just had MORE of other people's money.

Einsteins definition of insanity applies.

Sheesh



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

You must understand that when people live in concrete jungles, they lose that sense of self that contains an engrained need for personal/individual liberty to control their own aspects of life. When you live in an environment where everything you do affects someone else, and everything they do affects you, you forget that you are an individual, and as such, you have basic human rights--NATURAL human rights. That's what happens when you remove the "nature" from one's existence.

This environment breeds a philosophy of dependence and shared everything, whereas people who live in suburban and urban areas still can hold on to those ideals of individual liberties because they do things that only affects themselves, for the most party, whether they be good or bad.

Basically, living in densely populated urban settings breeds the ideals of socialism, even if it's "democratic socialism," and that does not translate very well outside of such a setting. Democrat/Progressive ideals fall in line (and perpetuate) such a setting, and that's why that platform is appealing to urban dwellers, regardless of race/sex/religion/whatever.

ETA: And don't think for a second that, at least with some minority populations, that this wasn't by design. "They" wanted these citizens to feel a need for and a dependency on government.
edit on 28-12-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope the better schools are in the cities as cities tend to grow around places of higher education.
And the poor can get scholarships and financial aid. Stop.


You are talking about university education... im talking about primary and secondary education such as elementary through high school. In most big cities, only the wealthy can live where there are good public schools. Here in chicago we have a few good public schools but unless you are willing to spend at least 1 million on a house that needs work or live in a small condo for 400k to 500k, you have to move to burbs to get a decent school system.

College towns do thrive but that is a different subject. It is primarily because you have a lot of consumers with disposable income... students with debt giving tnem money to spend.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope the better schools are in the cities as cities tend to grow around places of higher education.
And the poor can get scholarships and financial aid. Stop.


Struggling cities and excelling suburbs: a repeated pattern around the country




posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: carewemust
As compared to Suburban/Rural areas, DEMOCRAT-RUN URBAN AREAS have..
1. Higher Taxes of all Kinds.
2. Higher Violent Crime Rates.
3. Higher Non-Violent Crime Rates.
4. Greater incidence and variety of Diseases
5. Higher Mortality Rates
6. Higher Gasoline Prices
7. More ways to punish you for various violations (i.e. Camera generated tickets)
8. Higher levels of Air and Water Pollutants
9. Killer Potholes!
-CareWeMust


...everything you posted is because of a higher population
..yeah, go figure, more crimes happen when more people are nearby.

I dont think you thought this through. Lemme ask you a question

pothole filling is one of the many jobs the city has. the city pays for that job via taxes. higher taxes = less potholes, more working traffic lights, more police, etc etc...

The right wing less taxes would..not be able to pay cops, fill potholes, etc. That is why the right is more country oriented whereas people who enjoy a big city will end up paying more for the privilege of living in a town of 50 million.


No, it's more per capita. This means that given exactly the same sample sizes, there are more in urban environments. This topic has been beaten to death and proven a thousand times over on ATS. This isn't like there is a hypothetical 12% crime rate here in bradenton florida and there is a hypothetical 12% crime rate in new york city, and because new york has a higher population that 12% is bigger. Per capita means MORE people, a bigger percentage of the SAME population.

So grab a 100 people in NY, then grab 100 people in Florida, there are going to be more criminals in that 100 people you grabbed in NY than the 100 people you grabbed in florida, that's because there are more criminals in Blue urban centers PER CAPITA. That has nothing to do with population.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: carewemust

You must understand that when people live in concrete jungles, they lose that sense of self that contains an engrained need for personal/individual liberty to control their own aspects of life. When you live in an environment where everything you do affects someone else, and everything they do affects you, you forget that you are an individual, and as such, you have basic human rights--NATURAL human rights. That's what happens when you remove the "nature" from one's existence.

This environment breeds a philosophy of dependence and shared everything, whereas people who live in suburban and urban areas still can hold on to those ideals of individual liberties because they do things that only affects themselves, for the most party, whether they be good or bad.

Basically, living in densely populated urban settings breeds the ideals of socialism, even if it's "democratic socialism," and that does not translate very well outside of such a setting. Democrat/Progressive ideals fall in line (and perpetuate) such a setting, and that's why that platform is appealing to urban dwellers, regardless of race/sex/religion/whatever.

ETA: And don't think for a second that, at least with some minority populations, that this wasn't by design. "They" wanted these citizens to feel a need for and a dependency on government.


Spoken by a person who has never lived in a "Concrete jungle." I lived in NY for 15 years, the people are the exact same kind of people as anywhere else. Dare I say, there is a greater sense of self, because there is a bigger need to stand out from the crowd -- that's how you get areas like The Village in Manhattan.

Gotta love those armchair experts that have no experience in urban environments. Live in both places, then make your biased generalist statements.

The reason why they are blue? Heh -- it's because the red in those states is just as corrupt, people vote for candidates, not for party affiliations. If it needs to be spelled out for you -- Obama won the last 2 elections and he's blue. It seems to go, Red Red Blue, Red Blue, Red Red Blue. Look at how many democrat presidents there have been vs Republican. It always alternates, it's not parties people vote for, it's candidates. Trump only won because Hillary was so bad.... and that's how it always goes.

If you're talking about local municipal government..... It's illegal corruption, it's not even really the peoples choice.

You all need to realize that the entire "Party" system is broken, and both "left/right" are equally corrupt and neither cares more for you than the other. What we need are real people, not politicians. We need people who don't make decisions based on what a "Party" likes -- but makes decisions on what's fair and right.

Until you abolish political gangs, you will never have freedom.
edit on 28-12-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope the better schools are in the cities as cities tend to grow around places of higher education.
And the poor can get scholarships and financial aid. Stop.


I really like your blog Candice you are a real winner.

www.tsroadmap.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope the better schools are in the cities as cities tend to grow around places of higher education.
And the poor can get scholarships and financial aid. Stop.


I went to a paid private school that had classrooms from K-12 in NY city. We had math teachers who failed the entire class because they couldn't do math, and this was a step up from the public school system where teachers would instigate fist fights among students.

The curriculum's are better in the NORTH, not in the Cities, and your education is only as good as your aptitude ANYWHERE. There is no such thing as "Better schools" -- there are just schools that fudge numbers, there are schools that don't accept low aptitude students. That doesn't make the school better, that just makes their data look better.

Same with colleges. Take computer application programming as a master in Edison State College in FL or at MIT, and you're going to come out knowing how to program if your aptitude allows it.

MIT isn't better because they don't accept bad students. The entire reason they don't accept "bad" students is so they can charge ridiculous sums of money, not because their education system is better.

School sucks everywhere because none of them really care. Teachers hate students, students hate teachers, the ones that get a long do well -- everyone else "slips through the cracks." It's a problem with the central idea and concept of how we educate. From standardized testing all the way to the cost of degrees being upside down on the return investment, the education industry is just about making profit for the schools [private schools] brainwashing kids to rely on the state and pushing them through the legal system [public schools] and wracking up insurmountable debts for the students [Universities.]

So you got that right? Public schools brainwash your kids to rely on the government, the ones that buck the brainwashing get turned into criminals. Private schools just steal your money whilst claiming higher education, and university is a scam from day one.

The Department of Education's main mission goal is to actually NOT educate students, but to brainwash them to state narratives and force them to depend on the state -- this is why the Public school system in America is such an on going atrocity -- it's by design, and I'd say in Urban centers the public school system is infinitely worse than rural areas, despite having an accelerated curriculum.
edit on 28-12-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
my theory is that people move to big cities because they are lazy.

everything is done for them in the cities,they don`t even have to own a car they can have other people drive them to where they want to go,taxi cabs, buses,etc.
everything is within walking distance, restuaraunts,shops,fast food, grocery stores,etc

There are so many little day to day things that need to be done when living in a rural environment that city people would be too lazy to do.
even lazy people who were born and raised in rural areas move to cities.you don`t see many lazy people in rural areas because they don`t survive very well or for very long before moving to a city.

If it was about money all the welfare people would move OUT of the cities because most rural areas have a much lower cost of living,so their welfare dollars would stretch a lot farther.

I think a lot of city dwellers don`t even realize it themselves that they are or have become lazy in a lot of ways.



edit on 28-12-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join