Blue States are blue due to Blue Cities.... Blue Cities are blue because of Black People

from an anonymous blogger at Jack n Jill today

We live in an Urban Archipelago...

The Red State-Blue State paradigm is erroneous

America is PURPLE

The Demographic Divide in PA is exaggerated propoganda and just more of the same "Obama can't win because White people won't vote for him" NONSENSE.

Quit bemoaning the lost cause of Reagan Democrats... the gun-toting xenophobe vote... and GET WITH THE REAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY BASE.

The cities are the future... whether we ascribe to what the RightWingers call "multi-culturalism" or not... this is the reality on the ground.

AMERICA IS THE WORLD... we look like the world and we ARE like the world.

our politics should reflect that.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813

Black and Blue.

:-)

That the first rule of any great shaman is that the great shaman gives a great gift to the one who is afflicted.

Maybe we all need to give a great gift to Bush, to somehow heal this man.

Of course, I have never laid claim to being a shaman (only to being oracular) but still!

I remember as a young teenager seeing Johnny Carson on TV with the Maharishi. Carson said, "But what if Hitler came to you - what would you do with Hitler?"

Maharaishi answered "Simply teach him to meditate, tell him to meditate."

one time only

The day of the dominant white man is past. The future is in the hands of multicultural multiethnic gender-neutral Americans. (That doesn't mean that the dominant white man won't go out kicking and screaming.)

EDIT: I wish it were due to Bloo people, but alas, that would also be false. :(

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813

in the original article, not archived, there was a county by county map, like this one but up close...

the only exception is the Reservations of Indigenous People

it's not false...

I give you New Orleans (formerly) a Blue Island in the heart of Klan Country

(C'mon! It was FUNNY! :P)

thus I refute you

however... blues is good

in fact... you can get arrested in Texas for possession of the Blues

except Austin... I think it's only a misdemeanor there

my ex-GF is from one of the oldest Black Families in Seattle... her uncle was the first black mayor in WA - Pioneer Days is their family reunion

wonderful wonderful folks... can't go anywhere with her without running into family and family friends

(Laugh damn you! Laugh!)

older no wiser

yup

you can't tell from there... but I laugh way too much

it's annoying

New Orleans prior to Katrina consisted of blacks and Catholic old money. It still does, except there are less blacks now. The area to the east of New Orleans is Catholic. In fact, for this reason it has always been at odds with the rest of Mississippi. The area west of New Orleans, well that is Acadiana, Catholic and the heart of Cajun country.

I only say this because the Catholics in this region would rightfully take offense to being called "Klan Country". The Klan was against us too.

It's the very heavy black turnout in those two areas for the Democrat candidate that keeps this state from going into the Red.

"Reagan Democrats" are not Democrats. They are Independents and Republicans that usually vote Republican on social issues. There are still a considerable number of blue-collar workers that vote Democratic. Hillary is winning these people in primaries, largely because her last name is Clinton. There is no reason to believe that they won't vote for Obama in the GE. There is also no reason to believe that "Reagan Democrats" will vote for Hillary in the GE.

You are correct that the future of the Democratic Party is the growth in urban and suburban areas. Virginia and New Hampshire are becoming blue states because of this.

it just makes me CRAZY

I didn't mean blue collar, when I said gun toting xenophobe

I'm referring to the mythological demographic of Reagan Democrats

Reagan Democrats became Republicans

and they still are

not African Americans. The same goes for our increasing strength on the West Coast to a lesser extent because the primary factor there is the Hispanic vote which will soon become the largest non-white voting demographic.

as being THE essential demographic.

Oh shit, I'm crying . . .

((((Patrice))))

Maybe the same number of Asians and Hispanics. You idea does ring true of the big cities, but not all.

Where you live may be called a "city" but it hardly qualifies as a major urban area. The OP is correct about the impact of the AA population on making cities blue.

Edit: I meant this as a response to a response, not the OP.

I am in a suburb of Boston, but a city nonetheless.

Pennsylvania - IMHO many of the counties Clinton carried will not go to a Dem or will be close at best. I think Obama can capture most of the counties Kerry had, and can even add a couple like the county with Penn State University. In PA the counties where Kerry prevailed had decent sized cities. Many have a good-sized African-American population.



Below is the 2004 map Kerry vs. Bush.

good post

I grew up in the Bay Area. Yes, there are a lot of black people in the Bay Area, and they are SOLIDLY Democratic. Most of them migrated out of the South to work in the shipyards during World War II and never left.

I haven't studied the issue, so I can't give you facts or numbers, but my impression is that there's a self-segregation that takes place in cities. People who are gay, people who love culture, people who love academia, people who want to work in the tech field, and most of all, people who grew up in shitty little towns out in the sticks that didn't have any of these things... all of them move TO the Bay Area.

People who move AWAY from the Bay Area are (my intuition tells me) are people who are scared of minorities, Christians who feel that their values are under attack, young families looking for affordable housing and batter schools... it's your basic white flight.

It creates a self-segregating community where liberals are attracted to the Bay Area and conservatives are repelled.

We're talking regions here, to include suburbs (the new ghettos)... Gays fixed it up spiffy doodle... everyone got shoved to Oakland, Hayward, South Peninsula.

crankychatter <<<< West Bay Grease

The "white flight" folks are not politically the same as the people coming into areas and gentrifying them. :shrug:

This is utter nonsense.

OK then, if blue states are blue because of black people, explain RI and VT - nice to know us white people are holding everything back.

This is just as wrong as it would be if it tried to say the exact opposite -- like freepers saying the only thing saving this country is the white vote.

Both arguments make me sick and further divide people. But hey, if that's the agenda, good on 'ya!

They are anomalies - the two classic examples of states that don't fit the pattern. I think New Jersey is the only state that has been solidly Democratic since before the Civil War. Lincoln had a hard time there, and the Whigs before that. Last northern state to abolish slavery too, IIRC.

White New England goes Dem more so than the rest of the country. Interesting. Then there is New Hampshire, the most solidly Republican state for over 100 years.

Why does New England, and New Jersey not fit the pattern? Tradition? I don't know. There is a political stability there that you don't find in the rest of the country.

this is the irrefutable wave of the future and present demographic

Vermont? Oh, where they think Lieberman is liberal?

Well you can deny the facts... but I suggest a tour of America... roll down the windows once in a while

state now.

With my state - RI

And no matter anti-Clinton people want to spin that RI sucks because of the primary, let me point out, Kerry's largest margin of victory in the 2004 election was in RI.

Bush's lowest approval ratings (currently 15%) have been in RI since 2001 -- RI, by getting rid of a very popular Senator (Chafee, who voted AGAINST the IWR) helped turn the senate to the D's --

It's one of the most liberal and reliably dem states in the country and while we're not as lily white as we once were, we're still mostly white.

BUt that kinds of deflates your white people suck post, so I guess we'll ignore these facts.

Oh, and name the 4 states who voted for Carter, not Reagan in 1980 - yup, one of them was RI.

But you just go ahead and say whatever you want without facts to back you up.

EVERY SINGLE GROUP in the coalition is needed. Gah - people trying to split the fucking party with this NONSENSE make me want to scream!

can you speak without misrepresenting the facts?

You're a real gem, aren't 'ya?

So the most liberal state in the country is racist?

I'm racist?

Nice to know.

GTFO

ya big goof

The Democratic coalition is complicated. It is true that we would have a very hard time without the black vote, but we would also have a damn hard time if we didn't win post-graduates or get half the Catholic vote and so on. No single group makes our coalition. It is a cooperative venture. Black votes certainly are a necessary, but not sufficient condition to victory with our current coalition.

The gay vote is important, the single woman vote is important, the poor vote, the working class vote, the pro-choice vote, the liberal christian vote, the atheist vote -- how ever you break it down, every single part of the coalition is needed and dividing it further is the very last thing we can afford.

Atheists and agnostics are now nearly as large a segment of our vote as African Americans(I know there is a certain amount of overlap) are in a huge number of states and larger in some. Secular voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic(70-30 or so) and are often 11-15% of the vote. As such without them, many elections would be lost.

The same goes for gay voters, and the rest of what you mentioned. No single group has a claim to being the lifeblood of the party.

But I agree with the o/a sentiment that the cities are the future and the AA populations has played a huge role as the most dedicated, dependable Democratic voter.

This is why I found it strange when I read that Mayor Nutter supported Clinton because he thought she had a good plan for cities, better than Obama, when he has swept many cities. The only ones he didn't were very early on in the process when he was still making his mark.

the monied interests are behind Clinton and the old school machinery

even if she loses... supporting her will pay off... see?

yes generalizations are erroneous... NO STATE is all one way or the other

they're necessary in certain sciences... polling, demographics, sociology

I'm just saying, the conventional MSM paradigms are editorially driven by propogandists

see?

like NH over there saying I'm saying people are racists because they're republicans or live in states with a small black population

that person is overly indoctrinated and projecting

THANKS for posting it. :thumbsup:

I'm not dogmatic

and it doesn't say genius anywhere on my resume'

well, it might... but I was sleep deprived when I wrote it

I think it depends on what region of the country one is talking about. Where I live, the Democrat base is mostly a middle aged person of the working or middle class, who attends church 'bout weekly, tends to be pro-life (my Dem Representative is almost as pro-life as the Pope), is very supportive of the military and may be a card carrying member of the NRA or at least be gun friendly. This isn't Obama country and I suspect even Hillary would have a tough time here in the GE given her views on gun control and abortion.

In Mississippi, the vast majority of the Democratic electorate is African American. In New Mexico, it is Hispanic. You are absolutely right. This is a coalition party. If any one group falls away, we don't win.

If they hadn't questionably put a cap on Congressional Representation... the Congress would be looking like an Asian Parliament.

you don't have to like it...

but it's irrefutable.

explain those blue states, then, I guess.