Which of the big 3 cities is the most conservative: NYC, LA or Chicago?

[nei]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

exactly. thats what you get when ny runs the media for ya. they can ignore staten island and deflect focus on appalachia, the west, the midwest, etc.. is it any wonder trump's win caught the manhattan-centric parochial national media business here so off guard? its a peeve and it makes me sick sometimes how biased and lazy it can be. my favorite bias is from back when the ny/nj waterfront had industrial pollution fires going somewhere every day into the 1980s, but oh no cleveland has one effing fire in the cuyahoga river and it's the burning water city.

interesting never heard it was so bad. You got any good links on that?

But seeing "NY reporter goes to Trump country"; usually involving going 100s of miles away was so absurd when they could go 20 miles away. Staten Island is probably less unrepresentative of US politics.

[Leo the Dog]

Staten Island is geographically close to Monmouth and Ocean County NJ, both of which voted for Trump.

In addition, on Long Island, Trump easily won highly populated Suffolk County, lost Nassau, but if you combine Suffolk with Nassau, Trump's margin of victory is 603,900 votes to HRC's 584,200 or 19,700 more votes.

With that said, I don't believe the recent Presidential election results is an accurate barometer for measuring a region's level of conservatism.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by nei

But seeing "NY reporter goes to Trump country"; usually involving going 100s of miles away was so absurd when they could go 20 miles away. Staten Island is probably less unrepresentative of US politics.

Yeah that reporter could've driven to Putnam or Orange counties as well.

[maru2501]

of course he would win orange county. probably also took giant comb-over county

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That doesn't make any sense as 1. NY State had a significantly lower proportion of Trump voters than Illinois and 2. About half the NYC metro isn't in NY State.

Trump did (relatively) well on Long Island because of the unique demographics, not because of a home-state advantage. Long Island has tons of Orthodox Jews, South Italians and Russians. If you draw down to census tract you see he won where those groups predominate. Note that Westchester had few Trump voters; it also doesn't have nearly as many such ethnic enclaves.

If anything, Trump is least popular where he's best known (he got destroyed in Manhattan; I think worse than any urban county in the U.S.).

He was/is a rockstar in Upstate New York. I was back home for my gran's funeral a few months ago and I noticed far more Trump signs (sometimes multiples in the same yard) than anywhere around here in TX. My wife, a Texan, even noted this as well. Had it not been NYC, NYS would have probably voted for Trump or been a very very close race. Like Florida close.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by JManc

He was/is a rockstar in Upstate New York. I was back home for my gran's funeral a few months ago and I noticed far more Trump signs (sometimes multiples in the same yard) than anywhere around here in TX. My wife, a Texan, even noted this as well. Had it not been NYC, NYS would have probably voted for Trump or been a very very close race. Like Florida close.

Much like Pennsylvania... except PA did go for the buffoon thanks to normally solid blue suburbs and the always red rural areas. Signs were everywhere, particularly noticeable once you got about 2 miles outside of any city. Blue collar (former) democrats there voted for him in large numbers.


But how about we stop talking about this asshole?

[nei]

Originally Posted by JManc

He was/is a rockstar in Upstate New York. I was back home for my gran's funeral a few months ago and I noticed far more Trump signs (sometimes multiples in the same yard) than anywhere around here in TX. My wife, a Texan, even noted this as well. Had it not been NYC, NYS would have probably voted for Trump or been a very very close race. Like Florida close.

Is it possible lawn signs aren't done that much in Texas? Where I grew up on Long Island does lawn signs less New England. I saw lots of Trump signs in rural New England even though he lost there.

Saw someone do the numbers for NY State, and with NY City removed, Trump would have lost slightly. 2012 Obama won upstate NY by about 9 points or so.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Trump did (relatively) well on Long Island because of the unique demographics, not because of a home-state advantage. Long Island has tons of Orthodox Jews, South Italians and Russians. If you draw down to census tract you see he won where those groups predominate. Note that Westchester had few Trump voters; it also doesn't have nearly as many such ethnic enclaves.

Is there a difference between Westchester Italians and LI Italians?

If anything, Trump is least popular where he's best known (he got destroyed in Manhattan; I think worse than any urban county in the U.S.).

Manhattan is a horrible fit for Trump, regardless of his living there.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The outer Chicago neighborhoods have a very different typology. They're basically "cop neighborhoods" and tend to vote Dem, but are quite conservative by most measures. Again, I'm highly skeptical an Irish-American cop/firefighter neighborhood in Chicago is more liberal than an Italian or Russian neigborhood in NYC, even if the Presidential voting patterns differ somewhat.

45% of white police officers in NYC live in the city while 76% of minority police officers do

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...es-they-serve/

NYPD is 55% white

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ents.html?_r=0

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nei

45% of white police officers in NYC live in the city while 76% of minority police officers do

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...es-they-serve/

NYPD is 55% white

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ents.html?_r=0

Well, yeah, plenty of cops (and other city workers) live in NYC.

After all, most city workers have to live within the state during their employment (but not the city, and there are many exceptions to the state rule), and NYC comprises the majority of the population of the NYS portion of the NYC metro.

But in Chicago (and many other cities) all workers have to live in city limits, no exceptions, which creates "cop neighborhoods", usually on the city fringes. NYC doesn't have an exact equivalent. In Chicago 100% of city workers are in the city; in NYC maybe's it's 60%+ (if cops are representative of city worker residency). There are certain fringe neighborhoods on Staten Island and far Northeast Queens that are maybe a slightly lesser version of "cop neighborhoods", but not quite to the same extent. If you want the burbs, you can go to the burbs.

This, alongside lower immigration, and less gentrification, has also preserved a bit more of the "old school insular white ethnic neighborhood" typology in Chicago, IMO. Northeast Queens is rapidly becoming Asian. South Shore of Staten Island is still white ethnic but lightly populated. Most of formerly white ethnic Brooklyn is at least as diverse as Queens these days. Far Northeast Bronx was white ethnic; now looks like Queens. If a neighborhood is cheap and safe and within 50 miles of Times Square it will get immigrants.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But in Chicago (and many other cities) all workers have to live in city limits...

Really? That's interesting; I wonder what the reasoning for that is?

In Los Angeles, that's definitely not the case. One does not have to live in a particular city to work for it. A lot of LAPD, for example, live in the suburbs, and even live outside of Los Angeles County. I've applied for jobs in various other cities in southern California and having to be a resident of those cities was never a requirement.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Really? That's interesting; I wonder what the reasoning for that is?

I always thought it was the logic "if taxpayers are going to pay your salary/benefits, you should be required to live in the jurisdiction". Also it favors existing city residents over outsiders.

Probably also an attempt to keep middle-income households in the city, especially in the face of urban decline. In many cities, if you didn't have these laws, you would have fewer middle class neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

In Los Angeles, that's definitely not the case. One does not have to live in a particular city to work for it.

In NYC, a few departments (like NYPD) require state, but not city residency (I know this would be irrelevant in LA, but in NYC it matters because there are three other states within commuting distance), while others (I think teachers and most municipal workers) have no residency requirements whatsoever.

Even heads of city agencies aren't required to live in NYC. I know a deputy commissioner at a city department who lives in Princeton, NJ.

I still think most workers live in the city, though, just because of convenience. I imagine the same is true in LA.

[Xing]

Garbage.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If anything, Trump is least popular where he's best known (he got destroyed in Manhattan; I think worse than any urban county in the U.S.).

San Francisco County also gave him only 9% of the vote and only 8% in Prince George County outside D.C.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Chicago is undoubtedly the most conservative city of the three in terms of culture, but is probably as liberal if not moreso than the other two when it comes to politics. By culturally conservative I mean people here have very down to earth Midwestern sensibilities in terms of lifestyle, values, style, thrift, you name it. But when it comes to their political views, they are probably almost more solidly liberal since most people who live here feel they are marooned on a dessert island of liberalism in a sea of conservatives, which is basically true. But that political leaning certainly does not translate to alignment with coastal cultural values. This could probably be said for most major Midwestern cities. Places like Madison, Milwaukee, Minneapolis probably give even the bluest coastal city a run for their money in terms of liberal political fervor, but are anomalies in a vast sea of conservatism. But even in these liberal bastions the conservatism still translates into a very different set of cultural norms.

[Phil McAvity]

I would say Chitown

[eschaton]

In NYC the white voter base, with the exception of Manhattan and the gentrified third of Brooklyn, is Republican-leaning. This is why Guiliani and Bloomberg were able to win. All you need to do is peel off some rich socially liberal (but economically neoliberal) Manhattanites and you have a coalition which can theoretically outvote people of color and white leftists.

LA was probably historically the most conservative of the three cities. Certainly whites in Southern California as a whole are still around as conservative as whites in say Arizona. And the city had a Republican mayor as recently as 2001. But over time the massive white flight out of the city (and the region) has changed it from a Republican-leaning to a solidly Democratic area.

Chicago has been a one-party city since the 1930s. Chicago was also unique, because while the corrupt "political machines" collapsed elsewhere in the country in the 1940s, they continued to rule Chicago up through the 1980s. Thus there's a lot more cultural momentum keeping working-class whites as part of the Democratic Party in Chicago than in the other two cities.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by nei

Is it possible lawn signs aren't done that much in Texas? Where I grew up on Long Island does lawn signs less New England. I saw lots of Trump signs in rural New England even though he lost there.

Saw someone do the numbers for NY State, and with NY City removed, Trump would have lost slightly. 2012 Obama won upstate NY by about 9 points or so.

When you say "upstate" are you just counting everything above rockland and westchester counties and leaving out NYC, long island and those two counties?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In NYC the white voter base, with the exception of Manhattan and the gentrified third of Brooklyn, is Republican-leaning. This is why Guiliani and Bloomberg were able to win.

Giuliani and Bloomberg had totally different constituencies though, and both were lifelong Democrats and Bloomberg was to the left of most Dems.

Giuliani's base was Outer Borough ethnic whites (not massively different from Trump's base, though Guiliani was radically different back then). Bloomberg's base was Manhattan and gentrified neighborhoods, and, originally, blacks.

Also, hard to compare, because when Giuliani won (1994) NYC was totally different than when Trump won. Many of the neighborhoods that led to Giuliani no longer have the same demographic. Italian and Irish neighborhoods have given way to Hasidic and polyglot neighborhoods. Many are actually more conservative, in a way, but not really comparable.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I always thought it was the logic "if taxpayers are going to pay your salary/benefits, you should be required to live in the jurisdiction". Also it favors existing city residents over outsiders.

Probably also an attempt to keep middle-income households in the city, especially in the face of urban decline. In many cities, if you didn't have these laws, you would have fewer middle class neighborhoods.

also if someone is a public servant in a particular city, they will have a greater stake in seeing it succeed if they are a resident.