Home › Blogs › Chris Palko's blog ›

A Tale of Two Metropolitan Areas: Part One

Submitted by Chris Palko on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 00:41
in

The Philadelphia Metro Area

For over a century, the Philadelphia area was one of the strongholds of the Republican Party.  In the time period between the Civil War and the New Deal, Southeastern Pennsylvania produced margins that made Pennsylvania an overwhelmingly Republican state.  After the New Deal, Philadelphia's Republican machine switched to a Democratic machine, but the collar counties surrounding Philadelphia remained Republican all the way through the Reagan era.

Over the last twenty years, suburban Philadelphia has shifted from being predominately Republican to increasingly Democratic.  While I have my explanations for what accounts for this change, for now I am focusing on the data, not policy recommendations.  What I aim to do is to perform a detailed electoral analysis of each of the four counties outside Philadelphia.

Delaware County: Population (2000): 550,864, Bush 1988 Percentage: 59.9%, McCain 2008 Percentage: 38.8%

Delaware County is one of the smallest counties in Pennsylvania, adjoining to South and West Philadelphia.  The core components of the county are a) small, first-tier boroughs near the City line, b) depressed Chester and surrounding municipalities, c) upper-middle class suburban townships, and d) wealthy Main Line communities like Radnor and Haverford Townships.

John McCain only won lighter populated townships in the western part of the county, and by small margins.  McCain's best municipality in the county only gave him 56.3 percent of the vote.  He defeated Barack Obama in only 9 of the county's 49 municipalities.  What is worse is McCain's performance in the Delaware County portion of the Main Line.  Radnor and Haverford are two of the four largest municipalities in the county and were the definition of the Republican Party for over one hundred years.  No more.  McCain could earn no more than 40 percent of the vote in these communities.  McCain also lost slightly less prosperous suburban townships like Ridley and Nether Providence.

Not all Republicans fared as bad as McCain did.  Tom Corbett, the Attorney General, ran about 10 points ahead of McCain in the Philadelphia area.  I am using Corbett's performance as a comparison to show what a minimum winning Republican coalition looks like in the collar counties.  Corbett was able to win the Main Line and the rest of the suburbs outside of Chester and the boroughs immediately outside Philadelphia.  Corbett was able to win 30 of the 49 municipalities, including every major township except for first-tier Upper Darby Township.

Montgomery County: Population (2000): 750,097, Bush 1988 Percentage: 60.2%, McCain 2008 Percentage: 39.2%

Montgomery County is the largest of the suburban Philadelphia counties.  Montgomery County features long established inner suburbs like Abington and Cheltenham Townships.  The south and west axis of the county is the Schuylkill River, which runs through county seat Norristown before forming the border between Montgomery County and Chester County.  A portion of the Main Line exists in Lower Merion and Narbeth.  The northeastern corner of the county is exurban, developing within the past two decades.

Republicans have been pushed to the periphery in recent years: only Upper Montgomery away from the Schuylkill River is reliably Republican anymore.  McCain won only 11 of 62 municipalities in Montgomery County.  He lost the 23 most populated municipalities in the county, failing to win a municipality with more than 13,000 people.  This was a disaster for the McCain campaign.

As with Delaware County, McCain had an abysmal performance on the Main Line.  Lower Merion Township is the richest and largest municipality in the county, and McCain won a measly 29 percent of the vote there.  Even Corbett could only get 39 percent of the vote, showing how far away they have drifted from the Republican Party.  This produces a vote deficit so large that almost no Republican can overcome it.  Even upper-middle class suburbia found in such entities as the North Penn School District are now lost to Republicans.  Corbett was able to roughly split this crucial grouping of communities; McCain averaged only about 40 percent.

Bucks County: Population (2000): 597,635, Bush 1988 Percentage: 60.0%, McCain 2008 Percentage: 45.2%

Bucks County was the least traditionally Republican of these counties, possessing a strong Democratic Party post-WWII due to the presence of a Levittown in Lower Bucks.  But now, Bucks County is the most Republican of the collar counties.  In the past three elections, the Republican presidential candidate earned between 45-46 percent of the vote.

Lower Bucks is predominately Democratic, though not overwhelmingly so.  Places like Bensalem, Bristol, and Falls Townships, which are essentially North Northeast Philadelphia, are the most Democratic areas.  Middle Bucks is centered on Doylestown and the surrounding suburban townships.  This is the swing area of the county and Obama's victory was earned here.  Corbett was able to earn about 58 percent in the area made up of the sprawling Central Bucks School District.  Upper Bucks is now the most reliably Republican area in Metro Philadelphia.  McCain was able to win nearly all of the townships there, but the margins aren't enough to offset gains in the middle of the county.

There is more hope for Republicans in Bucks County than in any other of the counties mentioned here.  The drop-off in the Bush years was insignificant, even as other collar counties turned away from Republican candidates in droves.  One advantage with Bucks is that there is nowhere in the county that is really poor.  The major town, Doylestown, is mostly middle-class, making it much more affluent than, say, Chester or Norristown.  Also, not much of the county is dead set against Republicans.  Only Lower Bucks (and only certain parts) provide Democrats with big margins.  First-tier suburbs here are more amenable than in other counties.  Middle Bucks requires a swing of a few percentage points and Upper Bucks, even in a miserable 2008, voted Republican, though the margins need to be improved.

Chester County: Population (2000): 433,501, Bush 1988 Percentage: 67.0%, McCain 2008 Percentage: 45.0%

Chester County is the most exurban part of the metro area.  There are a few mid-sized towns such as West Chester, Coatesville, Downingtown, and Phoenixville.  But most of the county is composed of residential suburbs.  This is among the fastest growing areas in Pennsylvania and is the richest county in the state.

It was once one of the most Republican counties in the state.  It gave Nixon 64, 57, and 68 percent of the vote in 1960, 1968, and 1972 respectively; 61 and 70 percent to Reagan; and 67 percent to the elder Bush.  Those large margins are gone, though it was the only one of these counties to vote for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.  2008 was a historic reversal, as McCain ran 7 points behind Bush's 2004 performance, becoming the first Republican presidential candidate to lose in Chester County since 1964.

In the case of Chester County, it appears there are more genuine temporary Republican defections than in other parts of the metro area, where more permanent ideological changes have occured.  If any part of suburban Philadelphia was affected by the housing market crash, it was a fast growing county like Chester.  Corbett was able to win the county by a near reverse of the presidential margin.  McCain won only 25 of the 73 municipalities in the county.  However, in another 24 municipalities McCain earned between 45 to 49.3 percent of the vote.  Surely all of these municipalities were Republican in the past, and should not be too difficult to have them return to the fold.

McCain only won western townships in school districts like Octorara and Twin Valley.  These are still mostly rural areas which are closer to Lancaster than Philadelphia.  The most populated suburban areas were won by Obama.  The Chester County component of the Main Line (Tredyffrin Twp., Easttown Twp., Willistown Twp., and Malvern) was won by Obama, though by slight margins.  Obama ran up strong margins in the towns and was able to win over most of the important townships outside of West Chester, Downingtown, and Phoenixville.

The poor showing of John McCain and the national Republican Party in the Philadelphia suburbs is the top reason why Pennsylvania has increasingly become a Democratic state.  In the next part however, we can see there is a different story to tell in the Pittsburgh area.

 

4.75
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

Comments

Good Analysis

Submitted by Cahnman on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 01:21.

Although I already knew we've been getting killed in the Philly Suburbs.

How do we fix this while maintaining core values?

Great breakdown

Submitted by Seth on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 04:02.

This is very good analysis with important implications for the GOP, thanks for sharing.

Have their been demograhic changes in some of these places

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 07:14.

IIRC, Cheltlehem Township was already becoming pretty much urbanized even a couple of decades ago. If urban lefties departed Center City for Lower Merion (which is right across City Line Ave.), that would explain this town flipping. of course, in most metros the old line WASP families moved into the exurbs, so the same type of voter was in the metro, just voting a county or so further out on the periphery. This is why the recent collapse in Chester County is troubling.

I think that you also have to consider the ethnicity of some of these places. IIRC, Havertown in Delaware County was very Irish. So, if McCain ran poorly there and Corbett ran well, that might indicate they have become a split ticket vote; as opposed to places with more uniform voting. Given we are talking well north of 1M vote cast in the Philly burbs; trying to ascertain which ethnic groups are flipping or sticking matters for use of campaign resources.  

You also have to consider whether such communities have moved from being nuclear family dominated to single meccas; and whether the local economic base changed (plant closures;corporate relocation; new commuter routes; gentfrication). This might explain the why.

A final note; much of blue state suburbia was highly influenced by the constant drumbeat of negativity from the MSM. I believe people elsewhere in the country probably cannot fully perceive how unfashionable the Republican Party is among the opinion leaders in such communities. And dissing yuppies gets some venting out of the way, but it doesn't change the fact that without the Philly and Detroit burbs flipping back our way we have to thread a very narrow needle to elect anyone POTUS.  Jeez, this is important enough to figure out what news anchor, radio host or newspaper columnist to stroke.

This is a great start Chris, and the party in general needs to do a through post-mortem and immediately fix these deficiencies.

Yes, there have been demographic changes

Submitted by Chris Palko on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 10:34.

Cheltenham Township is basically another Philly neighborhood at this point.  It has about 4,000 people per square mile, which is equivalent to adjoining neighborhoods in the city.  It's African-American population was 25 percent in 2000, so that likely helped push Obama even more.  But it is not poor.  It is about right in the middle of Montgomery County's income rankings, and MontCo is a rather affluent county.

The Main Line was the bastion of the WASP for so long.  Remember The Philadelphia Story?  Or The Official Preppie Handbook?  Even on Mad Men, Betty Draper is a rich princess who went to Bryn Mawr.  I don't know how to dissect WASP vs non-WASP, especially among the white population figure.  But at any rate, the Main Line is now leaning Democratic.

I live on the Main Line

Submitted by ryan.thompson on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 16:25.

As someone who lives on the Mainline, I can testify its still WASP or WASP like Catholics as it has been for decades from what the locals tell me.  The problem is that WASPs are not going Republican any longer.  Lets stress the fact that many are Protestants, but the type of Protestants who have more in common with Catholics and Jews than the Evangelicals and Fundies when it comes to culture.

The population growth in the Main Line has been controlled by strict zoning laws.  We really do not have massive suburban sprall in SEPA.  The terrain makes it not possible.  There are housing developments in the northern parts of Montgomery and western Chester, but they are far a few between.  This is actually true for most of Pennsylvania.  The hilly terrain makes huge developments not possible. 

Fundamentally, the problem on the Main Line is not demographic shifts, but the national party.  Unless the national party deemphasizes the social issues and actually is fiscally responsible, the Democrats will continue to win the major elections while the Republicans will win most state and local races.

da burgh is sprawl central.

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 16:30.

I think pennenvironment (may they be rolled in shit) has done better out near Philly...

But da burgh is in Appalachia, and yet sprawl sprawl sprawl....

There is not any sprawl in

Submitted by ryan.thompson on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 16:38.

There is not any sprawl in Pennsylvania compared to most other states.  You simply do not see the 100+ home subdivisions as you do in other places like Virginia, California, New Jersey, Nevada, Texas, etc...

Philly burbs

Submitted by ryan.thompson on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 08:40.

Chris, I think you pretty much got the basic analysis down, but there are a few other factors at play.

1)  We must remember these counties are largely Republican bastions to this day at the local level.  Republicans control the commission/council in all four county along with a majority of the county row offices.

2)  Republicans in these countries run on a different message than their national counterparts: good government.  These counties are some of the best ran in the country.  The same story can be said for local government.  Lower Merion has a local tax rate below the state average while maintaining great services and schools.  These people might be social liberals or moderates, but they are generally good government fiscal conservatives.

3) The brand of cultural conservative championed by people like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee does not go over well in the Philly burbs.  I helped the McCain and Gerlach campaigns before and after she was chosen as McCain's VP.  Within two weeks of her choice, what was a positive view of McCain went south.  His decline in these counties had little to do with the financial mess because it began before the mess had exploded onto the scene.

4) Numerous reasons explain why Palin does not go over well here.  First, "fundamentalists" do not go over well here.  Church attendance is high in these counties, but its not evangelical or fundamentalist.  Specifically in my parish in Radnor Township, the people in my religious group are borderline scared of "the fundies."  Their view is largely shaped by what they see in the press.  Until the "fundies" improve their image, people in the Philly burbs will not understand them.

Second, people in the Philly burbs are kind of private people.  They really do not care what their neighbors are up to.  The whole social conservative thing just does not fit into the culture well.  I know many very pious people here on the MainLine who are dead set against the application of cultural values by social conservatives.

Third, Palin's bashing of educated people does not go over at all.  Her anti-elitism is seen as anti-educated person.  The Philly burbs are really educated.  Attacking education directly or indirectly is not going to fly.

Conclusion:  As someone who lives in the Main Line, I think the party can recover even in places like Lower Merion.  To do so, the party is going to have to focus on good government and put less emphasis on the values.

re: Philly Burbs

Submitted by Chris Palko on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 10:42.

Thanks Ryan for coming on here and commenting.  Nice to see someone who is living in the Philly area compliment me.  Perhaps I should of mentioned that Republicans still do well on the local level.  I know the state legislative delegations out of these counties are mostly Republican.

For now, I'm not going to get into specific reasons why we have collapsed so much in the area.  I'll let people like you who are knowledgable about the area do that.  You'll see it is a different story in my next post, which is about Western Pennsylvania.

make sure to work in Nate Silver's quote:

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 10:46.

"We're voting for the nigger!"

(seriously, I'm interested in your analysis of that).

Few racists in SEPA

Submitted by ryan.thompson on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 14:23.

I think race had little to do with the results in SEPA (the local term for the Philly region).  Now on the other hand, it had something to do with the results around Pittsburgh I suspect.

truedat

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 14:37.

that quotes from Washington (south of da burgh).

The home of the KKK is in Pennsyltucky.

rockefeller republicans are gone

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 10:45.

warren buffett is gone, too, from the republican party.

I wish you luck, and a perspective from the other half of the state:

In my ultra-liberal ward (we voted Republican for mayor two years ago), about a third of the McCain signs came down when Palin was nominated. They didn't come back, either.

Regarding #3

Submitted by noufa on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 21:13.

It would help to drop the constant bashing of elites. Would bet that it isn't helping us with uneducated voters. University professors overwhelmingly lean left & they deserve to be challenged, especially by the next generation of academics. But politicians childishly mocking academia feeds the narrative that Republicans are stupid.

But I'm curious, why is McCain OK with the voters who are afraid of "fundies"? McCain shares most of Palin's views on abortion, gay marriage & evolution. Yet he seems to get a pass. Was it his branding of Falwell & Robertson as agents of intolerance? Falwell is gone & Robertson is no longer very visible. The MSM is building up Rick Warren as the anti-Falwell. So the next generation of Republican leaders cannot manufacture a similar "Sister Souljah" moment to distance themselves from the religious right.

FWIW, I don't see Palin as a fundamentalist. Part of that disconnect can be attributed to the dishonest whispering campaign against Palin. See:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

Similar smears against Obama didn't work because pop culture outlets took it upon themselves to make light of those claims. Yet they amplified false claims about Palin. Not to whine but we need to know the deck is stacked against us, especially in the mainstream 'burbs.

All to do with perception.

Submitted by ryan.thompson on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 23:38.

McCain is a social conservaitve, but that is not the focus of his politics.  Sarah Palin shoved herself onto the stage as a social conservative with the baby and the daughter.  When people focus on social conservatism, it scares people in the burbs.  Great example of this is Rick Santorum.  He was a social conservative in 1994 when he first ran and won, but it did not become the focus of his politics until the second term (2000-2006).  He went from winning every county in SEPA except Philadelphia to losing practically every county in the state.

I don't know about YOUR field

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 10:15.

but university proffessors in mine ain't exactly bleeding heart liberals.

Hard scientists in general overwhelmingly voted Republican for years upon years. That has since changed, but to lump them in with the liberal artsy folks is to do "university professors" a disservice in the extreme. Scientists vote based on two things: which side has the best evidence, and which side favors science (aka job security)

Sarah Palin remains a vindictive son of a bitch with a hell of a mean streak. Her town has problems, what does she do? Participates in a witchhunt. I don't know about fundamentalist, but she's definitely linked to the evangelical Jews for Jesus (Obama converted in an Evangelical church). She's also linked with people who think that Alaska will be some sort of special place during the End Times.

ALSO,  most of us who read DailyKos are well aware that she didn't ban books, that it was a crass political attempt to drive a well-respected librarian out of office because she wasn't willing to take loyalty oaths to the mayor. This dovetails with reports from the Bush Admin on it's Civil Rights division head, who was responsible for driving out 75%!! of it's workforce. Top it all off with the decimation of the Professional Republicans in our intelligence community...

Sarah Palin, just more of the same.

Heritage called for "ideology over competency" ... and that's what you get with Palin. She's a smart critter, no bones about it, but competent ain't exactly the word i'd use for someone who got censured for having her husband stalk her sister's ex-husband (among other things)

noufa, bashing elites has been Standard OperatingProcedure

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 10:19.

for anyone who wants the Scotch Irish vote, since time immemorial. Andrew Jackson, among others, ran on it, and the Scotch Irish eat it up! Problem is, everyone else thinks it's just weird, and maybe a little unnerving.

McCain used to be a better man than he was in 2008. I used to think better of him. I think that mccain's maverick persona swayed a lot of people.

You stacked your deck against yourselves, via a very reactionary campaign. Romney would have been the best strategic choice, bar none. However, he owns three houses, and the fundamentalists would have bolted the party, or at least given it some serious thought. (they don't consider Mormons to be Christians). So, Mccain reacted to that by choosing someone vetted only by Falwell.

Democrats know better than to choose someone from WV, y'all shoulda known better than to choose someone from Alaska. You don't get into politics in either state without being corrupt.

Same for VA

Submitted by cr on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 12:43.

This is a rich topic that can easily be echoed in many places. In my case, VA and MD suburbs outside of DC. I don't think the republican brand is the problem in those areas, but republican dynamics.

First thing to think about is that the living circumstances in these areas have changed. Perspectives and solutions change with population density. The answers people are looking for are different when your neighbor shares are wall with you, lives below you and lives above you. When your neighbor lives down the road, you don't bother them, they don't bother you. Since Dems don't have a plank, they in one sense can have an answer for anything. Reps have plank with is a strong coordinating factor, but is also a limiting factor. I think if Reps shed the non-plank plank, they may be able to come back. What is the non-plank plank? Some things I see.

1. Intelligence. People dislike Bush because he looks dumb and sounds dumb. And for those here that think all libs/dem/whatever hate Bush no matter what he did, he had extrordinary high polls after 9/11. And he got about zero obstruction on Afghanistan. Iraq, torture, Chaney . . . coupled with his inability to comminicate outside his base put a sour taste even in moderates mouth. Whatever you think about Palin, she couldn't talk coherantly about serious subjects. Republicans have to put credibility ahead of ideology . . . at least for a little while. Along with this, have reason why you do stuff. Why is smaller government better? I know my answer, but I also know why government is big.

2. Have solutions, not slogans. Just like civil rights, gay rights or global warming, Reps don't have an answer for a very large impending problems. Don't get hung up on of the whole 'free-market' b.s. It sounds increasingly thin. Free markets are never the answer in crises situations. And the right, have really come up short on certain subjects. If the public feels that reps big plan on the economic crises is letting the shit hit the fan and see what happens, I see more lost elections.

3. Get rid of the religious dogma, and embrace fluid ideas. Maybe be against marriage, but embrace gays and having equal protection under the law, pro-choice people aren't going to hell, and get rid of the tired old dems=libs=communist slogans. In the last election, it sound old. People in urban areas are synchretic. Being a Dem or Rep doesn't count for much, it's the synthesis of ideas to apply to particular situations that's important. You have the Coke/Pepsi war going on in the pary idealogues when cirtain people have moved on to Honest Tea. And don't make fun of Honest Tea drinkers . .  . you just lost a vote!

4. Related to above, religion is a personal matter; although you can embrace the idea that personal matters have public consequences. "I'm more religious than you" doesn't work in urban areas. And "My religion is better than yours" is not too far behind.

5. Embrace media. All of it. Rather than work intelligently with MSM, conservatives have set up a parallel universe that is even more skewed than the MSM. So now, there's no dialogue. Conservatives listen to conservatives and have a message that only appeals to people who agree with them already. Everyone else goes to three or four websites, flips channels and gets news from two or three outlets. Fox, Rush or NR look like trash in comparason. NPR is has a liberal bent, but it does try to have commentators on both sides of a subject. Fox interviews with dems/libs/whatever are always total hatchet jobs . . . and Rush, not even worth talking about.

Anyway, I'm sure there are other things that don't play well in the suburbs than are increasingly urban.

look deeper at the Demographic numbers

Submitted by superdestroyer on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 14:21.

If you want to explain the differences from 1988 to 2008, the first thing to look at is what percentage of those counties are white.  By guess is that they are much less white than 20 years ago.

The second number is what percentage of the public schools are white. Once a city or county has a school system that is less than 50% white, Republicans have no chance.  Because the moderate white all have their children in very white private school and are not motivated by the same things as blue collar whites with children in public schools. The bluest counties in the U.S. have public schools that are less than 10% white. 

 

Demographics have not changed significantly

Submitted by ryan.thompson on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 14:32.

There has not been a significant demographic shift.  Yes there is more minorities, but they are still in the minority.  Most of the minorities in these areas are not black, but East Asian, South Asian, and Hispanic.  Specifically, the Asian population is exploding in the western suburbs, but the Republicans are still winning by good margins in most of these places. The public schools remain majority white in almost all the suburbs too.

The problem is that Republicans are losing people who were Republicans for decades.  The Republicans have lost 60,000 voters in the three counties surrounding Philadelphia since 2004.  Most of these loses were people who were registered Republican but switched to independent or Democrat not new transplants.

Registration also means nothing now.  More 20% of the registered Republicans in Delaware County did not vote for McCain.  Delaware has 49 percent Republican, 40 percent Democrat, and around 11 percent other/independent, but Obama got almost 60 percent with high turnout.  By that virtue, the Republican should almost automatically win Delaware County with maybe 20 percent of independents needed.  Instead they lose at least 20 percent of Republicans.

We need to get the supposed Obama Republicans back if we are going to win Presidential races in the county ever again.

when you gonna knock on doors?

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 14:40.

pa rep party said they'd be around for anyone who changed parties. Haven't seen hide nor hair of them...

They are not coming back until the party changes

Submitted by ryan.thompson on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 16:35.

It is pretty hard to lose voters whose families have been Republican for generations.  This means it will be hard to get them back without some fundamental reform of the party.

Honestly, the national Republicans should be figuring out why Republicans are successful on the local level here and using it nationally.  These suburbs have great schools, low local taxes, high municipal/county bond ratings, low crime, stable families, etc...  How did they achieve this?  Not by going on moral crusades.  They did this through good government like balancing budgets and sound planning.

I have lived in rural counties in PA and Michigan and see people support these values, but they have higher than average divorce rates, high poverty, high abortion rates, poor schools, etc...

If Republicans were serious on fixing cultural problems, they need to find out why people in the Philly burbs are largely stable and prosperous while other regions that claim to support conservative values are not.  If they want to continue the same model, they need to accept the fact they are going to sink the Republican Party and not achieve their objectives.

It's not just demographics . . . .

Submitted by cr on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 17:30.

If Reps keep trying to beat demographics, nothing will happen. The cultural debates have changed significantly over the last decade. Blame it on the internet . . .  really. The urban areas are connected, the information game has changed. Republicans can't just blame people for the problems america has.

Take gay rights. My grandma lives in a pretty conservative rural town. Even ten years ago, you weren't open and gay in that town. She has your typical drunk, loud redneck family living next to her and then an openly gay couple moved next to her. I'm telling you, there's nothing enlightened about my grandmother. I love her but . . . However, who's she going to like, the rednecks shouting at each other, or the gay guys who shovel her driveway?

Bush just made all of the party flaws aperant. And of course, Dems come up with a credible candidate who is urban and black.

rofl. yeah, one thing about small towners

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 10:22.

though they may think folks they don't know are strange, once they get to know someone, they evaluate them based on who they are.

something that sadly doesn't happen as often in cities.

. . .

Submitted by cr on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 16:37.

that's a big generalization. Again, the dynamic is different. It's easier to be selective in a city because of there's more people closer to you. You also have to be selective because you can't possibly know everyone around you. There's too many people. People also move more int he city as well. And then there's different flavors of neighborhood.  . .

I would say, don't generalize city neighborhoods because they are harder to generalize, much harder than rural neigborhoods. That's why I think being Dem or Rep is more closely aligned to urban/rural than actual ideology. Give me one damn smart conservative and one damn smart liberal, and you'll find fewer differences than most would think. I think the biggest differences is where the two are coming from, approach and style.

. . . . this topic is so dead, but I've been so busy.

yeah, but if you want someone who epitomizes

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 16:46.

the "there are no differences" you should look at Dr. David Brin. Registered Republican. Posts on DailyKos.http://www.davidbrin.com/suggestion.htm

I'm also told he has a very shiny tinfoil hat.

I think that smart liberals and conservatives work pretty well together. Conservatives saying where "hey, are you sure that'll work" and liberals saying "here's what we gotta fix, and here's something, now let's get to fixing it!"

CITOKATE.