Steele says White Republicans are scared of black folkFollow

Well, it's good to hear someone admit it, anyway No real point here, it just made me laugh. Ah, Michael Steele -- you so cray-zeeh!

I always thought I loved potato salad 'cause I was a big ******. Turns out, I'm black!

I'm in for all of them, although the collard greens are just going to get eaten first so I can enjoy the rest of my meal. I'll wash them down with the white soda.

There is a reason why minorities tend to favor Democrats more than Republicans. It's not necessarily because they're more racist, although that is mostly true. It's mostly because any rational person can see that Republicans tend to not support laws that promote civil and equal rights. They fought school integration, they fought the civil rights amendment, they fought (and continue to fight) hate crime legislation, etc. Makes sense to me.

IMO, only self hating women, LGBTQ folks, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, etc. vote Republican. Granted there are a few Republicans out there that aren't too bad (as well as Democrats who are), but they are few and far between.

As scared as white Pubbies are of white Dems, I imagine them poking black Pubbies and howling and running away.

Yes. Although I made a mistake. There is one Republican on the list.


Yup.


San Jose, El Paso, Honolulu, Austin, New York (I), Louisville, San Diego (R), San Antonio, San Francisco, Fort Worth. I marked the one Independent and one Republican on there. The rest are Democrats. By the way, Chicago doesn't make any top ten lists (dangerous or safe)


Whole bunch of reasons. Probably varies by city as well. I assume, for instance, that the union factor is stronger in Chicago than it is in New Orleans. There is the minority population which tends to lean Democrat. There's the fact that people in larger urban areas tend towards the liberal end of the spectrum on social issues. Yadda yadda. Whole books have been writtena bout this so you're not likely to find a comprehensive answer in a forum post.

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 8:51pm by Jophiel

That wasn't my claim. I said that 80% of the safest cities in the US had Democratic leadership. In fact, given the tendancy for larger urban areas to have Democratic leadership, I'd wager that many of the safest cities in the nation have Democratic mayors (likewise, most of the worst cities will have Democratic leaders; the short answer is most large urban areas period have Democratic leaders). And, again, Chicago doesn't even rank. I mean, if you're trying to make some claim that Democrats are destroying the nations cities and driving them into crime ridden hell-holes, pick... I dunno... Gary, Indiana or something.


Ummm.... ok. This doesn't change the fact that the cities have Democratic mayors.

As for New York, the guy running the show now is an Independent.

BD is a tool.

Despite Austin being in Texas, it is a fairly liberal city. I've heard conservatives say they hate it because it is "too liberal". An local fixture is Leslie Cochran, an old guy who loves to run around in a bikini and heels.



Edited, Nov 13th 2009 4:25pm by Sweetums

No. You said 90%. You conveniently skipped the one republican city.



Yup. Which perhaps means that your conclusion isn't valid. Care to look at the mayorship of the top 10 most dangerous cities with population over 500k?

As you stated, most large cities are run by Democrats, which doesn't at all contradict what Theif said initially. The question is whether or not they are run well. And frankly, it's hard to make a relative measurement given that so many are run by Democrats.

Does this data show that if more large cities were run by Republicans instead that we might have safer cities with lower poverty rates? Nope. But neither does it discount that theory. That's kinda the relevant bit since you pulled this statistic out as a counter to Thief's statement that the people would be better off if more Republicans were in charge.



To be fair, it's also somewhat irrelevant what party the Mayor is. You have to also look at city councils, state legislatures, state governors, and the US congress and president, then look for laws and regulations which may affect the citizens of those cites, assess which ones were helpful and which were harmful, and then look at which party supported or opposed those things. It's vastly more complex than just looking at who is the elected mayor of a given city right at this moment.


I think it's reasonable to look at the broad domestic policies of the Dems versus the GOP and make an argument that GOP policies would result in less poverty and crime overall. The Dems tend to take a "clean up after the fact" approach to social issues, while the GOP tends to look at creating conditions which reduce the rate at which the problem occurs in the first place. You're free to disagree (and I'm sure you do), but your disagreement doesn't automatically debunk the position.