Is it better to live in a Democratic or Republican state?

[Borgholio]

My neighbor is a major teabagger. We had an argument the other day that culminated in him saying that life is overall better in a Red state compared to a Blue state. He mentioned Texas as an example of how a Red state has lower crime and more jobs.

A bit of Googling later, turned up that he (as expected) was full of shit. Most of the safest states were Blue, most of the most dangerous states were Red, the states with the highest income per capita and per household were mostly Blue, and the lowest income (poorest) states were mostly Red. As per his example, California ranked higher than Texas in both safety and income.

So that raises a question...does it actually matter if a state is Red or Blue? Or is it more of of a cultural / regional thing regardless of having a Republican or a Democrat in office?

[Ahriman238]

Cultural/regional. You can argue politics is a part of that, and may be a result. But it's certainly not a cause.

[Elheru Aran]

Cultural/regional. You can argue politics is a part of that, and may be a result. But it's certainly not a cause.

Yes; you can have very nice Republican areas and conversely unsafe Democratic areas. Take Detroit, which IIRC is generally blue. Nobody really wants to be there all that much. Arizona, on the other hand, is fairly solidly red, but it's got some pretty nice places to live (if you can stomach the red-stateness of the residents).

While there is probably some correlation to be found I would consider it primarily situational and capable of being explained by other causes for the most part.

[PKRudeBoy]

Really? No one, here of all places, is going to suggest that places governed by a party that at least attempts to address the root causes of poverty and crime might be better off then those governed by a party whose attitudes are, respectively, fuck'em and fuck'em harder? What happened to N&P?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the point is that there are obvious counters like "what about Detroit?"

Inner cities are typically dominated by the Democratic party, simply because blacks overwhelmingly vote against Republicans, for excellent reasons. And yet inner cities are often hellholes. There's not a lot you can do when you're governing a population whose median income is that far into the dumps and where a large fraction of the menfolk are jailbirds or former jailbirds.

Lots of prosperous, comfortable, surburban whitebread districts are dominated by Republicans... and yet are quite comfortable places to live for the average resident, simply because of the high per capita income. There's not a lot you can do wrong in governing such an environment, simply because the citizens have resources to fall back on no matter how badly the government screws up.

[General Zod]

If you look at unemployment rates by state, there's really no correlation between red/blue and unemployment rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... yment_rate

Let's take a look at murder rates: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- ... tate#MRord

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, and South Carolina are in the top 5. With the exception of Michigan those are all pretty solid red states, and the rest are pretty evenly distributed. Doesn't seem to me there's any direct correlation for a the claim of party bias making states more prosperous -or- safer.

[Maraxus]

Political and economic history are both big parts of this problem as well. Look at Mississippi. Until quite recently, the Democratic Party dominated Mississippi politics and the economic populists were the strongest faction. That state actually has a history of governors who manhandled the legislature into trying to do more for the poor. The problem is that Mississippi was and remains dirt poor. There's only so much you can do when your state doesn't have much to begin with, to say nothing of the lax ethics laws that magnify wealth's power.

States are way too big to simply say "Living in Blue states = good, living in Red states = bad." California and Texas are enormous states with a vast difference between cities in them. Borg, I understand you're a fellow Californian. Think about just how different politically similar cities like Fresno and San Jose, to say nothing of extremes like San Francisco basically any city in the Gold Rush counties. You can find good and crappy parts in every city.

Except Lancaster. Everything about Lancaster sucks.

[Channel72]

There seems to be, in general, a correlation between urban living and Democratic voters. All the major cities of the United States tend to vote Democrat; New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. In states where the urban area constitutes the majority of the population, like New York, this means the state is pretty much a solid "blue state", even though upstate New York is mostly hicks who vote Republican. (Sorry.)

That being said, in terms of quality of life, major metropolitan areas are more expensive and more stressful than living somewhere like, say, Arizona, where you can make less than 100K a year and live in a McMansion out in Phoenix. Regardless, I don't think the political spectrum necessarily overlaps much with quality-of-life determinants. But due to the fact that Democratic strongholds tend to be metropolitan areas, you can live a better overall quality-of-life with a lot less income in Republican dominated rural or sub-urban regions, because taxes are less and the real-estate/cost-of-living is cheaper.

Also, the most dangerous areas in the United States are inner-city, poverty stricken hellholes in places like New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles. These places also tend to be Democratic strongholds for obvious reasons.

[General Zod]

Also, the most dangerous areas in the United States are inner-city, poverty stricken hellholes in places like New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles. These places also tend to be Democratic strongholds for obvious reasons.

The most dangerous areas in the US? LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

Okay, I'm done. Except for Detroit you're really flat out wrong. Chicago has a lot of murders, sure, but they tend to be isolated to a few problematic neighborhoods. It's not a systematic, city-wide phenomenon. Frankly your perceptions about what's considered a dangerous city in the US is completely wrong and just makes you look like a massive jackass. Want to visit a dangerous city? Look no further than New Orleans, which ranks right up there with Detroit as murder capital of the US.

[AniThyng]

Also, the most dangerous areas in the United States are inner-city, poverty stricken hellholes in places like New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles. These places also tend to be Democratic strongholds for obvious reasons.

The most dangerous areas in the US? LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOL

Okay, I'm done. Except for Detroit you're really flat out wrong. Chicago has a lot of murders, sure, but they tend to be isolated to a few problematic neighborhoods. It's not a systematic, city-wide phenomenon. Frankly your perceptions about what's considered a dangerous city in the US is completely wrong and just makes you look like a massive jackass. Want to visit a dangerous city? Look no further than New Orleans, which ranks right up there with Detroit as murder capital of the US.

But uh, Isn't NO *also* another one of those democratic stronghold cities regardless?

[General Zod]

But uh, Isn't NO *also* another one of those democratic stronghold cities regardless?

Maybe. But given the overall murder rates of the places he mentioned, Detroit's the only one that's really worth the nod as one of the most dangerous cities in the US. New York and Los Angeles have both seen substantial drops in murder since 1980.

Look at it this way . . . New York's mayor from 1994 to 2007 was Republican and it's seen significant declines in violent crime. The Mayor of Los Angeles has bounced between Republicans and Democrats from the 80s til present and the murder rate has continued to drop. So maybe the party affiliation isn't that indicative?

[Maraxus]

But uh, Isn't NO *also* another one of those democratic stronghold cities regardless?

Maybe. But given the overall murder rates of the places he mentioned, Detroit's the only one that's really worth the nod as one of the most dangerous cities in the US. New York and Los Angeles have both seen substantial drops in murder since 1980.

Look at it this way . . . New York's mayor from 1994 to 2007 was Republican and it's seen significant declines in violent crime. The Mayor of Los Angeles has bounced between Republicans and Democrats from the 80s til present and the murder rate has continued to drop. So maybe the party affiliation isn't that indicative?

Yeah, but they never came close to actually controlling the city. Bloomberg and Giuliani might have ruled NYC, but there was never any question of the NYC Republicans taking over the city council or any of the other city-wide offices. LA is the same way. Big cities have been Democratic strongholds for a very long time, going back to when whites originally fled to the burbs. Now we have a general trend back into those areas, particularly in the SF Bay, NYC, and Philly, we see a lot of youngish whites and people of color moving into the cities, and they all tend to vote Democratic.

C72's thing was silly, though. "inner-city, poverty stricken hellholes" indeed. My job takes me all over LA, and I spend a fair amount of time in South and East LA, home to Compton, Watts, and Inglewood. I've never felt particularly unsafe in any of the neighborhoods, and I'm the pastiest white guy on the planet. Gardena and Riverside have their problems, but they're not exactly Syria on a bad day either.

Again, states are way too complicated on the local level to say "Red State = bad, blue state = good." Colorado is home to both Boulder, a bougie semi-hippie college town, and Colorado Springs, home to revolting evangelicals of every variety and inclination. How would you judge overall quality of life in a state like that?

[AniThyng]

Really? No one, here of all places, is going to suggest that places governed by a party that at least attempts to address the root causes of poverty and crime might be better off then those governed by a party whose attitudes are, respectively, fuck'em and fuck'em harder? What happened to N&P?

But your assertive statement appears to be untrue?

[Channel72]

[Except for Detroit you're really flat out wrong. Chicago has a lot of murders, sure, but they tend to be isolated to a few problematic neighborhoods. It's not a systematic, city-wide phenomenon. Frankly your perceptions about what's considered a dangerous city in the US is completely wrong and just makes you look like a massive jackass. Want to visit a dangerous city? Look no further than New Orleans, which ranks right up there with Detroit as murder capital of the US.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said it was a "city-wide phenomenon". The fact is, NY, Chicago and LA have many extremely dangerous neighborhoods in their metro areas. Far from being a "few problematic neighborhoods", almost the entire South Bronx and Newark, NJ (part of the NY metro area) have ridiculously high crime rates. Newark is arguably worse than New Orleans depending on what stats you use. (And both of those places tend to vote Democrat anyway, so I'm not even sure what your point is.)

[Borgholio]

Except Lancaster. Everything about Lancaster sucks.

I live in Lancaster. Just bought a brand new home there.

...

And yeah, you're absolutely right.

[Tsyroc]

Except Lancaster. Everything about Lancaster sucks.

I live in Lancaster. Just bought a brand new home there.

...

And yeah, you're absolutely right.

It's close to Edwards Air Force Base. That's kind of cool.


My sister has a house in Palmdale, but she isn't living there at the moment because my brother-in-law's job has them moving around a lot.

[Borgholio]

I do see test aircraft from Northrop Grumman. Stealth bomber flew overhead once...that fucker was huge, yet has the radar signature of a small bird. Sky is also dark at night where I live so I can use my telescope to great effect. So not a total loss.

[A-Wing_Slash]

Newark's dangerous and poor overall, but its got a lot of good stuff going on as well. Generally though I'd say blue states are more likely to have things like labor rights, less problematic access to federal benefits (though Oregon might have fucked up its Obamacare stuff), and things like that which may or may not matter to any given individual but can be a big deal for someone who needs it. You certainly see that when gay villages get created. Marriage equality, for example, seems to have had a powerful effect on western massachusetts, just to give an example.

[Channel72]

The only good thing about Newark are the amazing delis and the Ironbound.

[Maraxus]

I do see test aircraft from Northrop Grumman. Stealth bomber flew overhead once...that fucker was huge, yet has the radar signature of a small bird. Sky is also dark at night where I live so I can use my telescope to great effect. So not a total loss.

And don't forget that weird Singing Road that Honda put along Avenue G for some reason.

[Borgholio]

I do see test aircraft from Northrop Grumman. Stealth bomber flew overhead once...that fucker was huge, yet has the radar signature of a small bird. Sky is also dark at night where I live so I can use my telescope to great effect. So not a total loss.

And don't forget that weird Singing Road that Honda put along Avenue G for some reason.

Yes, I've driven over that. Has to be at the right speed or it sounds strange, but it REALLY DOES make music. They made it play a portion of "Ode to Joy".