In general, which are better places to live?

[AN63093]

Old thread, but still sorta interesting.

I would live in either.  You can find blighted D>80 and R>80 precincts, you can also find nice and pleasant D>80 and R>80 precincts.

The main difference is, the D>80 precinct will be either an urban neighborhood or suburb in a metro where even the suburbs are strong D (e.g., the Bay Area), whereas the R>80 precinct will be, probably without exception, a suburb, exurb, or rural area.  These areas will mostly be farther out from the city center, though there are some inner suburbs mixed in there too (examples would include some North Shore towns on Long Island, and some Westchester areas, such as near Eastchester, which are not quite in the 80s, but close in the 70s).

On a sidenote, that makes me wonder.. what was the best "urban" precinct in the entire US for Trump?

Anyways, back to the topic, I would live in either.  I've lived in Manhattan, to the suburbs, to small towns, and everywhere in between.  I don't have an allergic reaction to the suburbs like some in my generation do.

Back in my early 20s, I probably would've preferred the D>80 precinct, due to convenience of being in the city center, so I could go out and get sh**tfaced or whatever in the pre-uber days.  But now I'm in my 30s and boring, so I don't care so much about that anymore.  Plus I have a nice car and like driving it, so commuting is fine (within reason, that is).

More important to me would be the metro area itself.  For example, a D>80 precinct in the Bay Area would be a poor fit for me, but not so much because it's a D>80 precinct, but because its in the Bay Area.  A D>80 precinct in DC or NY would be fine.