What is it about cities that make people vote Democrat?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Teachers in general seem to lean left

I take it you've never been to Campbell County.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Also, remember that the urban/rural split wasn't that big until 2000. I think it's because the urban areas recovered from the Contract With America garbage, while the rural areas didn't.

Before 2000, the real Republican area was the suburbs, not the rural areas.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Another factor might be home ownership. People in rural and suburban areas usually own their own homes, while in cities people rent their homes.

[barfbag]

Someone said cities have more educated people? Not in all places. Education is very relative as there's many forms of educated. I'll tell you what,  city slickers aren't educated as in farming.  The more people living near each other the more political and petty things get. The more political things get, the more special interest groups and trivial factions you get. This gives way to politicians who will stoop to special interest groups to become mayor. The Democrats are the party of special interest groups in these regards. Cities tend to have more minorities, single voters and drug addicts too.

[DS0816]

Interesting question.

Actually … it's a stupid question.

The Republican Party having won the popular vote only once since after the 1980s … how could anyone, with an awareness of this, be surprised that the overwhelming majority of the nation's population centers (yes, the "cities") are delivering the vote to the Democratic Party?!

[Horus]

Are cities overseas (Western Europe/Canada) as liberal as the ones in the United States?

It seems to me that the European centre-right parties have had much more success in appealing to an urban electorate; why is that?  

The center-right definitely does better in the large cities in Scandinavia. Most of the larger cities here in Norway are ruled by some sort of bourgeois-coalition.  There are a lot of state and municipal employees in the city, as well as minorities and poor people. But there are also a lot of doctors, lawyers and other professionals, and they skew heavily to the center-right, and they are more likely to vote than the base voters of the socialist parties.

These voters might be “liberal” on issues like abortion and homosexuality, but so are the mainstream parties of the right. But they also want lower taxes, the freedom to choose which schools they send their children to and generally more personal freedom. That is why they vote for the center-right.

This is interesting because I can foresee (sort of) the US being this way in 40-50 years. When the GOP catches up on social issues and elections become even more focused on the economy than they already are, our maps will tend to look more like Europe. Rich neighborhoods in the cities will trend to the right-leaning party (Poor minority neighborhoods will remain solidly D, but probably around 10% less than they are now) while poor Appalachia will trend back to the Dems.

[old timey villain]

So here's my theory.

Conservative and right of center parties in Europe do better in cities than Republicans do in America because most European countries are more urban and all parties fight for those votes out of necessity.

America is an urban country but we're still much more rural than most European countries, and since there's always been a big urban/rural divide in America, the GOP decided a long time ago that outreach to white, rural voters would be advantageous to them. Those voters still make up a large chunk of the electorate in America while they're a sliver in Europe, so the Republicans have won and still can win with that coalition (2004).

Plus we have the electoral college system which sometimes gives an extra advantage to those rural conservative states, helping the GOP. For instance, California has almost 700K people per electoral vote while Wyoming has about 200K per electoral vote. So an electoral vote in Wyoming is worth more than one in California. On the legislative side we have the senate, which also benefits smaller states, many of which are more Republican. If California and Wyoming both send two senators to congress, then it makes sense for the Republicans to focus more on Wyoming. California is very urban and unfriendly to Republicans these days but why does it matter? If they continue their outreach to rural voters then they'll be sure to send two Republicans from Wyoming to the senate whose votes are worth as much as Barbara Boxers' or Dianne Feinsteins'.

Republicans will start doing better in cities only when they decide that America has become too urban for them to win elections on the backs of rural conservatives, forcing them to change on social issues.

[Space7]

Someone said cities have more educated people? Not in all places. Education is very relative as there's many forms of educated.

True. I was merely referring to the correlation between cities and more school education, as is evidenced by the source picture I included in my earlier comment.

Teachers in general seem to lean left

I take it you've never been to Campbell County.

Can't say I have. Maybe it's only where I live, but perhaps it's because the teachers in my province are upset with our current, right-wing government who keeps slashing the education budget.

[tpfkaw]

*snip*

That would make sense if national Republicans didn't spend next-to-nothing in Wyoming and regularly carpet-bomb California with cash.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

*snip*

That would make sense if national Republicans didn't spend next-to-nothing in Wyoming and regularly carpet-bomb California with cash.

Exactly. Basically all swing states (and therefore all elections) hinge on how the suburbs vote. Most rural counties tend to lean hard one way or another (northern Wyoming vs. the Mississippi delta).

[Del Tachi]

Are cities overseas (Western Europe/Canada) as liberal as the ones in the United States?

It seems to me that the European centre-right parties have had much more success in appealing to an urban electorate; why is that?  

The center-right definitely does better in the large cities in Scandinavia. Most of the larger cities here in Norway are ruled by some sort of bourgeois-coalition.  There are a lot of state and municipal employees in the city, as well as minorities and poor people. But there are also a lot of doctors, lawyers and other professionals, and they skew heavily to the center-right, and they are more likely to vote than the base voters of the socialist parties.

These voters might be “liberal” on issues like abortion and homosexuality, but so are the mainstream parties of the right. But they also want lower taxes, the freedom to choose which schools they send their children to and generally more personal freedom. That is why they vote for the center-right.

This is interesting because I can foresee (sort of) the US being this way in 40-50 years. When the GOP catches up on social issues and elections become even more focused on the economy than they already are, our maps will tend to look more like Europe. Rich neighborhoods in the cities will trend to the right-leaning party (Poor minority neighborhoods will remain solidly D, but probably around 10% less than they are now) while poor Appalachia will trend back to the Dems

Exactly right!  The next American political realignment (due to favor the Republicans) will probably see the Republicans molding themselves after Europe's center-right parties.  Of course, that isn't due until sometime between 2040 and 2060. 

[illegaloperation]

The answer to this question is everything.

The Democratic Party is consider the urban party because its platform and policy best match those living in urban areas.

[stevekamp]

In 1920s, the northern cities were heavily Republican, and in the Nixon Era, Nixon and Ford carried multiple NYC ADs and Philly/Chicago wards -- you can see it in America Votes.  Republicans elected most of the Philly US House Members (eg Hugh Scott) as late as 1956. By 2000, Republicans could not carry any Philly or Chicago wards, and only 1-3 ADs (all on Staten Island).  By 2004, America Votes stopped running city ward/AD breakdowns. because there wasn't anything to break down!

Republicans elected a Bronx Congressman (Paul Fino) in 1952-1968, and still elect a Staten Island Member. However, they lost the silk stocking seat (Maloney) in 1992, last elected a Member in Brooklyn in 1958 (Frances Dorn) and Queens around 1950.
   

[Bandit3 the Worker]

In 1920s, the northern cities were heavily Republican, and in the Nixon Era, Nixon and Ford carried multiple NYC ADs and Philly/Chicago wards -- you can see it in America Votes.  Republicans elected most of the Philly US House Members (eg Hugh Scott) as late as 1956. By 2000, Republicans could not carry any Philly or Chicago wards, and only 1-3 ADs (all on Staten Island).  By 2004, America Votes stopped running city ward/AD breakdowns. because there wasn't anything to break down!

Republicans elected a Bronx Congressman (Paul Fino) in 1952-1968, and still elect a Staten Island Member. However, they lost the silk stocking seat (Maloney) in 1992, last elected a Member in Brooklyn in 1958 (Frances Dorn) and Queens around 1950.

I thought that when Anthony Weiner resigned, he was replaced with some Tea Party clown, but that district was effectively eliminated.

[barfbag]

The more people living in a close area, the more political things get. It leads to big government solving issues which is reflective of the Democratic Party. I'm not trying to be partisan, but they're the party of intervention when it comes to the economy and the economy is first and foremost in cities.

[stevekamp]

I stand corrected -- the Republican who took the Weiner Brooklyn-Queens seat in the 2010 special was the first R since 1920 -- Ds Emanuel eller, Elizabeth Holtzman, Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weineer

[hopper]

In 1920s, the northern cities were heavily Republican, and in the Nixon Era, Nixon and Ford carried multiple NYC ADs and Philly/Chicago wards -- you can see it in America Votes.  Republicans elected most of the Philly US House Members (eg Hugh Scott) as late as 1956. By 2000, Republicans could not carry any Philly or Chicago wards, and only 1-3 ADs (all on Staten Island).  By 2004, America Votes stopped running city ward/AD breakdowns. because there wasn't anything to break down!

Republicans elected a Bronx Congressman (Paul Fino) in 1952-1968, and still elect a Staten Island Member. However, they lost the silk stocking seat (Maloney) in 1992, last elected a Member in Brooklyn in 1958 (Frances Dorn) and Queens around 1950.

I thought that when Anthony Weiner resigned, he was replaced with some Tea Party clown, but that district was effectively eliminated.

No Bob Turner(R) was the guy that replaced Weiner. Turner was not a Tea Party guy he was pretty moderate(even by today's standards.) The Tea Party Candidates would be  too far to the right to compete in that district. Michael Grimm(R) won the Staten Island/Southern Brooklyn Seat he did run as a Tea Party Guy but he is pretty moderate/centrist now.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Urban areas tend to be poorer, younger, and have more racial minorities and unions.  Simple as that.

[buritobr]

There is no general rule that big cities support the left and small cities/rural areas support the right. USA, UK and Germany follow this rule. France no. As it was mentioned before, Sweden is other counter-example.

Brazil followed this rule until 2002, but after that, there was a realigment. The leftist candidate Lula lost the elections of 1989, 1994 and 1998 because he was very weak in small cities and in rural areas. He was elected for the first time in 2002, when he had huge support in the big cities. But even between 1989 and 2002, the big-small city gap was not as big in Brazil as it is in the USA.
In 2006, a big change occurred. Lula was reelected after receiving large support of voters in small cities/rural areas in the poorest regions of the country because of the income transfer programs, and increase of the minimum wage. At the same time, Lula lost some urban middle class votes because of the corruption scandals in which members of his Workers Party (PT) were involved. In 2010, his PT sucessor Dilma Roussef was elected having the same supporting base that Lula had in 2006.

São Paulo, the biggest Brazilian city (11 million inhabitants), had a different behavior in comparison to the other Brazilian big cities. In São Paulo, since 1989, Lula has smaller percentage of vote than the national average. Unlike the USA, where the average income of the big cities inhabitants is lower than the national average income, Brazil has more wealthier citizens living in big cities. In the cities located at São Paulo outskirts, where one can find many manufacturing workers, Lula have always had many votes (he was a manufacturing worker in a city located at São Paulo outskirts). But São Paulo, there is a huge middle class that works in the services in the private sector. There are many offices of big companies and banks in São Paulo. The pro-business ideology is very strong in the middle class there. In Rio de Janeiro and Brasília, cities that have many public employees, leftist candidates are stronger.
São Paulo has a huge ethnic diversity, but race and orign do not determine vote in Brazil. In the USA, Italians, Jews and Asians vote Democrat even if they are rich. São Paulo has many inhabitants with Italian ancestors, and also some Jews and Asians. But the majority of them vote PSDB (the centrist party) like any other middle/high income citizen. Black people usually vote PT because they are poor and not because they are black.
Like any other big city in the world, São Paulo has more liberal views concerning social values, sex and religion than the country average. However, in Brazil, these issues have few influence on the voting behavior. Both PT and PSDB have social liberal and social conservative voters. There are many upper middle class citizens in São Paulo that support gay marriage and vote PSDB because they are against "big government" and many poor social conservative citizens in rural areas that vote PT because there living conditions improved during Lula´s administration.