Ethnic Politics

[Nym90]

English--

You should register to vote in the fantasy elections. We have a presidential election coming up in June. You will need to choose a home state in the US...you either need to change your avatar to a US state, or else include in your signature a statement saying what your home state is for fantasy purposes. Here's the link...

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=2153;start=330

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, I can only speak for my family. I have no Catholic ancestry, and it is predominantly Episcopalian, with some Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian. All of my ancestors as far back as it is recorded were British or of British ancestry. My family voted Republican from the time of the party's founding, being abolitionist, until 1948, when my grandfather voted for Henry Wallace. Since then, we have supported the Democratic candidates. Why this is, I don't know why. But there was a seismic shift.

Heh. Right about the time Massachusetts turned from a safe republican to a safe democratic (safe isn't the word) state. Turned almost on a friggin dime.

I think a lot of that was the city's expansion into the suburbs.  This definitely holds true for Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington.  This in turn made MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA(well getting there), DE, and MD pretty much Democratic.  Less than 20 years ago the NYC and Philly suburbs were staunchly Republican even more so than the South.  Because of rapid expansion with developments, townhomes, and Interstates, the Democrats have been gaining stength in and around big cities.  Who would have ever thought 20 years ago that Al Gore would win Montgomery and Delaware counties, PA by 10 points?  I'm not saying it's a dime in NYC or Philly, but these states have little chance of going back.

[angus]

pretty interesting,  that philly/nyc analogy works to a point but to differentiate mid-atlantic megapolis with new england:   the GOP pres candidate won MA in 1952 and 56, and again in 80 and 84.  You'd have to tap into that to really see how the Yankee version of Patriotism really amounts to a call for nationalism/republican tendencies.  Notice how the howdy-doody 50s and the new wave 80s had so many gimmicky similarities.  That southern new england in general, and boston in particular, this bastion of early americana, has always has a disproportionately profound effect on american law, politics, science, religion, culture, education, medicine, and art is not unrelated to the fact that certain candidates who do well in MA are remembered more kindly nationwide than those who don't.  I think the key to republican victories there have to do with fielding the right candidate.  the politics surrounding menino, capuano, kennedy, kerry, romney, celluci, and the like are intensely personal.  and what I'd call old-school, retail politics.  Ever sit through a game at Fenway?  You can actually see the field.  Now go sit through one at the Astrodome (burbon and binoculars).  Neither connecticut yankee, BushtheElder nor BushtheYounger, has played particularly well in Massachusetts, even though the elder was born in malden, yet both Reagan and Ike did.  go figure.

[TeePee4Prez]

How 'bout the following:

Scottish
Scots-Irish (Northern Ireland)
English
French
Polish
Welsh
Finnish
Greek
Russian

Scots/Scots-Irish- Strong Rep.  Mostly in South and conservative parts of PA.  Though some in WV are Dems.

English-  Hard to say.  New Englanders typically Dem.  Elsewhere typically Republican.

French-  Concentrated in Louisiana and a few plaes in New England.  Split in LA. Strong Dem in New England.

Welsh-  Settled in Democratic Northeast PA.  Leans Democratic.  In fact I'm 1/8 Welsh and my great-great grandfather was from coal country.

Finnish-  Uppper midwest.  Very liberal.  Strong Democratic

Greek-  East Coast and California.  Lean Democratic though some are very conservative.

Russian- see Greek

Polish-  see earlier post on Irish.  Settled in a lot of areas the Irish did and typically intermarry.  Leans Democratic, but some are staunch Catholic conservatives.

Russian Jewish-  Easier to call b/c I live near a lot.  Strong
Democratic.

[muon2]

I would tend to assume all of these groups would lean Democrat, but I'm far from certain.
Poles might be mixed due to the fact most are staunch Catholics. Russians also might be fairly mixed as they're pretty conservative.

The distinctions in some of the groups mentioned are pretty blurry. If you are focussed on first generation immigrants then some of the categories make sense. As you move to successive generations, factors involving region, income and education begin to outweigh historical ethnicity. Americans of northern European descent are almost impossible to peg this way. The Reagan democrats were often those of southern and eastern European descent, and it was clear that they were much less driven by ethnicity than was previously believed.

[TeePee4Prez]

I would tend to assume all of these groups would lean Democrat, but I'm far from certain.
Poles might be mixed due to the fact most are staunch Catholics. Russians also might be fairly mixed as they're pretty conservative.

The distinctions in some of the groups mentioned are pretty blurry. If you are focussed on first generation immigrants then some of the categories make sense. As you move to successive generations, factors involving region, income and education begin to outweigh historical ethnicity. Americans of northern European descent are almost impossible to peg this way. The Reagan democrats were often those of southern and eastern European descent, and it was clear that they were much less driven by ethnicity than was previously believed.

Sadly still, Reagan screwed over labor big time.  Again, I tell my fellow white Reagan Democrats this, but they always give the standard "he cut taxes", "he's moral", "welfare queens", "deadbeats on welfare", "Section 8 favors those damn n-words" while the clothes on their backs and the educations they received were fought for by Democratic unions.  A lot of these Irish, Itialian, German, Polish whites (yes you knwo who you are) that reiterate this garbage need to get whacked on the back side of the head with a 2X4 then should have to be strapped to a chair and learn about their ethnic history and labor movements via a documentary for about 3 hours.    

[TeePee4Prez]

If you're from Philadelphia you know who I mean!!!!  Bridesburg, Mayfair, Port Richmond, Fishtown, etc.

[muon2]

If you're from Philadelphia you know who I mean!!!!  Bridesburg, Mayfair, Port Richmond, Fishtown, etc.

I can't speak about Philly, but in Chicagoland, particularly in the suburbs, the voting distinctions due to ethnicity are basically gone. It's been too many generations since immigration. New immigrants around here do show voting patterns based on country of origin, but it washes out over time.

[bullmoose88]

Well, I can only speak for my family. I have no Catholic ancestry, and it is predominantly Episcopalian, with some Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian. All of my ancestors as far back as it is recorded were British or of British ancestry. My family voted Republican from the time of the party's founding, being abolitionist, until 1948, when my grandfather voted for Henry Wallace. Since then, we have supported the Democratic candidates. Why this is, I don't know why. But there was a seismic shift.

Heh. Right about the time Massachusetts turned from a safe republican to a safe democratic (safe isn't the word) state. Turned almost on a friggin dime.

I think a lot of that was the city's expansion into the suburbs.  This definitely holds true for Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington.  This in turn made MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA(well getting there), DE, and MD pretty much Democratic.  Less than 20 years ago the NYC and Philly suburbs were staunchly Republican even more so than the South.  Because of rapid expansion with developments, townhomes, and Interstates, the Democrats have been gaining stength in and around big cities.  Who would have ever thought 20 years ago that Al Gore would win Montgomery and Delaware counties, PA by 10 points?  I'm not saying it's a dime in NYC or Philly, but these states have little chance of going back.

The other thing to consider is that really, we've only had one election where a 3rd party candidate didn't take an absolutely huge chunk of votes.

Nader did impact the election, but not nearly to the extent perot did.

So without a huge third party presence we have the 1988 Bush suburbs being taken by Gore in 2000. But the problem in each of these cases is this.

Are we seeing a R to D trend? or are the voters just rejecting a candidate they just flat out didn't like (Dukakis, W). You look at those counties now, and they still send huge republican majorities to the state house, generally vote for republicans for US house and US senate.

I think we might need a couple cycles (2004 won't count as much since if they didn't like W in 2000, chances are, they won't in 2004), before we can say the immediate suburbs are now swing or democratic.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, I can only speak for my family. I have no Catholic ancestry, and it is predominantly Episcopalian, with some Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian. All of my ancestors as far back as it is recorded were British or of British ancestry. My family voted Republican from the time of the party's founding, being abolitionist, until 1948, when my grandfather voted for Henry Wallace. Since then, we have supported the Democratic candidates. Why this is, I don't know why. But there was a seismic shift.

Heh. Right about the time Massachusetts turned from a safe republican to a safe democratic (safe isn't the word) state. Turned almost on a friggin dime.

I think a lot of that was the city's expansion into the suburbs.  This definitely holds true for Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington.  This in turn made MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA(well getting there), DE, and MD pretty much Democratic.  Less than 20 years ago the NYC and Philly suburbs were staunchly Republican even more so than the South.  Because of rapid expansion with developments, townhomes, and Interstates, the Democrats have been gaining stength in and around big cities.  Who would have ever thought 20 years ago that Al Gore would win Montgomery and Delaware counties, PA by 10 points?  I'm not saying it's a dime in NYC or Philly, but these states have little chance of going back.

The other thing to consider is that really, we've only had one election where a 3rd party candidate didn't take an absolutely huge chunk of votes.

Nader did impact the election, but not nearly to the extent perot did.

So without a huge third party presence we have the 1988 Bush suburbs being taken by Gore in 2000. But the problem in each of these cases is this.

Are we seeing a R to D trend? or are the voters just rejecting a candidate they just flat out didn't like (Dukakis, W). You look at those counties now, and they still send huge republican majorities to the state house, generally vote for republicans for US house and US senate.

I think we might need a couple cycles (2004 won't count as much since if they didn't like W in 2000, chances are, they won't in 2004), before we can say the immediate suburbs are now swing or democratic.

I'm not implying it's solidly Democratic.  But since 1988, the Philly suburbs swung big time to the point Northeast Philly is looking conservative.

[bullmoose88]

Well, I can only speak for my family. I have no Catholic ancestry, and it is predominantly Episcopalian, with some Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian. All of my ancestors as far back as it is recorded were British or of British ancestry. My family voted Republican from the time of the party's founding, being abolitionist, until 1948, when my grandfather voted for Henry Wallace. Since then, we have supported the Democratic candidates. Why this is, I don't know why. But there was a seismic shift.

Heh. Right about the time Massachusetts turned from a safe republican to a safe democratic (safe isn't the word) state. Turned almost on a friggin dime.

I think a lot of that was the city's expansion into the suburbs.  This definitely holds true for Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington.  This in turn made MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA(well getting there), DE, and MD pretty much Democratic.  Less than 20 years ago the NYC and Philly suburbs were staunchly Republican even more so than the South.  Because of rapid expansion with developments, townhomes, and Interstates, the Democrats have been gaining stength in and around big cities.  Who would have ever thought 20 years ago that Al Gore would win Montgomery and Delaware counties, PA by 10 points?  I'm not saying it's a dime in NYC or Philly, but these states have little chance of going back.

The other thing to consider is that really, we've only had one election where a 3rd party candidate didn't take an absolutely huge chunk of votes.

Nader did impact the election, but not nearly to the extent perot did.

So without a huge third party presence we have the 1988 Bush suburbs being taken by Gore in 2000. But the problem in each of these cases is this.

Are we seeing a R to D trend? or are the voters just rejecting a candidate they just flat out didn't like (Dukakis, W). You look at those counties now, and they still send huge republican majorities to the state house, generally vote for republicans for US house and US senate.

I think we might need a couple cycles (2004 won't count as much since if they didn't like W in 2000, chances are, they won't in 2004), before we can say the immediate suburbs are now swing or democratic.

I'm not implying it's solidly Democratic.  But since 1988, the Philly suburbs swung big time to the point Northeast Philly is looking conservative.

Now see...I don't necessarily agree with that. I really don't think theres been a liberal swing...(if there has, its been minor, most likely due to all the New Yawkers moving here). I just think that while the Clintonistas move the dems centerward...gingrich and co moved the GOP too far right to keep capturing these voters.