Political spillover from metros

[ProgressiveModerate]

I notice that for most metros that are split between 2 (or more) states there seem to be a lot of weird politics at play.

The first possibility is that the metro is vastly more developed in one state than another, even if the downtown is right on the border. Think Saint Louis for example; on the Missouri side the suburbs are vast but in Illinois end very quickly. Another example is Illinois where it becomes noticeably less dense as soon as one enters WI or IN. A third example would be Philly where it's influnce in NJ ends very quicly despite being quite expansive in PA.

The 2nd is it seems like whenever a metro is located on a state border, one side is significantly more liberal than the other, generally the more developed side. Even though one would expect the devloped side to be slightly more liberal, it seems like an abnormally polarizing divide. Some examples would be Kansas City, Charlotte, Toldeo, NOVA, Memphis, and Portland. Oftentimes this is overlooked because when we look at pres results by precincts we tend to just be looking one state at a time. However, if you pull up an NYT map, the contrast is often quite stark. Some could attribute from urban minority communities tending not to cross state lines but that still doesn't full explain how liberal and conservative white suburbs seem to be very divided along state lines.

It's not neccessarily always the more conservative state either that has the more conservative suburbs. See Vancouver in Washington state or Toledo suburbs in Michigan

Why is this phenomenon?

[Sol]

Well, first of all a lot of the examples you discuss are cities where the rivers are the border, which present a kind of boundary which will also influence urban development. I'd wager that explains a lot about several of these cases--rivers often subtly influence development even in cases where they aren't an impediment to growth in the present. For example, this is part of the story as to why a lot of suburban Maryland has traditionally been more D than NoVA. Likewise, the Mississippi River is a big part of the story as far why West Memphis isn't too built up.

Within metro areas even within states there are frequently substantial political differences between different sections of the metro area and different degrees of development, growth, etc. For example, the southern suburbs of Detroit are the more industrial and less desirable side of the metro, and so they're less developed than areas to the north--the same is true of the eastern suburbs of St. Louis. It's not the state that matters here so much as what's upwind and downwind of industry and what's in the favored corridor. IMO a similar pattern is at play in Philly to a certain extent (though tbh Southern NJ is still p developed), Kansas City (Johnson County is where rich people live), Chicago, Memphis, etc.

In some cases, the state lines are sometimes a bit further away than they appear on a map. Uptown Charlotte is actually pretty far away from the South Carolina state line, which means that York and Lancaster are going to be outer suburban counties like the ring of counties around Mecklenburg in NC, and they pretty much vote like it. Similarly, Vancouver is a bit of a ways away from downtown Portland, further than Washington and more comparable to more conservative Clackamas. This is a big part of Northwest Indiana too. In addition to being a less desirable area, it's also actually fairly far from the Loop, which is around the bend of the Lake. In addition, many metro areas have large outer urban and suburban employment centers, which often cluster in more affluent areas, and places like that in Chicago are to the north and west, not east or south.

Finally, it's just a fact that jurisdiction boundaries matter, and in plenty of cities there's clear and awful demographic delineations between city lines as a result of segregation and redlining. Some of these state line differences are similar. Traditionally the line between DeSoto County and Memphis separated white and Black people, much like 8 Mile in Detroit, though this has softened a lot. Less strikingly, part of the conservatism in Clark County WA is from it being particularly attractive to anti-tax folks as WA has no state income tax, and it has similarly loose land use rules which appeals to types put off by Oregon's transit oriented development.

IMO though most of these differences make more sense if you compare them to similar cities without state boundaries.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Within metro areas even within states there are frequently substantial political differences between different sections of the metro area and different degrees of development, growth, etc. For example, the southern suburbs of Detroit are the more industrial and less desirable side of the metro, and so they're less developed than areas to the north--the same is true of the eastern suburbs of St. Louis. It's not the state that matters here so much as what's upwind and downwind of industry and what's in the favored corridor.

On the OR side of Metro Portland, the "favored quarter" is the West Hills and the outlying Washington County suburban areas that constitute Silicon Forest.  The Clackamas County suburbs west of the Willamette River (Lake Owego, West Linn) are also apparently more bougie and highly educated than their east-of-the-river counterparts (Gladstone, Oregon City, Clackamas).

In some cases, the state lines are sometimes a bit further away than they appear on a map. Uptown Charlotte is actually pretty far away from the South Carolina state line, which means that York and Lancaster are going to be outer suburban counties like the ring of counties around Mecklenburg in NC, and they pretty much vote like it. Similarly, Vancouver is a bit of a ways away from downtown Portland, further than Washington and more comparable to more conservative Clackamas.

Downtown Vancouver is equidistant from Downtown Portland as Downtown Beaverton. But yes, Clark County is more spread out than Washington County, and Camas (which has an upscale "inner suburb" reputation IMO) is much further out along SR 14 than you'd think.

part of the conservatism in Clark County WA is from it being particularly attractive to anti-tax folks as WA has no state income tax, and it has similarly loose land use rules which appeals to types put off by Oregon's transit oriented development.

The main tangible appeal I've heard Vancouver has for under-40 transplants is cheaper home prices than in Oregon. It'd be great if Portland's public transit could be connected to Vancouver proper someday.