Why northwest is so liberal?

[Gustaf]

It's a good question, I agree. They also have a longer history of it than CA, who turned Dem in the 90s really.

[Gustaf]

During the 1960's and 70's a lot of liberals began moving to the left coast (hmmm, that was a Freudian Slip, but I leave it )  Those people eventually took over the states.

Lol...so the reason for it becoming more Democrat was that Democrats moved there? Thanks...

"took over", sounds like something the Irish Catholics would say of Northern Ireland...

[Gustaf]

Can someone to explain why Northwest states (I mean only Washington and Oregon) are fairly liberal? Huge majority of population is white and there is a little minorities. (quite much Asian though) So there is no "natural" reason for this blooming of liberalism.

Of course Democrats' support is concentrated Seattle's and Portland's metropolitan areas, but there is also pretty liberal areas in Washington rural coast region (some poor fishing villages, I assume) and in western Oregon. In Dave's election maps there are lot of red colour in these rural areas at least since 1960. (As your know there is no countylevel information before 1960 in Dave's pages)

The reasons for the liberalism in the Northwest are complicated, but one thing you mention interests me.  As you say, the Northwest is very white, with few minorities.  The same could be said of places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and some of the liberal states of New England.  Many Southern states, which are only 60-70% white are strongly Republican in spite of near total Democrat voting by the minority groups.   Also, even California, which is very Democratic has a very large percentage of its white minority that are conservative Republicans.  The obvious generalization is this - whites are more liberal when they are living in segregation, and much more conservative when living with other races.  

The generalization could also be that white people living in racist areas are more Republican than those living in non-racist areas. Then again, generalizations can be hazardous...

[Gustaf]

[
Its possible that your generalization follows directly from mine - familiarity breeding contempt, etc.  But I think that 'racism' is a bit of a strong word.  Just because two population groups, largely corresponding to two races, see their political interests as diametrically opposed, does that mean they're racists?  

The "racist" label is something that liberals like to throw on anybody who doesn't support their policies, or any white person who opposes anything that is intended to benefit minorities.  It's a word that no longer has any meaning to me.

My own experience is that everybody is racist to one degree or another.  There is mindless racism that is rooted in the need to look down on somebody, and then there is "self-interest" racism that is simply rooted in a desire to avoid problems that will compromise your own quality of life.  Even some blacks practice "self-interest" racism in avoiding some heavily black areas that are filled with crime and decay.

I have also observed no real difference in the level of racism between "liberal" and "conservative" parts of the country.  In the liberal northeast, the black population lives almost completely separately from the white population.  These liberal areas that have blacks are no meccas of tolerance, whatever claims liberals may make.  There is a phoniness and hypocrisy that is mind-boggling among limousine liberals.

I just wanted to point out that some generalizations can be a little dangerous. Southern politics seem to be dominated by blacks voting one way, and whites the other, and currently the GOP is the party for the whites. So I don't think that the situation there can be compared to that of other parts of the country. I think it primarily depends on what kind of experiences you get. If the majority of immigrants or people with another skin colour, that you have met have been criminals, then you're more likely to become racist, and vice versa.

I don't if there's much point in attacking sterotypes, like "limousine liberals", so I won't start with "redneck conservatives"...

[Gustaf]

I just wanted to point out that some generalizations can be a little dangerous. Southern politics seem to be dominated by blacks voting one way, and whites the other, and currently the GOP is the party for the whites. So I don't think that the situation there can be compared to that of other parts of the country. I think it primarily depends on what kind of experiences you get. If the majority of immigrants or people with another skin colour, that you have met have been criminals, then you're more likely to become racist, and vice versa.

I don't if there's much point in attacking sterotypes, like "limousine liberals", so I won't start with "redneck conservatives"...

The difference between limousine liberals and redneck conservatives is that redneck conservatives come much closer to practicing what they preach.

In most areas where blacks and whites co-exist, they vote differently.  It's not just the south.  The difference is a matter of degree.

Most people with extremist beliefes are hypocritical, in one way or another. Moderation often originates from a will to be consistent.