Support NeoGAF

[thepotatoman]

I highly doubt there were many Confederates left by the 1930s. Let alone enough to be powers in the Democratic Party.

I mean, confederate states. States where racism has tended to be even worse than the rest. The democrat's bread and butter were confederate states for a damn long time, until relatively recently, now that Republican's clearly control the confederate states.

 

[benjipwns]

so is the south destined to stay conservative and elect conservative republicans just as they did democrats 100+ years ago?

The South didn't elect Democrats because of their policy platforms but because they were A.) Democrats and B.) Often the only party on the ballot.

The power of the Democratic political machines in the South resembled those in many places today where the primary is the only thing that matters. The general election was a foregone conclusion even if the Republicans were to run Jesus himself.

The Republicans were able to break that hold because of a new generation that they could insert wedges into all their holes.

I mean, confederate states. States where racism has tended to be even worse than the rest. The democrat's bread and butter were confederate states for a damn long time, until relatively recently, now that Republican's clearly control the confederate states.

This isn't really a meaningful metric and I'm not sure its as simple as declaring them having "worse racism" rather than more open and blatant racism. States not in the South carried out many of the same policies under different names that weren't targeting blacks but just happened to always get a hit ratio that was 99% black.

There's something to be said for the States in the South admitting they had to pass laws to force racist policy on society. The Midwest for example just left a lot of it to the shadows of the administrative bureaucracy. (And I suggest is why all the major race riots outside of Tulsa happened outside the Old Confederacy. And even that one is pushing it since the Indian Territory didn't really officially join either side in the war.)

And GOP control of the South is tentative and very recent (last five to ten years) at best. So I wouldn't go extracting long term forecasts out of this weeks front-page stories.

 

[kess]

FDR was certainly populist progressive at the time, as the leader of a party of still confederate heavy democrats.

It's more that after the civil rights act and the southern strategy started, race and progressive policies became linked. Now you can't say "redistribution" without people implicitly putting "for black people" at the end.

I dunno, pieces of Southern Strategy were already in place way back in the 30s when Robert Taft allied with the conservative isolationist Democrats against the New Deal. It was a longer, more gradual process than it's usually portrayed as.

 

[speculawyer]

Here's your daily dose of stupid for the day:



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/am...efusing-health-insurance-subsidies/ar-AA84U2U

Plenty more idiocy at the link.

Fine, asshats. More money for people who actually deserve subsidies.

Well, I can see her argument.

But it is pretty minor stuff. It is like complaining that the ban of lawn darts is an encroachment on your freedom.

 

[benjipwns]

Nixon's "southern strategy" was like Nixon's "[secret] plan" for Vietnam.

 

[FyreWulff]

The money is set aside for you whether you take it or not.. and you literally cannot go through the day without something being subsidized for you.

Can't drive a car. Gas is subsidized, and it's highly likely the company that made your car was subsidized by the government. Hell, you probably got a subsidy if you bought a recent newer car that knocked some money off the cost.

Can't shop at a grocery store. Half the food in there is subsidized, and the store's existence is subsidized by SNAP.

Can't watch movies. Most if not all are subsidized by tax breaks in the state/city they were filmed.

Can't take a plane. Airports are subsidized.


In the end, it's pretty fucking stupid to say no to free money to please a politician that has universal healthcare that they gave themselves that you pay for.

 

[kess]

Nixon went from 14% of the vote in Alabama in '68, to 72% in '72. Biggest turnaround for a single candidate ever? Naw man, in Mississippi his vote went from 13.5% to a whopping 78% in the same span.

Goldwater received an incredible 87% of the vote in that state in '64.

 

[Chichikov]

I highly doubt there were many Confederates left by the 1930s. Let alone enough to be powers in the Democratic Party.

Not people who actually fought in the civil wars, but plenty of influential democrats were members of Sons of Confederate Veterans

The South didn't elect Democrats because of their policy platforms but because they were A.) Democrats and B.) Often the only party on the ballot.

The power of the Democratic political machines in the South resembled those in many places today where the primary is the only thing that matters. The general election was a foregone conclusion even if the Republicans were to run Jesus himself.

The Republicans were able to break that hold because of a new generation that they could insert wedges into all their holes.

The Democrats had almost total control of the south for more than a generation.
And that hole you're talking about was the civil rights movement, and I don't think it was a generational thing, it wasn't like you had young people voting republican and old people voting democrats down there.

 

[benjipwns]

He also went from 43% to 61% nationally.

Considering George Wallace took 63% of the vote in Mississippi, one of the two party candidates were primed to take a big leap in their share I would think.

Not people who actually fought in the civil wars, but plenty of influential democrats were members of Sons of Confederate Veterans

Harry Truman wasn't exactly pining for restoring the Confederacy.

The Democrats had almost total control of the south for more than a generation.
And that hole you're talking about was the civil rights movement, and I don't think it was a generational thing, it wasn't like you had young people voting republican and old people voting democrats down there.

The Democrats didn't lose control of the South until the 2000s. 1994 was 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Chichikov]

He also went from 43% to 61% nationally.

You made me boot up excel on a sunday, fuck you.

Harry Truman wasn't exactly pining for restoring the Confederacy.

The Democrats didn't lose control of the South until the 2000s. 1994 was 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

The argument was about whether the the Democratic party had a strong presence of pro-confederacy politicians during FDR, which it had.
And you're internationally mix national and state politics to muddy the waters, right?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Both parties are the same

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-obama-finally-has-his-piketty-moment/

 

[benjipwns]

You made me boot up excel on a sunday, fuck you.

Why? You didn't even include all the states you jerk.

The argument was about whether the the Democratic party had a strong presence of pro-confederacy politicians during FDR, which it had.

I'd really like to see the evidence on that.

And you're internationally mix national and state politics to muddy the waters, right?

How is it muddying the waters when people talk about who controls a state to actually look at who controls a state instead of pretending that the Presidency is a god-king and the popular vote is His will expressed from the heavens?

Both parties are the same

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-obama-finally-has-his-piketty-moment/

Why is he labeling that a "Piketty moment" when it's not even similar to Piketty's policy proposals? And Obama's been talking about inequality and taxing the rich for years?

 

[Chichikov]

Both parties are the same

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-obama-finally-has-his-piketty-moment/

Add another one to the list people who didn't actually read Capital in the 21st Century.

All good ideas by the way, but to call this "a Piketty moment"?
Yeah, no.

p.s.
None of this would pass anyway.

 

[benjipwns]

The article also makes the case that both parties are the same by referencing Reagan, Paul Ryan, etc. in support of the proposals.

APK annihilated yet again.

 

[Salazar]

Romney at the RNC reception tonight:



Who is this guy, and what has he done with all those other Romneys?

Well, his vision of "human tragedy" is "the middle class not feeling as chipper as it could feel".

So..

 

[Chichikov]

I'd really like to see the evidence on that.

The Democratic vice president (and later president) was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans
I can drop some lists on your ass, but my guess you'll just move to a different point, so let's not.

How is it muddying the waters when people talk about who controls a state to actually look at who controls a state instead of pretending that the Presidency is a god-king and the popular vote is His will expressed from the heavens?

Those are two separate discussions, we can talk about why the Democrats were able to maintain control of local government long after they lost southern states in the General election, but I really don't think you can draw from that fact the conclusion that Nixon didn't have a southern strategy or that the civil rights movement is not a major reason why Democrats lost the south.

 

[Plinko]

Romney at the RNC reception tonight:



Who is this guy, and what has he done with all those other Romneys?

Yeah, that'll go over real well with the hard-right GOP voters during the primaries.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The Democratic vice president (and later president) was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans
I can drop some lists on your ass, but my guess you'll just move to a different point, so let's not.

Those are two separate discussions, we can talk about why the Democrats were able to maintain control of local government long after they lost southern states in the General election, but I really don't think you can draw from that fact the conclusion that Nixon didn't have a southern strategy or that the civil rights movement is not a major reason why Democrats lost the south.

Well Im interested in that discussion. So how did the Democrats keep control of state government in the south but federally lost control?

Did Bill Clinton delay the inevitable in 92' and 96'?

Looking back federal cracks began after 52' and accelerated after 68' with the election of john tower to the senate from Texas. Obviously popular southern incumbents retired well into the 80's and 90's leaving the D's with no chance. McConnell is a byproduct of such a win himself in 84'.

Places like Kansas, Wyoming, Utah etc never looked back after 64' and ousted their last D incumbents in the 30's(kansas) & 70's

 

[Wilsongt]

Did no one watch the SC Tea Party Clown Fest tonight? I forgot.

 

[benjipwns]

The Democratic vice president (and later president) was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans
I can drop some lists on your ass, but my guess you'll just move to a different point, so let's not.

And as I said, I'd love to see the evidence that Truman was longing for the restoration of the Confederacy.

Those are two separate discussions, we can talk about why the Democrats were able to maintain control of local government long after they lost southern states in the General election, but I really don't think you can draw from that fact the conclusion that Nixon didn't have a southern strategy or that the civil rights movement is not a major reason why Democrats lost the south.

Nixon didn't have any kind of actual southern strategy just like he didn't have a plan for Vietnam, this is all well known campaign history. Nixon ran a "law and order" campaign targeting multiple states because Wallace was strong not just in the South but within margin of victory in states like Michigan and others that had had race riots. But the only plan Nixon had was irrational paranoia.

The idea that the Civil Rights Act turned the South against the Democratic Party doesn't make sense when the South continued to vote for the Democratic Party for another 40 years including in Presidential Elections. An electorate blasting McGovern and Mondale is nowhere near as good of supporting evidence as looking at every level of the state including U.S. Senator, Representatives, Governor and the state legislatures.

What's wrong with using Excel? Excel's fun! Look what we can make!

Presidential Popular Vote Share between the two parties in the 11 Confederate States:
2012 - 54.3% R, 45.7% D
2008 - 53.1% R, 46.9% D
2004 - 57.2% R, 42.8% D
2000 - 55.5% R, 44.5% D
1996 - 50.0% D, 50.0% R
1992 - 50.8% R, 49.2% D
1988 - 58.7% R, 41.3% D
1984 - 62.6% R, 37.4% D
1980 - 53.6% R, 46.4% D
1976 - 54.8% D, 45.2% R
1972 - 70.6% R, 29.4% D
1968 - 52.8% R, 47.2% D
1964 - 51.3% D*, 48.7% R
1960 - 53.6% D**, 46.4% R
1956 - 50.6% R, 49.4% D
1952 - 51.8% D, 48.2% R
1948 - 65.5% D***, 34.5% R
1944 - 74.0% D****, 26.0% R
1928 - 52.4% D, 47.6% R
1920 - 63.4% D, 36.6% R (National: 63.9% R, 36.1% D)
1916 - 74.0% D, 26.0% R (National: 51.6% D, 48.4% R)

*50.4% D, 49.6% R if discount Unpledged Democratic Alabama votes
**52.3% D, 47.7% R if discount Unpledged Democratic votes in LA and MS
***73.3% D, 26.7% R if give all Thurmond votes to Truman
****74.8% D, 25.2% R if Upledged given to Roosevelt

 

[WayneMorse]

Both parties are the same

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-obama-finally-has-his-piketty-moment/

Why did he wait for 8 PM on Saturday to release this?

 

[jamesinclair]

Both parties are the same

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-obama-finally-has-his-piketty-moment/

Proposing things when they have no chance of happening, instead of when you have a super majority is the same as not proposing anything at all.

So no, this doesn't differentiate the parties in the slightest

 

[kess]

This could probably fit in that animation thread on the general board, but I found an interesting little story about the Fleischer cartoon studio, and how they broke that particular union. There's also a passing mention of a certain Fred Cone, who among other things, is quoted as saying "no Negro was worth $4000 a year."

Fred Cone makes Rick Scott sound like Jesus.

As most followers of animation history know, Paramount called in that loan and all but forced the Fleischer brothers out of their own company.

 

[Third Strike]

so is the south destined to stay conservative and elect conservative republicans just as they did democrats 100+ years ago?

viceversa with the northeast except replace NE liberal Republicans of 100+ years ago with Democrats of today.

Can a Virginia happen in LA, AR, AL, MS, GA, etc like whats happened in NC, FL and VA over the years?

I think Atlanta will be the force to eventually turn GA into a purple state. The other states you listed will probably remain conservative for the foreseeable future.

 

[benjipwns]

Rick Scott sound like Jesus.

Speaking of, probably been posted since it's from last week but:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2015/01/rick_scott_really_does_want_to_run_for_president.php

Scott himself, though, may not be laughing at the concept. According to Caputo, "insiders" say the governor in fact covets the White House.

 

[B-Dubs]

Speaking of, probably been posted since it's from last week but:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2015/01/rick_scott_really_does_want_to_run_for_president.php

So he's gonna try running? Tell me he's going to declare for the GOP primary, tell me. I want him to run so badly, come on Voldemort.

 

[Oblivion]

Well, I can see her argument.

No, she's still an idiot.

Personally I'd be all in favor of Teabaggers forgoing subsidies and being unable to afford insurance if it wasn't for the fact that by doing so, ironically the "taxpayer" would wind up covering the bill for morons like her anyway.

 

[benjipwns]

Personally I'd be all in favor of Teabaggers forgoing subsidies and being unable to afford insurance if it wasn't for the fact that by doing so, ironically the "taxpayer" would wind up covering the bill for morons like her anyway.

Why? Isn't that the whole point of government subsidized or provided health care? What does it matter why they need help getting access?

 

[Oblivion]

Why? Isn't that the whole point of government subsidized or provided health care? What does it matter why they need help getting access?

Because it's a very inefficient way of doing things.

 

[benjipwns]

But surely you wouldn't deny health care to people just because they don't have insurance.

 

[Oblivion]

But surely you wouldn't deny health care to people just because they don't have insurance.

Clearly you don't realize how petty I can be when it comes to politics.

 

[ivysaur12]

I think Atlanta will be the force to eventually turn GA into a purple state. The other states you listed will probably remain conservative for the foreseeable future.

GA, like AZ, will trend bluer while states like OH, MO, and Indiana will trend redder. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Wisconsin and Iowa, too, or if this is sort of a midterm flash in the pan.

 

[WayneMorse]

Michigan could got more red if the Detroit gentrification works out. The areas outside the cities are as red as you can get.

But to be honest, I can't see Detroit ever actually being gentrified outside of its immediate downtown area. People still get robbed and carjacked on the daily even in the "safer" parts of the city.

 

[Jack Remington]

Here's your daily dose of stupid for the day:



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/am...efusing-health-insurance-subsidies/ar-AA84U2U

Plenty more idiocy at the link.

Fine, asshats. More money for people who actually deserve subsidies.

Michael Cannon is truly one of the biggest scumbags in the country.

Off topic, but if their idiotic lawsuit actually succeeds, would you consider Adler and Cannon murderers?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Both parties are the same

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-obama-finally-has-his-piketty-moment/

Wake me up when democrats propose legit progressive policy when they control congress and the WH...

 

[ivysaur12]

Michigan could got more red if the Detroit gentrification works out. The areas outside the cities are as red as you can get.

But to be honest, I can't see Detroit ever actually being gentrified outside of its immediate downtown area. People still get robbed and carjacked on the daily even in the "safer" parts of the city.

Long term, Michigan's electoral importance will diminish no matter what happens because it's going to continue to lose electoral votes every single decade for the foreseeable future. Iowa will always carry a certain level of importance, if just because of its primary, but I do wonder if we're starting to see a shift from these midwestern states (sans Minnesota) towards being red, following Indiana. It could get to a point where Illinois and Minnesota are the two lone blue states in a sea of red.

(That is not to predict the demise of the Democrat's presidential prospects, just that, as with the shifts of Virginia and Missouri and the entire south, none of this is constant. North Carolina will be the new Ohio.)

 

[benjipwns]

Wake me up when democrats propose legit progressive policy when they control congress and the WH...

But then Republicans will say nasty things about them!

 

[RustyNails]

On Saturday night a vehicle drove near Vice President Joe Biden's residence in Delaware and fired multiple gun shots, but the vice president and his wife, Jill, were not home at the time, Secret Service spokesman Robert Hoback told CNN.

The incident occurred around 8:28 p.m.

"A vehicle drove by the vice president's residence at a high rate of speed and fired multiple gun shots. This occurred on a public road outside the established security perimeter. The shots were heard by Secret Service personnel posted at the residence and a vehicle was observed by an agent leaving the scene at a high rate of speed," Hoback said.

CNN

 

[Poodlestrike]

But then Republicans will say nasty things about them!

CNN

Or that!

Spoiler

Yes, I know the congressional republicans had nothing to do with that.

Probably.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Long term, Michigan's electoral importance will diminish no matter what happens because it's going to continue to lose electoral votes every single decade for the foreseeable future. Iowa will always carry a certain level of importance, if just because of its primary, but I do wonder if we're starting to see a shift from these midwestern states (sans Minnesota) towards being red, following Indiana. It could get to a point where Illinois and Minnesota are the two lone blue states in a sea of red.

(That is not to predict the demise of the Democrat's presidential prospects, just that, as with the shifts of Virginia and Missouri and the entire south, none of this is constant. North Carolina will be the new Ohio.)

Democrats' performance in the midterm elections in the Midwest concerns me. Even in MN and IL Republicans gained a little (MN the state house, IL the governorship).

Hopefully it's just anti-incumbent nonsense that will revert back to the Democrats winning the next time there's a Republican president.

 

[benjipwns]

If it was fired from the public road that's 300 yards away from Biden's house with like four other houses in between.

So it probably was Congressional Republicans.

 

[benjipwns]

Maybe it was one of these 38% of Democrats:

A new CBS poll shows 29 percent of Republicans would like to see Christie run for the Republican nomination for president. But 44 percent say no. CBS points out “Only former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s numbers are more underwater: 30 percent of Republicans say they’d like to see her run, but 59 percent disagree.”

Fifty-nine percent of Republicans would like to see Mitt Romney jump into the 2016 race, while 26 percent believe he should stay out.

“Fifty percent of Republicans would like to see former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on the campaign trail as well, while 27 percent disagree,” pollsters said. “If both Romney and Bush run, analysts expect them to wage a competitive battle for the allegiance of the Republican establishment.”

Numbers for some of the others often mentioned:

– Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 40 percent of Republicans urge him to get in, and 29 percent say stay out.

– “Twenty-seven percent of Republicans would like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul to mount a bid, but 34 percent disagree. Twenty-six percent would like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to run, while 19 percent would not. Twenty-one percent want Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to run, while 25 percent want him to not run.”

– Gov. Rick Perry of Texas: 21 percent yes, 29 percent no.

– Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana: 14 percent yes, 20 percent no.

– Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin: 22 percent yes, 12 percent no.

Maybe winning isn’t everything after all. “Republicans, by a 61 to 35 percent margin, believe it’s more important to have a nominee who agrees with them on the issues than a nominee who can win the general election,” according to the poll.

And it’s not just Republicans. “Democrats are similarly concerned with ideological purity: 63 percent say it’s more important to have a nominee who agrees with them, while 35 percent say it’s more important to pick a winner.”

Eighty-five percent of Democrats want Hillary Clinton to run, 11 percent don’t. VP Joe Biden has 40 percent wanting him in, 38 percent don’t. Twenty-three percent say Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren should launch a bid, but 20 percent disagree.

 

[WayneMorse]

Democrats' performance in the midterm elections in the Midwest concerns me. Even in MN and IL Republicans gained a little (MN the state house, IL the governorship).

Hopefully it's just anti-incumbent nonsense that will revert back to the Democrats winning the next time there's a Republican president.

Republicans did good in the midwest in 2010 and 1994, they're just going with the political currents and it doesn't seem like a political shift yet.

Remember 2006 in Minnesota? Paw Paw was re-elected, Bachmann got in the House and Coleman was looking like a solid bet for re-election.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/18/state-state-speech-set-tuesday/21924331/

Meanwhile Snyder is making PD's vote worth it every day.

LANSING – How the state delivers services to the most vulnerable Michiganders will be a key component of Gov. Rick Snyder's fifth State of the State address on Tuesday.

He's given hints over the last few weeks that he'd like to streamline many services offered to poor, unemployed and disenfranchised residents.

Snyder said the state has "an outstanding opportunity" in his second term to revamp human services, and he has promised to discuss his plans in more detail in his State of the State address, which he'll give before a joint session of the state House of Representatives and Senate at 7 p.m. in the Capitol.

"If you look at the history of government in our country over the last few decades, what we've done is continue to add more and more programs on top of programs," Snyder said in his inaugural address. "It is time to ... do it a smarter way."

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/media/politico-newsroom-siren-not-a-joke.php

Politico has installed a siren in its Arlington newsroom that goes off every time the website breaks news, according to an internal memo sent Friday morning by chief executive Jim VandeHei. The siren, per VandeHei’s memo, is just one component of Politico’s strategy for 2015, a year in which it plans to expand its investigative and enterprise reporting teams and launch a European addition.

The siren, according to Politico staffers, is the noisy brainchild of Blake Hounshell, the site’s editorial director.

“Is Blake really installing a siren in the newsroom?” VandeHei writes. “Yes. He and Susan“—Glasser, Politico’s top editor—“want people jacked when we break news, whether it’s a quick hit from one of our policy teams or a holy-crap scoop from the Congress gang. It has been and always will be our core strength.”

 

[speculawyer]

Twenty-three percent say Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren should launch a bid, but 20 percent disagree.

For all the speculation about the left loving her . . . apparently not.

 

[speculawyer]

Uh . . . your data doesn't support your statement.

The idea that the Civil Rights Act turned the South against the Democratic Party doesn't make sense when the South continued to vote for the Democratic Party for another 40 years including in Presidential Elections. An electorate blasting McGovern and Mondale is nowhere near as good of supporting evidence as looking at every level of the state including U.S. Senator, Representatives, Governor and the state legislatures.

What's wrong with using Excel? Excel's fun! Look what we can make!

Presidential Popular Vote Share between the two parties in the 11 Confederate States:
2012 - 54.3% R, 45.7% D
2008 - 53.1% R, 46.9% D
2004 - 57.2% R, 42.8% D
2000 - 55.5% R, 44.5% D
1996 - 50.0% D, 50.0% R - Dem Candidate incumbent from Arkansas
1992 - 50.8% R, 49.2% D
1988 - 58.7% R, 41.3% D
1984 - 62.6% R, 37.4% D
1980 - 53.6% R, 46.4% D
1976 - 54.8% D, 45.2% R - Dem Candidate an evangelical from Georgia
1972 - 70.6% R, 29.4% D
1968 - 52.8% R, 47.2% D
1964 - 51.3% D*, 48.7% R - Civil Rights Act passed
1960 - 53.6% D**, 46.4% R
1956 - 50.6% R, 49.4% D
1952 - 51.8% D, 48.2% R
1948 - 65.5% D***, 34.5% R
1944 - 74.0% D****, 26.0% R
1928 - 52.4% D, 47.6% R
1920 - 63.4% D, 36.6% R (National: 63.9% R, 36.1% D)
1916 - 74.0% D, 26.0% R (National: 51.6% D, 48.4% R)

*50.4% D, 49.6% R if discount Unpledged Democratic Alabama votes
**52.3% D, 47.7% R if discount Unpledged Democratic votes in LA and MS
***73.3% D, 26.7% R if give all Thurmond votes to Truman
****74.8% D, 25.2% R if Upledged given to Roosevelt

 

[benjipwns]

People not voting for the winner doesn't mean they didn't vote or that their votes are worth zero. The Solid South was broken in the 1920s, as with everything FDR was the exception not the rule.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Michigan could got more red if the Detroit gentrification works out. The areas outside the cities are as red as you can get.

But to be honest, I can't see Detroit ever actually being gentrified outside of its immediate downtown area. People still get robbed and carjacked on the daily even in the "safer" parts of the city.

Are you from Detroit or have you been to Detroit? There are plenty of suburbs in Detroit with low crime and no noticeable problems. So yes, the "safe" parts of Detroit are as safe as just about any "safe" area of a US city.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Long term, Michigan's electoral importance will diminish no matter what happens because it's going to continue to lose electoral votes every single decade for the foreseeable future. Iowa will always carry a certain level of importance, if just because of its primary, but I do wonder if we're starting to see a shift from these midwestern states (sans Minnesota) towards being red, following Indiana. It could get to a point where Illinois and Minnesota are the two lone blue states in a sea of red.

(That is not to predict the demise of the Democrat's presidential prospects, just that, as with the shifts of Virginia and Missouri and the entire south, none of this is constant. North Carolina will be the new Ohio.)

Democrats' performance in the midterm elections in the Midwest concerns me. Even in MN and IL Republicans gained a little (MN the state house, IL the governorship).

Hopefully it's just anti-incumbent nonsense that will revert back to the Democrats winning the next time there's a Republican president.