(11-27-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Leaving the city because of liberal politics is the same as burying your head in the sand.

I include high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime (as just a few examples, and there are more for sure) as part of the whole idea of "liberal politics."

After the recent Minneapolis elections for mayor and clowncil the city has gone as far left as any major American city. How is that "burying my head in the sand?" I gave it 11 years before moving and it’s gonna get worse before it gets better in Minneapolis.

Smoke ’em if you got ’em, I guess.

(11-27-2017 02:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moreover Whites, and others like Asians, young and old are moving into the city hoods and pushing black middle and lower classes out to the older suburban ring. Gentrification all of the USA on large scale has been happening for a long time. I live in a city hood that was 10-12 years ago about 90% black. Now it is about 20% black.

In California the % of the black population has been reduced by almost 50%. Used to be about 12-13% and now it is closer to 6% of the population.

I'm gonna need a name for this one.

I was off more than I thought, 32% Black. Corryville/Cincinnati
Some developers bought a few blocks across from the UC Medical Center, tore everything down and built some real nice apartment and condos, then more of that a few block in. Then pretty much all of the older housing stock has been renovated.
Started about 12 years ago.
51% White
10% Asian
32% Black
then a smaller amount of mixed and hispanics.
https://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhoo...-Ethnicity

(11-27-2017 02:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moreover Whites, and others like Asians, young and old are moving into the city hoods and pushing black middle and lower classes out to the older suburban ring. Gentrification all of the USA on large scale has been happening for a long time. I live in a city hood that was 10-12 years ago about 90% black. Now it is about 20% black.

In California the % of the black population has been reduced by almost 50%. Used to be about 12-13% and now it is closer to 6% of the population.

I'm gonna need a name for this one.

I was off more than I thought, 32% Black. Corryville/Cincinnati
Some developers bought a few blocks across from the UC Medical Center, tore everything down and built some real nice apartment and condos, then more of that a few block in. Then pretty much all of the older housing stock has been renovated.
Started about 12 years ago.
51% White
10% Asian
32% Black
then a smaller amount of mixed and hispanics.
https://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhoo...-Ethnicity

even if there was a significant shift, the population is 3000. that's too small a sample size from which to attempt to draw any sort of conclusion from.

it would look like a massive demographic shift if the detroit pistons played an exhibition, or the mormon tabernacle choir performed . . . or if they moved a city boundary 30 feet in any direction.

(11-27-2017 01:53 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Leaving the city because of liberal politics is the same as burying your head in the sand.

leaving the city because if you don't, you're likely to wind up getting shot is simply common sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if more people in rural areas own guns than in the big city.


I've seen the movie Deliverance. I assure you, those kind of encounters scare me a whole lot more than growing up in the ghetto.

methinks you watch too much TV and not enough real life.

let's use science: pick any rural county in america. compare the gun violence rate to any part of inner city detroit or chicago. scratch head in amazement.


I'll also add that the kill ratio in rural america is much much higher than the inner city. rural peeps know how to shoot. you always read headlines out of chicago that read something like, "85 people shot, 3 killed in weekend violence". and that's not even including the complete misses.

People who move to Chicago to work at Boeing HQ aren't living on the South Side. They're living North of the Loop or in the liberal inner belt suburbs to the West. The crime is there, but it rarely impacts them. I own a condo in Chicago (long story - I inherited it and the rent is really nice, even after paying those high taxes and dealing with those liberal regulations - so I keep it). And its not in a 'great' neighborhood either. But I don't know anyone who has been shot.

Our inner cities are not 'free fire zones'. Basically, if you're not hanging out with drug dealers or in areas where they operate profusely, you're safe. Violence in the inner city is no more of a random thing than it is in rural areas.

Why would Boeing choose Chicago as their HQ if its so bad? Here's why....its not so bad with the crime, and the people whose talents they need to compete won't quit if they're transferred there.

(11-27-2017 02:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moreover Whites, and others like Asians, young and old are moving into the city hoods and pushing black middle and lower classes out to the older suburban ring. Gentrification all of the USA on large scale has been happening for a long time. I live in a city hood that was 10-12 years ago about 90% black. Now it is about 20% black.

In California the % of the black population has been reduced by almost 50%. Used to be about 12-13% and now it is closer to 6% of the population.

I'm gonna need a name for this one.

I was off more than I thought, 32% Black. Corryville/Cincinnati
Some developers bought a few blocks across from the UC Medical Center, tore everything down and built some real nice apartment and condos, then more of that a few block in. Then pretty much all of the older housing stock has been renovated.
Started about 12 years ago.
51% White
10% Asian
32% Black
then a smaller amount of mixed and hispanics.
https://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhoo...-Ethnicity

even if there was a significant shift, the population is 3000. that's too small a sample size from which to attempt to draw any sort of conclusion from.

it would look like a massive demographic shift if the detroit pistons played an exhibition, or the mormon tabernacle choir performed . . . or if they moved a city boundary 30 feet in any direction.

We have about 52 recognized neighborhoods here. And this is one of them.

(11-27-2017 02:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Leaving the city because of liberal politics is the same as burying your head in the sand.

I include high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime (as just a few examples, and there are more for sure) as part of the whole idea of "liberal politics."

After the recent Minneapolis elections for mayor and clowncil the city has gone as far left as any major American city. How is that "burying my head in the sand?" I gave it 11 years before moving and it’s gonna get worse before it gets better in Minneapolis.

Smoke ’em if you got ’em, I guess.

None of the things you mention have anything whatsoever to do with "liberal policies"

The fact that you and others blame everything wrong with this world on "liberal politics" has really gotten old.

Has it ever occurred to you and others that sometimes bad things happen?

Sometimes life just sucks.

People get shot and killed and there is nothing you can do about it remember?

(11-27-2017 02:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moreover Whites, and others like Asians, young and old are moving into the city hoods and pushing black middle and lower classes out to the older suburban ring. Gentrification all of the USA on large scale has been happening for a long time. I live in a city hood that was 10-12 years ago about 90% black. Now it is about 20% black.

In California the % of the black population has been reduced by almost 50%. Used to be about 12-13% and now it is closer to 6% of the population.

There's another dynamic that is going on here. Generally, immigrant communities, especially ones from smaller groups, tend to cluster together. They might have a religious facility that caters to them. Restaurants. Amenities. So they might be more willing to put up with the REAL reason for middle class flight (small house size and the expense of housing) than other groups. LGBT persons want to be in areas where they feel safe and where there are places where they're welcomed.

Persons from larger minority groups (Mexican Americans and African Americans) do cluster, but they have more places where the basic cultural amenities will still exist so they can move out easier while still retaining their cultural ties. And since both groups have been experiencing income gains over the last couple of generations, the desire to move to a 'big house' over a 'house in the cultural neighborhood' might be more compelling. I live inside the loop in Houston. I'm not sure there are any African Americans in my neighborhood (which is a huge area with thousands of homes). I think that the reason is that the average house price is 500k plus for a 1600 sq foot home. You can get a much larger home further out. My African American friends with resources tend to move to more suburban areas with bigger homes like Cypress and Ft Bend County. My Mexican American friends do much of the same, heavily choosing places like Kingwood and Spring. So desirable areas with small homes tend to be getting more Anglo over time.

I think part of the issue is that if you didn't grow up in a big house, it might be hard to see living in an expensive, but small house as being 'successful'.

But even there, there are patterns to the migration. In Houston, certain areas in the burbs have avoided large scale minority attraction (such as Montgomery County and Galveston County).

___

Now that's for the sales market. In the rental market, the rapid rise of property values has caused a rise in rents as well in inner cities. This has pushed out persons that might have less assets generally. And minorities tend to be poorer than the overall population. So, they get pushed outwards.

---

And then minorities in general tend to have larger families. Anglos are trending towards not having families at all in many places. So they need more room. So by necessity they're moving outward. They'll also care more about the school system too.

Oh and something about schools. The difference between inner city and suburban school districts isn't really about liberal policiies, but by the added burdens that city systems have. First, they have to figure out how to get teachers to drive from where they live to work there (most teachers can't afford nice urban housing). Then they have to deal with issues that come from having large student populations from broken homes, larger instances of homelessness, larger instances of non-English speaking household students, etc. No way they compete equally with a gerrymandered suburban district with much of the challenging student populations removed and located in areas where their teachers can actually afford to live. Adding a bunch of charter schools isn't going to change anything (and in Harris County - they haven't).

(11-27-2017 03:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Leaving the city because of liberal politics is the same as burying your head in the sand.

I include high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime (as just a few examples, and there are more for sure) as part of the whole idea of "liberal politics."

After the recent Minneapolis elections for mayor and clowncil the city has gone as far left as any major American city. How is that "burying my head in the sand?" I gave it 11 years before moving and it’s gonna get worse before it gets better in Minneapolis.

Smoke ’em if you got ’em, I guess.

None of the things you mention have anything whatsoever to do with "liberal policies"

The fact that you and others blame everything wrong with this world on "liberal politics" has really gotten old.

Has it ever occurred to you and others that sometimes bad things happen?

Sometimes life just sucks.

People get shot and killed and there is nothing you can do about it remember?

Well, he mentioned high taxes so right of the bat you are incorrect. I get bad things happen everywhere; however, putting oneself and one's family in a better situation, if possible, is simply common sense. In my neck of the woods young people love living in the city. As soon as they get married and have kids though it's off to the suburbs for a variety of reasons, but mainly because the city schools suck, etc.

(11-27-2017 01:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:53 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  leaving the city because if you don't, you're likely to wind up getting shot is simply common sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if more people in rural areas own guns than in the big city.


I've seen the movie Deliverance. I assure you, those kind of encounters scare me a whole lot more than growing up in the ghetto.

methinks you watch too much TV and not enough real life.

let's use science: pick any rural county in america. compare the gun violence rate to any part of inner city detroit or chicago. scratch head in amazement.


I'll also add that the kill ratio in rural america is much much higher than the inner city. rural peeps know how to shoot. you always read headlines out of chicago that read something like, "85 people shot, 3 killed in weekend violence". and that's not even including the complete misses.

Well I've never been east of Houston but there are plenty of places in East and Central Texas where I could tell my kind wasn't tolerated.

Most places don't like trolls.

I'm torn on that one.....they're pretty tasty for breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner.....

(11-27-2017 03:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:53 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Leaving the city because of liberal politics is the same as burying your head in the sand.

leaving the city because if you don't, you're likely to wind up getting shot is simply common sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if more people in rural areas own guns than in the big city.


I've seen the movie Deliverance. I assure you, those kind of encounters scare me a whole lot more than growing up in the ghetto.

methinks you watch too much TV and not enough real life.

let's use science: pick any rural county in america. compare the gun violence rate to any part of inner city detroit or chicago. scratch head in amazement.


I'll also add that the kill ratio in rural america is much much higher than the inner city. rural peeps know how to shoot. you always read headlines out of chicago that read something like, "85 people shot, 3 killed in weekend violence". and that's not even including the complete misses.

People who move to Chicago to work at Boeing HQ aren't living on the South Side. They're living North of the Loop or in the liberal inner belt suburbs to the West. The crime is there, but it rarely impacts them. I own a condo in Chicago (long story - I inherited it and the rent is really nice, even after paying those high taxes and dealing with those liberal regulations - so I keep it). And its not in a 'great' neighborhood either. But I don't know anyone who has been shot.

Our inner cities are not 'free fire zones'. Basically, if you're not hanging out with drug dealers or in areas where they operate profusely, you're safe. Violence in the inner city is no more of a random thing than it is in rural areas.

Why would Boeing choose Chicago as their HQ if its so bad? Here's why....its not so bad with the crime, and the people whose talents they need to compete won't quit if they're transferred there.

bookmarking this one for later.

(11-27-2017 03:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Leaving the city because of liberal politics is the same as burying your head in the sand.

I include high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime (as just a few examples, and there are more for sure) as part of the whole idea of "liberal politics."

After the recent Minneapolis elections for mayor and clowncil the city has gone as far left as any major American city. How is that "burying my head in the sand?" I gave it 11 years before moving and it’s gonna get worse before it gets better in Minneapolis.

Smoke ’em if you got ’em, I guess.

None of the things you mention have anything whatsoever to do with "liberal policies"

The fact that you and others blame everything wrong with this world on "liberal politics" has really gotten old.

Has it ever occurred to you and others that sometimes bad things happen?

Sometimes life just sucks.

People get shot and killed and there is nothing you can do about it remember?

Well, he mentioned high taxes so right of the bat you are incorrect. I get bad things happen everywhere; however, putting oneself and one's family in a better situation, if possible, is simply common sense. In my neck of the woods young people love living in the city. As soon as they get married and have kids though it's off to the suburbs for a variety of reasons, but mainly because the city schools suck, etc.

But that isn't what I take issue with. No one blames anyone for moving out of the city for a different kind of living.

The issue I have is with the myth that it all has to do with liberal politics.

Big cities have all kinds of problems that smaller cities don't have and it has nothing to do with politics.

When we travel to small cities, they all seem to have a meth problem. Do you think I go around blaming that on Conservative politics?

(11-27-2017 01:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  High property prices combined with stagnant wages drove the middle class out of cities. The high property prices resulted from the fact that our most successful businesses need to retain talent. And that talent base is much more liberal than the population at large.

Its not about liberal policies...its about the ability to afford a home. Even in Houston, wide parts of the central core are becoming completely unaffordable for families.

If anything, the liberal cities have become too successful in attracting high priced talent. Because the conservative areas aren't really competing for those good jobs.

If you have a choice....why live in Stockton when you can live in San Fran? Why live in Montgomery when you can live in Houston?

You don't see a lot of leading companies and industries locating in conservative areas. There's a reason for that. Because if you don't welcome immigrants, LGBT persons, single people, and non-Christians as equals in your communities (and provide them with amenities that they want), the businesses that need their talent won't go there. Now you could argue that the middle class people that are pushed out would simply form their own businesses that leverage their talent, but that hasn't largely happened. Because the middle class doesn't have access to capital like the upper class does. And that is the result of Conservative policies, which continue to concentrate wealth in the 'city class' hands. And Trump's new tax plan...is more of the same. Basically, you want to build a large or leading business...you'll probably be doing it in a city.

And there's another dynamic that might be at work here too. Corporate America tends towards those that have decided to prioritize their careers over family. Part of the middle class move is really just people who have decided to emphasize family over career. They tend to be less successful in the corporate world precisely because they put their families first. The Dems at least try to put some regulation in place to handle that (such as Family leave policies, equal pay for women, etc.) to try to sort that out.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the LGBT part. All you really need is LG. The rest is irrelevant. The 'BT' is like a pimple on your ass. It gets in the way and is painful. No offense.

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The issue I have is with the myth that it all has to do with liberal politics.

Big cities have all kinds of problems that smaller cities don't have and it has nothing to do with politics.

Big cities have been dominated - DOMINATED - by liberal politics for, in some cases, over a century.

How much longer should liberals be permitted to put in place policies to solve
big city problems?

So if not liberal politics and policies, what is causing the issue?

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  When we travel to small cities, they all seem to have a meth problem. Do you think I go around blaming that on Conservative politics?

There are no conservative policies that encourage addiction, but there are numerous liberal policies that encourage high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime.

(11-27-2017 03:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  High property prices combined with stagnant wages drove the middle class out of cities. The high property prices resulted from the fact that our most successful businesses need to retain talent. And that talent base is much more liberal than the population at large.

Its not about liberal policies...its about the ability to afford a home. Even in Houston, wide parts of the central core are becoming completely unaffordable for families.

If anything, the liberal cities have become too successful in attracting high priced talent. Because the conservative areas aren't really competing for those good jobs.

If you have a choice....why live in Stockton when you can live in San Fran? Why live in Montgomery when you can live in Houston?

You don't see a lot of leading companies and industries locating in conservative areas. There's a reason for that. Because if you don't welcome immigrants, LGBT persons, single people, and non-Christians as equals in your communities (and provide them with amenities that they want), the businesses that need their talent won't go there. Now you could argue that the middle class people that are pushed out would simply form their own businesses that leverage their talent, but that hasn't largely happened. Because the middle class doesn't have access to capital like the upper class does. And that is the result of Conservative policies, which continue to concentrate wealth in the 'city class' hands. And Trump's new tax plan...is more of the same. Basically, you want to build a large or leading business...you'll probably be doing it in a city.

And there's another dynamic that might be at work here too. Corporate America tends towards those that have decided to prioritize their careers over family. Part of the middle class move is really just people who have decided to emphasize family over career. They tend to be less successful in the corporate world precisely because they put their families first. The Dems at least try to put some regulation in place to handle that (such as Family leave policies, equal pay for women, etc.) to try to sort that out.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the LGBT part. All you really need is LG. The rest is irrelevant. The 'BT' is like a pimple on your ass. It gets in the way and is painful. No offense.

Lots of corporations move to and stay in conservative areas. Both in areas with conservative voters and conservative policies like low taxes. There are lots of considerations regarding should a company have office space Downtown Vs. The Burbs.

(11-27-2017 04:10 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The issue I have is with the myth that it all has to do with liberal politics.

Big cities have all kinds of problems that smaller cities don't have and it has nothing to do with politics.

Big cities have been dominated - DOMINATED - by liberal politics for, in some cases, over a century.

How much longer should liberals be permitted to put in place policies to solve
big city problems?

So if not liberal politics and policies, what is causing the issue?

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  When we travel to small cities, they all seem to have a meth problem. Do you think I go around blaming that on Conservative politics?

There are no conservative policies that encourage addiction, but there are numerous liberal policies that encourage high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime.

If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:10 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The issue I have is with the myth that it all has to do with liberal politics.

Big cities have all kinds of problems that smaller cities don't have and it has nothing to do with politics.

Big cities have been dominated - DOMINATED - by liberal politics for, in some cases, over a century.

How much longer should liberals be permitted to put in place policies to solve
big city problems?

So if not liberal politics and policies, what is causing the issue?

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  When we travel to small cities, they all seem to have a meth problem. Do you think I go around blaming that on Conservative politics?

There are no conservative policies that encourage addiction, but there are numerous liberal policies that encourage high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime.

If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

That's an oxymoron.

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:10 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The issue I have is with the myth that it all has to do with liberal politics.

Big cities have all kinds of problems that smaller cities don't have and it has nothing to do with politics.

Big cities have been dominated - DOMINATED - by liberal politics for, in some cases, over a century.

How much longer should liberals be permitted to put in place policies to solve
big city problems?

So if not liberal politics and policies, what is causing the issue?

(11-27-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  When we travel to small cities, they all seem to have a meth problem. Do you think I go around blaming that on Conservative politics?

There are no conservative policies that encourage addiction, but there are numerous liberal policies that encourage high taxes, poorly performing schools, traffic, burdensome regulations and crime.

If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

Take any good size suburban city township. It is usually ran by GOP leadership.
As an example around here, Blue Ash, Anderson Twp., Mason, W. Chester etc., low crime, low taxes, low homeless.

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

There are no big conservative run cities that I can think of off hand. Perhaps there are a few. But I guess we'd need to agree how to define big?

Here are the top 50 American cities by population. Are any of these run by conservatives?

New York, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Chicago, Ill.
Houston, Tex.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
San Antonio, Tex.
San Diego, Calif.
Dallas, Tex.
San Jose, Calif.
Austin, Tex.
Jacksonville, Fla.
San Francisco, Calif.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Columbus, Ohio
Fort Worth, Tex.
Charlotte, N.C.
Detroit, Mich.
El Paso, Tex.
Seattle, Wash.
Denver, Colo.
Washington, DC
Memphis, Tenn.
Boston, Mass.
Nashville TN
Baltimore, Md.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Portland, Ore.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Louisville KY
Milwaukee, Wis.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Tucson, Ariz.
Fresno, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
Long Beach, Calif.
Kansas City, Mo.
Mesa, Ariz.
Atlanta, Ga.
Virginia Beach, Va.
Omaha, Nebr.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Raleigh, N.C.
Miami, Fla.
Oakland, Calif.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Tulsa, Okla.
Cleveland, Ohio
Wichita, Kans.
New Orleans, La.

What I can tell you is that a lot of these cities have been, and continue to be, dominated by liberal politicians and have been, in some cases, for over a century.

(11-27-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

There are no big conservative run cities that I can think of off hand. Perhaps there are a few. But I guess we'd need to agree how to define big?

Here are the top 50 American cities by population. Are any of these run by conservatives?

New York, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Chicago, Ill.
Houston, Tex.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
San Antonio, Tex.
San Diego, Calif.
Dallas, Tex.
San Jose, Calif.
Austin, Tex.
Jacksonville, Fla.
San Francisco, Calif.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Columbus, Ohio
Fort Worth, Tex.
Charlotte, N.C.
Detroit, Mich.
El Paso, Tex.
Seattle, Wash.
Denver, Colo.
Washington, DC
Memphis, Tenn.
Boston, Mass.
Nashville TN
Baltimore, Md.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Portland, Ore.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Louisville KY
Milwaukee, Wis.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Tucson, Ariz.
Fresno, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
Long Beach, Calif.
Kansas City, Mo.
Mesa, Ariz.
Atlanta, Ga.
Virginia Beach, Va.
Omaha, Nebr.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Raleigh, N.C.
Miami, Fla.
Oakland, Calif.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Tulsa, Okla.
Cleveland, Ohio
Wichita, Kans.
New Orleans, La.

What I can tell you is that a lot of these cities have been, and continue to be, dominated by liberal politicians and have been, in some cases, for over a century.

Possibly Indy and Raleigh might have majority GOP council and a GOP Mayor. Big cities have a built in demographic that keeps Dems in charge.

(11-27-2017 03:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There's another dynamic that is going on here. Generally, immigrant communities, especially ones from smaller groups, tend to cluster together. They might have a religious facility that caters to them. Restaurants. Amenities. So they might be more willing to put up with the REAL reason for middle class flight (small house size and the expense of housing) than other groups. LGBT persons want to be in areas where they feel safe and where there are places where they're welcomed.

Persons from larger minority groups (Mexican Americans and African Americans) do cluster, but they have more places where the basic cultural amenities will still exist so they can move out easier while still retaining their cultural ties.

So why do you liberal idiots get bent out of shape when conservative whites want to "cluster" in the suburbs and rural areas?