Affordable Family Formation

[Odin]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Actually, the fastest growing counties where people are moving to are mostly Republican

I definitely know this to be true here. The Fargo-Moorhead area is a perfect example of "exurbia" if there ever was one. It is these Exurbs that has made Minnesota, one one of the most left-wing states in the country, into a swing state.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I did, and I think the author has a strong point, especially with the expansion of suburbs.

I also think it'll result in a moderating influence on the party, since these people generally won't be wacko fundies...

I think this is completely wrong. People who move to the exurbs, the fast growing areas, often have one of their major reasons escaping what is seen as a culturally decadent environment, and so they move further away from it. They are often socially conservative. You shouldn't be thinking of Fairfax County as the one leading the expansion, but rather Loudon County becoming more politically influential.

The people who the Republicans have been doing the best at gaining the votes of are socially conservative former Democrats in the South and in the rust belt. You can expect see Social Conservativsm, for that reason, remain very important to the GOP.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


I think this is completely wrong. People who move to the exurbs, the fast growing areas, often have one of their major reasons escaping what is seen as a culturally decadent environment, and so they move further away from it.

I've wondered fro a while if the US tilt toward conservativism in recent years has to do with an increasing trend toward social isolation, both in terms of living near fewer people (the exurbs) and interacting less with the public (the whole giant-tv cocooning phenomenon). Dems do best where people have the smallest homes and greatest number and variety of options for going out in public (cities and college towns).

[notyoueither]

It seems the Republicans are benefitting from a rapidly growing demographic of family oriented, conservative people who are clustering in new communities and then influencing other people that move in who might not support them (unaligned or former Democrats).

[:) Smiley]

Only in America do people voluntarily move from cities back to the countryside...I guess this country is more backwards than I thought.

[Kuciwalker]

Suburbia != the countryside. Suburbia = almost all the benefits of living in a city, without actually having to live in a city.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It seems the Republicans are benefitting from a rapidly growing demographic of family oriented, conservative people who are clustering in new communities and then influencing other people that move in who might not support them (unaligned or former Democrats).

I have a fair number of friends who used to be liberal city dwellers, then moved to suburbia because they started having families and needed space and decent schools. They then, predictably, became more conservative. What's weird is that they complain ceaselessly about how souless their suburb is (true), how boring their lives are (also true), and how much they miss city life. I get the sense that if the US could make its cities liveable (like, say, Europe) more people would stay in them and stay liberal.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I've wondered fro a while if the US tilt toward conservativism in recent years has to do with an increasing trend toward social isolation, both in terms of living near fewer people (the exurbs) and interacting less with the public (the whole giant-tv cocooning phenomenon). Dems do best where people have the smallest homes and greatest number and variety of options for going out in public (cities and college towns).

Yep, these people build thier big McMansions and wall themselves away from other people, content with watching Survivor and NASCAR; while thier brains rot. It's no wonder those fools vote Republican.

[Kuciwalker]

@ Odin

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Suburbia != the countryside. Suburbia = almost all the benefits of living in a city, without actually having to live in a city.

You are nuts to believe you have all the benefits of a City living in a suburb.

NO, suburb is having a big home while a relative short trip away from work and free of cows. Having City ammenaties is not part of the deal. Its like living in a very spread out small town (towns having their own main street with restaurants and maybe a theater).

[GePap]

Well, it seems my analysis still stand

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Odin


Yep, these people build thier big McMansions and wall themselves away from other people, content with watching Survivor

Well, leaving politics out of it for a moment, I do find it interesting that the trend toward moving away from people and building youself a house that you never have to leave has coincided with the rise of "reality programs," extended exercises in voyeurism and watching how it is that other people live.

[DanS]

I have a fair number of friends who used to be liberal city dwellers, then moved to suburbia because they started having families and needed space and decent schools. They then, predictably, became more conservative. What's weird is that they complain ceaselessly about how souless their suburb is (true), how boring their lives are (also true), and how much they miss city life. I get the sense that if the US could make its cities liveable (like, say, Europe) more people would stay in them and stay liberal.

To be fair, I don't know as Europeans really have as much of a chance to move outside the city. Land is expensive there and the cities aren't built to move people in and out of the city as much for work. So we would have to reduce the appeal of the suburbs and rural areas in the US as well as make US cities liveable for families.

As for your friends, I think I live in what is becoming a liveable part of the city. However, I know for a fact that it's not built to be liveable for families and I see remarkably few children about. It's built for DINKs and singles. If it were built for families, then it would become a lot more boring immediately.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


To be fair, I don't know as Europeans really have as much of a chance to move outside the city. Land is expensive there and the cities aren't built to move people in and out of the city as much for work. So we would have to reduce the appeal of the suburbs and rural areas in the US as well as make US cities liveable for families.

As for your friends, I think I live in what is becoming a liveable part of the city. However, I know for a fact that it's not built to be liveable for families and I see remarkably few children about. It's built for DINKs and singles. If it were built for families, then it would become a lot more boring immediately.

Not built for families? Then care to explain how on earth those poor Americans lived prior to 1947 and the invention of the suburb? Somehow families made do in Cities.

NYC has 1 Million school age children in it, 1/8th the population. That must be a lot of stupid families.I can tell you form my neighborhood that its infested with new couples and their rugrats.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
@ Odin

Look who's talking, silver spoon boy.