Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 12th_Monkey

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.


79 posted on 01/20/2014 10:08:08 AM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: mvymvy

beg to differ. I’ve seen the vote by county maps and in Kali, all the larger cities go to Democrats. You can see it all across the county.

Every major population center is blue. Cities control the election of the president, not the burbs or the county


91 posted on 01/20/2014 3:09:46 PM PST by 12th_Monkey (One man one vote is a big fail, when the "one" man is an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson