What is the most left-wing city in America?

[iheartthed]

I think down ballot races and ballot proposals are better for the left-wing ideological test than the presidential race. Santa Clara County voted for Prop 64 to legalize marijuana in 2016 by the same percentage (58%) that Oakland County did for MI Prop 1 two years later to legalize marijuana in Michigan. Even though Santa Clara did vote far more in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate than Oakland in 2016 or 2020, I'd say both places are pretty ideologically similar.

[Busy Bee]

I think it's important to remember in this conversation that the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election was the result of a majority voting for the Democratic candidate as well as voting AGAINST the threat of a second T**** term than it was a vote FOR Joseph Robinette Biden the inspiring candidate.. It's no secret he didn't align with the progressive base and almost universally did not excite the registered Democrat or independents. It's why this conversation about his intentions for 2024 will continue to become more and more awkward because most supporters of the Democratic agenda, even while acknowledging his overall positive performance as administrator and accomplishments under his belt, feel the unease of his age and desperately want a new energizing D prez candidate to get behind. And for the record I dont see many fellow left of center Americans foaming at the mouth with excitement over a Kamala Harris candidacy. Sorry to say.

[Gordo]

If we're talking true left wing in an economic sense, there's no way that it's any city other than Portland or Seattle. San Francisco isn't close, and any city on the east coast is in a different league. Seattle is the only city that I know of that has elected a capital S socialist to the city council or equivalent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant

Sawant has called for the government to seize the means of production multiple times, most humorously to seize Boeing factories to build buses for the people rather than planes for the plutocrats.

Seattle has markedly moderated since the 2021 election, so Portland might take the title now. Though...Savant did survive a recall in December 2021, and she's still the most left wing (in the traditional sense) elected rep anywhere in the US from what I've seen. At least for big cities.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not sure most self-identified progressive would label "pro growth" as a progressive identifier. I get why people on SSP include it, but no way is some stereotypical Occupy Portland protestor supporting highrise condo development.

They might not support highrise condos specifically, but in my region the loudest progressive voices are currently in the "build infill housing everywhere" camp, to support equity and affordability. The core idea is simply more housing, along with breaking down the barriers (like single-family zoning) that have contributed to social ills.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yeah that's a bit of a stretch to say the least but what other broadly based survey on the top of left/right that literally every city/metro participated in can we look at?

Right, it's tough to say what data can best serve as proxy for "most left-wing" city.

Considering a city as a whole, I guess Portland seems to get the most media coverage for left-wing protests, events, groups, movements...

And I imagine parts of Brooklyn and parts of the Bay Area are likely to rank highly for concentration of a left-wing ethos.

But NYC and DC are likely tops when it comes to actual left-wing ideology, influence, and policy.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Who claimed Biden was left-wing? I doubt you'd find any city anywhere in the US where a left-winger won much of anything (hell, Bernie isn't even left-wing).

That's the topic of the thread: "What is the most left-wing city in America?"

But people keep bringing up Democrats, who are far from being left-wing. I guess the question should be "What is the city with the most Democratic Party voters/supporters?"

Since you bring up Bernie, incidentally, most Democrats in California voted for him in the 2020 Presidential Primary:

Wikpedia

[Yuri]

In a country like the US, with two parties only, it's almost impossible to answer this question.

And even if it wasn't, it's a different question: look at former East Germany, for instance: they have a very strong base of old-school left-wing voters but would they be "more left-wing" than a city/region vote for centre-left/social democrat politicians? Or like a city as San Francisco or New York, who keep producing and exporting new left-wing ideals, discussions worldwide, despite those kind of left-wingers being only a niche on both?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yeah that's a bit of a stretch to say the least but what other broadly based survey on the top of left/right that literally every city/metro participated in can we look at?

Anyhow, from manitopiaaa's great thread:

Metro Areas by Percent of Vote for Biden 2020:
80.52% San Francisco
73.87% San Jose
73.35% Washington DC
69.08% Seattle
68.02% Boston
67.89% Los Angeles
65.81% Chicago
65.76% Portland
64.91% Philadelphia
63.65% Austin
62.93% Denver
62.62% Baltimore
62.12% Hartford
61.67% San Diego
61.00% New York

I'm actually very impressed by Chicago in this stat.

Interesting. LA's percentage I assume also includes Greater Los Angeles, which takes in the more conservative Inland Empire and Ventura County and Orange County.

And let's remember, just because these are the percentages of people who voted for Biden, does not mean that the remaining percent voted for Trump.

This is how Los Angeles County only (not "Greater LA") voted in the 2020 Presidential Election:

Los Angeles County Registar-Recorder/County Clerk

I am part of that 0.37% who voted for Gloria La Riva of the Peace and Freedom Party, a true leftist party, of which I used to be a registered voter (I am currently a registered Green, but I'm thinking of switching back to the Peace and Freedom Party).

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Yuri

In a country like the US, with two parties only, it's almost impossible to answer this question.

And even if it wasn't, it's a different question: look at former East Germany, for instance: they have a very strong base of old-school left-wing voters but would they be "more left-wing" than a city/region vote for centre-left/social democrat politicians? Or like a city as San Francisco or New York, who keep producing and exporting new left-wing ideals, discussions worldwide, despite those kind of left-wingers being only a niche on both?

That's the thing, the US has several parties, but the status-quo same two parties have rigged the system to suppress other political parties. They've made it so that those other political parties have to jump through several hoops to make it on the election ballot, and the private organization that organizes the televised presidential debates have basically not allowed other political parties from joining those debates.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The South Bay is very liberal in the voting booth.

Corporate dems and libertarian tech bros lol.

SF definitely would have been the most left-wing city from the 60s to the 90s. Today it's probably Portland.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would define being a "liberal" city as having cultures of: 1) high diversity tolerance (ethnic and social), 2) strong protection of human rights, and 3) strong pro-urban growth policies. This is how I'd generally rank the principal city of the 30 largest metros from most "liberal" to least "liberal" based on this criteria:

1. San Francisco
2. Portland
3. Seattle
4. Minneapolis
5. Boston
6. New York
7. Los Angeles
8. Washington
9. Denver
10. Austin
11. Chicago
12. Philadelphia
13. Detroit
14. Baltimore
15. Pittsburgh
16. St. Louis
17. San Diego
18. Atlanta
19. Miami
20. Las Vegas
21. Charlotte
22. Orlando
23. Tampa
24. Sacramento
25. San Antonio
26. Cincinnati
27. Houston
28. Dallas
29. Phoenix

SF seems to rank the highest on all three. NYC ranks high on diversity tolerance and very high on pro-urban policies, but is average to poor on protection of human rights, particularly regarding the relationship between law enforcement and the community. Much of this is based on my perception of places through media.

The original question is about the most “left-wing” city.

Leftism is often illiberal, by nature. Shared wealth (forced redistribution), less individual liberties, etc. are core concepts of leftism.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

That's the thing, the US has several parties, but the status-quo same two parties have rigged the system to suppress other political parties. They've made it so that those other political parties have to jump through several hoops to make it on the election ballot, and the private organization that organizes the televised presidential debates have basically not allowed other political parties from joining those debates.

It's not the parties, it's the system. You need a broad tent to win. You want your opponents to have a strong third party.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by lio45

The original question is about the most “left-wing” city.

Leftism is often illiberal, by nature. Shared wealth (forced redistribution), less individual liberties, etc. are core concepts of leftism.

Being leftist is all about social equality and being egalitarian, and not having a social hierarchy.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by lio45

The original question is about the most “left-wing” city.

Leftism is often illiberal, by nature. Shared wealth (forced redistribution), less individual liberties, etc. are core concepts of leftism.

That's an incredibly biased definition. It could be all those things, but it could be others. Don't let money to completely oppress individuals or the focus on poverty.

And regarding individual liberties, well, given how Britain or the US (with their right wing/capitalist ethos) treated LGBT people or non-Whites till very recently, that's a very problematic way to define leftism, specially in an Anglophone context.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Being leftist is all about social equality and being egalitarian, and not having a social hierarchy.

Yeah, and to implement that successfully, you need to have, and enforce all the time, a bunch of illiberal rules.

In a liberal society, the natural result isn’t social equality. If you want that result, it needs to be created (by illiberal policies).

I’m not even taking a side here, merely stating the obvious.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

The original question is about the most “left-wing” city.

Leftism is often illiberal, by nature. Shared wealth (forced redistribution), less individual liberties, etc. are core concepts of leftism.

The U.S. definition of liberalism/left-wing differs a lot from what it means in the global context. This is probably because strong economic liberalism has had an inverse relationship with personal liberties throughout the history of the United States.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's an incredibly biased definition. It could be all those things, but it could be others. Don't let money to completely oppress individuals or the focus on poverty.

And regarding individual liberties, well, given how Britain or the US (with their right wing/capitalist ethos) treated LGBT people or non-Whites till very recently, that's a very problematic way to define leftism, specially in an Anglophone context.

The Anglo-Liberal societies are actually the ones that treat LGBT and nonwhites the best on this planet.

It’s not perfect, but everywhere else is worse.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

In a country like the US, with two parties only, it's almost impossible to answer this question.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

That's the thing, the US has several parties, but the status-quo same two parties have rigged the system to suppress other political parties. They've made it so that those other political parties have to jump through several hoops to make it on the election ballot, and the private organization that organizes the televised presidential debates have basically not allowed other political parties from joining those debates.

Originally Posted by mhays

It's not the parties, it's the system. You need a broad tent to win. You want your opponents to have a strong third party.

It will always come down to 2 parties, no matter where you are. This choice versus that choice.

We'd all love to have that 3rd main option in life, right? Except it doesn't exist.

Platforms, philosophies, tenets of other "third" parties become absorbed/watered down/assimilated into one party or the other, generally the "Left" party or the "Right" party.

This is the way it works... action/reaction, North/South, East/West, Yin/Yang...

The idea of a battle, contest, game, election, etc. between more than 2 main parties goes against the very basic forces of our universe.

When is the last time you watched three teams playing against each other on the same field or court?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

That's the thing, the US has several parties, but the status-quo same two parties have rigged the system to suppress other political parties. They've made it so that those other political parties have to jump through several hoops to make it on the election ballot, and the private organization that organizes the televised presidential debates have basically not allowed other political parties from joining those debates.

You'd have much better luck in a parliamentary system with the whole two major parties thing due to the cross-spectrum coalition building such a system requires.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by craigs

Maybe Oakland?

Berkeley even more so.