What is the most left-wing city in America?

[pj3000]

D does not equal left wing. You’re all wasting words and time.

R = right wing way more than D = left wing. And it’s not even close.

Stop posting Biden and D percentages. You’re showing how little awareness you have.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Docere

Well said. And hard data is hard to come by, because all these currents vote under the Democratic Party banner.

Don't they say that the American Democratic Party is the most heterogeneous of any political party in the world?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And yet here is someone trained in political science giving you data adequate to answer the question. Data that doesn’t rely on two party vote shares, which - as you and others have presciently noted - are not adequate to the job.

What if we don't want to follow the political science definition?

[bossabreezes]

It used to be San Francisco, but it definitely isn't anymore. The title for most ''left wing'' would have to go to somewhere like Portland, Oregon.

San Francisco is actually becoming more conservative and is bucking far-left trends it once embraced. I'm not saying it's turning right wing or anything, but it's definitely not as ''left wing'' as it once was. It's just becoming more moderate, even if still left leaning.

And if you come at me with statistics on Democrat vs Republican voting numbers out of SF, you are not proving anything. Left wing and Democrats are not the same thing. If you think they are, you are a lost cause.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Don't they say that the American Democratic Party is the most heterogeneous of any political party in the world?

It is a big tent indeed. The US system forces the D/R binary.

The Republicans are very right-wing compared to traditional conservative parties, and that was true even pre-Trump.

So pretty much everyone outside the tent - ranging from center-right neoliberals to socialist left - are Democrats.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by mhays

What if we don't want to follow the political science definition?

That’s fine, as long as it is an informed opinion that takes into consideration what the political science actually writes and says, and theorizes and concludes, and can be supported empirically—because then what you’d be doing is somewhat rigorous amateur political science of your own of the kind many above are doing, and there is nothing better than citizens informing themselves properly. But, of course, being somewhat knowledgeable about what you’re arguing against (the academic political science) really would help you, no?

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by pj3000

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?

The main problem with this is that both the Democrats and Republicans are neoliberal, which is a right wing ideology.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

It used to be San Francisco, but it definitely isn't anymore. The title for most ''left wing'' would have to go to somewhere like Portland, Oregon.

San Francisco is actually becoming more conservative and is bucking far-left trends it once embraced. I'm not saying it's turning right wing or anything, but it's definitely not as ''left wing'' as it once was. It's just becoming more moderate, even if still left leaning.

And if you come at me with statistics on Democrat vs Republican voting numbers out of SF, you are not proving anything. Left wing and Democrats are not the same thing. If you think they are, you are a lost cause.

Well, even if you consider the whole of public opinion (see all my posts above) - rather than cherry picking issues - San Francisco is still a statistically significant
distance further left than Portland. The city you’re looking for is Seattle.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Docere

It is a big tent indeed. Any system that uses geographic, winner-take-all districts forces a two party binary.

Duverger’s Law.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Duverger’s Law.

Indeed. The US is an extreme example of that though. Britain and Canada have two "major" parties as well and no proportional representation, but there are other ideological and regional parties that have representation (like the NDP representing the left in Canada, the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec, Scottish and Welsh parties and the LibDems in Britain).

However Duverger's Law often applies at the constituency level. Labour displaced the Liberals as the main anti-Conservative party over a century ago, but the Liberals continued to exist (and became the LibDems in the 1980s when they merged with a right-wing breakoff from Labour). But in certain middle class constituencies where Labour is weak, the Liberals/LibDems are the main anti-Tory option and people who would likely vote Labour in most other constituencies vote LibDem there.

[202_Cyclist]

This answer is easy-- Burlington, VT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlin...,_City_Council

Second place might be Santa Cruz.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by jd3189

The main problem with this is that both the Democrats and Republicans are neoliberal, which is a right wing ideology.

Neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism as the economic orthodoxy in the 1980s.

The few left-wing governments in the 80s (outside of Scandinavia) really struggled under the new conditions, with a globalized economy and end of Keynesianism/Bretton Woods system.

Mitterand was elected in 1981 on perhaps the most radical platform of any European social democratic party in the postwar period. But soon ran into trouble and made a U-turn.

Australia also had a Labor government that was basically Blairism before Blair.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroder worked together in the Third Way movement. Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have said her greatest accomplishment was New Labour.

[202_Cyclist]

I didn't see this is amongst major cities. DC would have to be among the most left-wing cities although there is a reactionary strain among some native-born DC residents towards all the growth and new inhabitants of the last few decades.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

This answer is easy-- Burlington, VT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlin...,_City_Council

Second place might be Santa Cruz.

Bernie's political history is fascinating. Outsider in the House is a good read (first written long before he ran for president). It's remarkable he's made it as far as he has in US politics.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Docere

Bernie's political history is fascinating. Outsider in the House is a good read (first written long before he ran for president). It's remarkable he's made it as far as he has in US politics.

Bernie spoke to one of my economics classes (International Trade) while I was an undergrad at UVM. He was essentially giving the same critique of our economic system in the late 1990s as he was in 2016 and 2020.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That’s fine, as long as it is an informed opinion that takes into consideration what the political science actually writes and says, and theorizes and concludes, and can be supported empirically—because then what you’d be doing is somewhat rigorous amateur political science of your own of the kind many above are doing, and there is nothing better than citizens informing themselves properly. But, of course, being somewhat knowledgeable about what you’re arguing against (the academic political science) really would help you, no?

Totally disagree. We're using vernacular terms and ideas, and that's ok. It's actually pretty important for the broad electorate to discuss these things.

This is much like the architecture debate...some say your opinion about building aesthetics doesn't count unless you're grounded in architectural theory and use the correct terms. That's also wrong.

[Docere]

Interesting. Does UVM have a heterodox economics department?

I know U Mass Amherst is the big heterodox one. Richard Wolff taught there, Robert Pollin is still there I think.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Docere

Interesting. Does UVM have a heterodox economics department?

I know U Mass Amherst is the big heterodox one. Richard Wolff taught there, Robert Pollin is still there I think.

It used to but it also had a couple of conservative economics professors.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by mhays

Totally disagree. We're using vernacular terms and ideas, and that's ok. It's actually pretty important for the broad electorate to discuss these things.

This is much like the architecture debate...some say your opinion about building aesthetics doesn't count unless you're grounded in architectural theory and use the correct terms. That's also wrong.

Let’s separate this out into two areas, shall we?

1. Talking about our own subjective ideological viewpoints and policy positions, vis-a-vis others, and those of elected officials with which we take issue.

2. Talking about the objective reality which is the sum of all of the ideological and policy opinions of a group of people.

Your example is akin to the former, this entire discussion was meant to be the latter.

I take no issue with the idea that citizens should express their political, ideological, and policy opinions, from wherever they came or however they came to them, otherwise small-d democracy does not function properly. Likewise, I think when talking about architecture that we should give great space to opinions on the architecture whether they have to do with “theories” or not, or even whether the people speaking know anything of those theories. Example: is this building or skyline beautiful? It is pretty important, probably most important, that the electorate discuss politics.

I do take issue with people trying to avoid a great deal of academic evidence when engaged in a discussion about the objective reality of the world. The bar for acceptability here is higher, because statements about an objective reality (rather than statements of the subjective, as in the above) require evidence and an openness to alternative evidence on all sides. No, you don’t HAVE to know the academic theories to engage (as I implied above) in a substantive way, but it sure does HELP. Likewise, to pull an example from architecture, if we were to be discussing how a particular build technique in an era consistently altered the external visual appearance in x way, subjective opinions would not matter but only a large amount of evidence which can be brought to light on that objective reality (or lack thereof) is appropriate.

Being able to talk about the former freely and without concern does not abrogate the responsibility inherent in the latter—a responsibility we either freely rise to be concerned with or we do not. It is up to each of us to know the difference and to give weight to someone’s words accordingly.

[Lost Island]

The right-wing radio hosts were always obsessed with Oakland-Berkeley. Maybe "Portlandia" deserves a runner-up, too. That dang 'left coast'.

Some of those Yankees up by Harvard too. Don't wunna ferget them, either, in that "People's Republic of Massachusetts" they got goin there.