Is NYC the most geopolitically diverse city in the US?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

Isn't that area around O'Hare really Polish?

it's a hodge-podge of old white ethnics and their descendants (yeah, lots of poles), many of whom are city workers and thus have to live within city limits (but just barely).

but it is getting less white over time as the latino push into the NW side intensifies. portage is already latino pluality, and dunning & jeff park will likely be next.

it'll be very interesting to see if things play out up there over the next 40 years like they did on the SW side over the past 40.

[Docere]

ZIP Code 60634 (O'Hare, Dunning, Portage Park):

Population: 73,382

NHW 56.3%
Polish 23.5% (13.6% born in Poland)
German 8.4%
Italian 7.6%
Irish 7.1%

Jefferson Park

Population: 41,053

NHW 62.2%

Polish 20.7% (8.8% born in Poland)
Irish 14.7%
German 12.5%
Italian 7.1%

ZIP Code 60706 (Norridge/Harwood Heights)

Population: 23,604

NHW 82.4%

Polish 33% (17.2% born in Poland)
Italian 14.6%
German 10.2%
Irish 5.7%

[craigs]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

This is a really interesting discussion. I think LA is a lot more uniformly liberal than New York City. Historically, the San Fernando Valley was the most conservative part of LA and I think the Gateway cities were more white working class but that has changed in recent decades.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...s-angeles/amp/

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA doesn't strike me as "uniformly liberal". Plenty of relatively conservative areas. But yeah, not really WWC areas like on the East Coast. Maybe parts of San Pedro?

Crawford, you should skim the fivethirtyeight analysis linked in 202 Cyclist's post. They tracked the various districts' voting records on candidates and selected propositions that measure voter sentiment on a bunch of different issues, and classified all the districts into six typologies.

As the article notes, the "closest thing Los Angeles has to a conservative political neighborhood" is comprised of "a northern region that covers the western and eastern edges of the San Fernando Valley, plus the southern neighborhoods of San Pedro, Wilmington and Harbor City near the Port of Los Angeles."

But those areas still don't qualify as "relatively conservative" in a national context. Per the article, those districts combined went 64-34% Biden to Trump, and even more telling, 49% voted for the progressive DA (Gascon) over the moderate incumbent.

LA is not uniformly progressive, but nowhere in LA is as conservative as Hasidic Brooklyn or southern Staten Island. No notable part of LA went for Trump, for instance. Now, expand the scope out to the MSA or CSA level and you'll definitely find relatively conservative areas, like the Antelope Valley and a big swath of Orange County.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The D/R matters less at the local level. There are, of course, conservative Ds and liberal(ish) Rs.

That said, the NYC council gained two Rs in 2020, with a wacky vax skeptic flipping a seat to R in a former Soviet-dominated South Brooklyn district, and an Italian sorta-moderate R beating a liberal Asian D in a Queens district fast transforming from white ethnic to Asian.

Given slim margins, and rapid ethnic change, and DT likely not on ballot, both seats will be at high risk come next election.

I think the Brooklyn-Staten Island district is structurally out of reach for Democrats.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

most of DC may not be black, but it is still one of the blackest major cities (by city proper) in the nation.


of US municipalities over 300K, 4 are majority NH-black:

- detroit: 77.2% NH-black
- memphis: 61.3% NH-black
- baltimore: 57.3% NH-black
- new orleans: 53.6% NH-black


and of US municipalities over 300K, 6 are plurality NH-black:

- newark: 47.5% NH-black
- cleveland: 47.5% NH-black
- Atlanta: 46.7% NH-black
- DC: 40.9% NH-black
- philadelphia: 38.3% NH-black
- milwaukee: 37.8% NH-black


and there are 2 municipalities over 300K that are over 40% NH-black, but because of their very low numbers of other groups, NH-whites hold a slim plurality:

- st. louis: 42.8% NH-black
- cincinnati: 40.3% NH-black

D.C. is a very interesting case to me. The white/black population split was pretty static for most of the city's existence at around 70% white, 30% black. Suddenly, in the 1960 census D.C.'s white population falls to 45% and the black population jumps to 54%. By 1970, D.C.'s black population jumps to 71%. Contrast this to Detroit, which didn't cross the 50% black mark until 2 decades after D.C., and didn't hit 70% until the 1990s.

[Crawford]

Right, Detroit wasn't a black outlier until relatively recently. And Metro Detroit isn't a black outlier.

Cleveland was nearly 40% black in 1960. For a big city, that was an outlier. And it isn't much blacker today. Basically all the black expansion in the last 50 years was suburban, while Detroit's black expansion was in the (much more extensive) city proper, until relatively recently.

Southfield, probably the most prominent black Detroit suburb, was still very Jewish until about 2000 or so. My high school played sports against the two Southfield high schools, and in the 1990's, one of the high schools still had a relatively small black population (Southfield Lathrup). Southfield High was majority black, however.

West Bloomfield had near-zero black population. Now West Bloomfield High is majority black, I believe.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, Detroit wasn't a black outlier until relatively recently. And Metro Detroit isn't a black outlier.

Cleveland was nearly 40% black in 1960. For a big city, that was an outlier. And it isn't much blacker today. Basically all the black expansion in the last 50 years was suburban, while Detroit's black expansion was in the (much more extensive) city proper, until relatively recently.

Southfield, probably the most prominent black Detroit suburb, was still very Jewish until about 2000 or so. My high school played sports against the two Southfield high schools, and in the 1990's, one of the high schools still had a relatively small black population (Southfield Lathrup). Southfield High was majority black, however.

West Bloomfield had near-zero black population. Now West Bloomfield High is majority black, I believe.

There was a small black minority in West Bloomfield by the late 90s, but it was definitely under 10%. However, it was one of the most black suburbs in Oakland County in the late 90s/early 00s. Most of the black population of Oakland County was still concentrated in Southfield and Oak Park then, but Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield were probably a distant third and fourth by that point.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And Metro Detroit isn't a black outlier.

no, not an outlier, but metro detroit is the blackest 1M+ MSA outside of the traditional south:


1M+ MSAs >20% NH-black (census 2020):

memphis: 45.5%
atlanta: 33.2%
new orleans: 32.9%
virginia beach: 29.6%
birmingham: 29.3%
baltimore: 28.2%
richmond: 27.4%
washington dc: 24.1%
detroit: 21.7%
charlotte: 21.5%
jacksonville: 20.8%



philly and cleveland are really close to 20%:

philly: 19.8%
cleveland: 19.3%

source: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content..._-Populati.pdf

[Docere]

South Philly Italians are also very Trumpy:

https://southphillyreview.com/2022/0...ns-love-trump/

[Crawford]

Yeah, the Italian American connection to the former guy is pretty interesting.

He won Packer Park, the most Italian geography of South Philly.

[Docere]

Besides NYC, Philadelphia seems to the only city with Italian-majority census tracts.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

Besides NYC, Philadelphia seems to the only city with Italian-majority census tracts.

Boston? Providence?

Elsewhere in the northeast?

[Docere]

Looking around statisticalatlas.com I found one in Providence (Cranston) - 52% and a few others just under 50%.

[Docere]

Four townships in Cook County voted R: Lemont (58.7%), Norwood Park (52.2%), Palos (51.4%) and Orland (50.7%).

Interestingly, Barrington Township (horse country?) narrowly went to Biden.

[dave8721]

Miami-Dade had some heavily Cuban precincts where Trump won 78% of the vote. He won 66% of the vote in Russian-heavy Sunny Isles Beach. And there are many precincts where Biden got 90% of the vote.
What is interesting is the drastic shift from 2016 to 2020. Hillary did better than Biden in all but a couple of precincts. One precinct shifted by 44 points pro Trump from 2016 to 2020. The working class Hispanic districts shifted massively pro-Trump from 2016 to 2020. He went from getting 20-something% of the vote in some precincts in 2016 to 55-60% in 2020.

[Crawford]

The Florida Hillary-to-Biden shift is interesting. Does Florida have ideal demographics for Trumpy rhetoric (see DeSantis) or is there a more fundamental shift in the state electorate? It went from a classic battleground state to kind of the anti-Cali vision of red state governance.

Also, the Carribean Latin drift from GOP to Dems seems to have stalled or reversed. The fact that Hialeah is solid Trumpy is kind of mind-blowing. A bunch of working class immigrant urban Hispanics voting for a movement that demonizes working class immigrant urban Hispanics.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Florida Hillary-to-Biden shift is interesting. Does Florida have ideal demographics for Trumpy rhetoric (see DeSantis) or is there a more fundamental shift in the state electorate? It went from a classic battleground state to kind of the anti-Cali vision of red state governance.

Also, the Carribean Latin drift from GOP to Dems seems to have stalled or reversed.

There is the non-stop Spanish radio propaganda "the socialistsas are coming to get you" as well. In one Venezuelan district in Doral it went from Hillary getting 77% of the vote in 2016 to Trump getting 56% of the vote in 2020. It seems Hispanic men shifted wildly away from Biden towards Trump.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Florida Hillary-to-Biden shift is interesting. Does Florida have ideal demographics for Trumpy rhetoric (see DeSantis) or is there a more fundamental shift in the state electorate? It went from a classic battleground state to kind of the anti-Cali vision of red state governance.

A lot of the shift in Florida over the last 20 years was just a result of generational change. Back in 2000 most Florida retirees were still members of the Greatest Generation, who grew up with the New Deal and were left-of center. Now retirees are largely Silents, who were always more conservative overall, and are now the most right-leaning generation (though older members of Gen X are close).

Theoretically, Florida should become more competitive as the retiree population shifts to Boomers, who tend to be more split politically. But the "branding" of the state is now so heavily associated with the GOP that a lot of left-leaning retirees avoid it, meaning it may keep the current dynamics for quite awhile. Indeed, I think part of the reason DeSantis is governing in such a divisive way is to scare away liberals who have shifted the rest of the southern Atlantic coast to the left.

[Docere]

Seems to be me there's a "sorting" of retirees: conservatives to Florida, liberals to places like the Berkshires.

[Crawford]

For retirees/snowbirds, I've noticed moving to Florida is now almost a political act. That's an extremely recent phenomenon. Before it was all about sunshine and avoiding taxes. Jewish garmentos from the Bronx (later LI) baking in the South Florida heat. Libs and cons both welcome.

So probably there's a bunch of deliberate self-sorting now. The Carolinas/GA coastal areas, which previously weren't even in play, seem to attract a different crowd, I think?