4 ms·

Am I missing something? I live in the midwest, so I might be. From here, San Francisco seems so deeply liberal and Democratic, that even if you would change out

Am I missing something? I live in the midwest, so I might be. From here, San Francisco seems so deeply liberal and Democratic, that even if you would change out the entire local government, you'd get similarly-minded people right back, and nothing would change. I'm also middle-aged, and seen this argument before. No matter how bad things get in, say, Chicago or Detroit, "citizens" have never flipped a deeply-Democratic city, nor implemented significant changes to the systemic policies that have led to their situations. For decades, I've watched from afar as people argue about SF's housing policies, which I think are ultimately responsible for almost all the problems there. Is there ANY hope that the local government would risk losing an iota of existing property value by making policies to significantly expand housing?

Gareth321 4y ago
New York voted in Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, in 1994 because of out of control crime. When things get bad enough people take action. It's just that not enough people have died yet for voters to care. Also, party affiliation is much more like a religion in America now than it is a democratic institution. Party affiliation is a core identity now, and people don't like to acknowledge their religion's failings no matter the evidence.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  As I wrote that, I actually thought about New York and the way they clawed their way out of the violence and crime in the 80's. I didn't know it was Giuliani; I didn't know he went back that far. It's interesting to contrast this exception to my generalization, because they implemented no-tolerance police policies that are utterly unconscionable today, especially in a place like San Fran.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    It's even more interesting than that, really, because crime everywhere was bad in the very early 90s. Giuliani gets the credit for having cleaned up crime in NYC (and maybe he did) but we look to the early 90s as kind of the high water mark for crime, and particularly violent crime, everywhere. At the same time as New York's crime was falling, the same thing was happening everywhere -- San Diego and Austin and San Jose had basically identical trajectories as NYC under Giuliani, but obviously did not have Giuliani (tho perhaps they had also brought in their own? Just Googling now, and it seems San Diego brought in Susan Golding (R) in 1992 to replace Maureen O'Connor (D), and they didn't flip back until 2005. Austin had Bruce Todd (which one article refers to as an "establishment Democrat") from 91-97, and Kirk Watson (D) from 97-01. San Jose has had consecutively Democratic mayors from 1971 to now. TLDR, I don't think party alignment is as indicative as we might hope it would be, however much policy preferences might tend to overlap with party. Perhaps that was different way back in the 90s, when polarization wasn't as high, and/or party marching orders weren't quite as unified nationally as they seem to be now -- or I'm just missing something obvious elsewhere
alistairSH 4y ago
You don't necessarily have to flip control from D to R (or vice versa) to make a difference. Both major parties cover a WIDE swath of preferences. For example, prior to going national, Kamala Harris was a relatively tough-on-crime prosecutor despite being a Democrat. Citizens in SF can elect local reps who will fund things shown to help reduce crime (mental health care, cheaper housing, etc). Or whatever else. Local to me, it's pretty much all Democrats as well. Within the party, I can pick candidates who want to build condos over both local golf courses. Or, I can pick candidates who want to keep that open green space. Granted, I have to vote in the primary here, as the general is almost guaranteed to go to a D.

Gareth321 4y ago

New York voted in Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, in 1994 because of out of control crime. When things get bad enough people take action. It's just that not enough people have died yet for voters to care. Also, party affiliation is much more like a religion in America now than it is a democratic institution. Party affiliation is a core identity now, and people don't like to acknowledge their religion's failings no matter the evidence.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
As I wrote that, I actually thought about New York and the way they clawed their way out of the violence and crime in the 80's. I didn't know it was Giuliani; I didn't know he went back that far. It's interesting to contrast this exception to my generalization, because they implemented no-tolerance police policies that are utterly unconscionable today, especially in a place like San Fran.
- bmelton 4y ago
  It's even more interesting than that, really, because crime everywhere was bad in the very early 90s. Giuliani gets the credit for having cleaned up crime in NYC (and maybe he did) but we look to the early 90s as kind of the high water mark for crime, and particularly violent crime, everywhere. At the same time as New York's crime was falling, the same thing was happening everywhere -- San Diego and Austin and San Jose had basically identical trajectories as NYC under Giuliani, but obviously did not have Giuliani (tho perhaps they had also brought in their own? Just Googling now, and it seems San Diego brought in Susan Golding (R) in 1992 to replace Maureen O'Connor (D), and they didn't flip back until 2005. Austin had Bruce Todd (which one article refers to as an "establishment Democrat") from 91-97, and Kirk Watson (D) from 97-01. San Jose has had consecutively Democratic mayors from 1971 to now. TLDR, I don't think party alignment is as indicative as we might hope it would be, however much policy preferences might tend to overlap with party. Perhaps that was different way back in the 90s, when polarization wasn't as high, and/or party marching orders weren't quite as unified nationally as they seem to be now -- or I'm just missing something obvious elsewhere

alistairSH 4y ago

You don't necessarily have to flip control from D to R (or vice versa) to make a difference. Both major parties cover a WIDE swath of preferences. For example, prior to going national, Kamala Harris was a relatively tough-on-crime prosecutor despite being a Democrat. Citizens in SF can elect local reps who will fund things shown to help reduce crime (mental health care, cheaper housing, etc). Or whatever else. Local to me, it's pretty much all Democrats as well. Within the party, I can pick candidates who want to build condos over both local golf courses. Or, I can pick candidates who want to keep that open green space. Granted, I have to vote in the primary here, as the general is almost guaranteed to go to a D.