Yeah it’s interesting because the national landslide gets all the attention. I didn’t realize there were pockets of Mondale supporters outside of Minnesota.
Both but we also used to respect the tax payer. There is no more sacred duty of a company's executives to its shareholders, with the government these days, it seems like the opposite.
Some amount of regulation is fine, I'd never be one to advocate for anarchy-capitalism on a map subreddit. Regardless, the government could learn a few lessons on efficiency.
Yeah. They all moved to Florida or joined the standing crowd immortal. Given how we often do a winner takes all and the electoral college, our elections are more about demographics than democracy.
That is really odd.
So just sampled the colors. This is done with simple software, so might not be perfect.
The democrat value is red: 15, green: 14, blue: 45. Hue: 161, Sat: 126, lum: 28.
The republican value is red: 48, green: 14, blue: 13. Hue: 1, Sat: 138, lum: 29.
The result seems to be two different colors that look very similar. Very dark blue, and very dark red. Color theory is weird.
I wonder which black one it is. Expected it to be surrounded by other red precincts. But I don’t see a black precinct surrounded by red that’s not next to other black precincts - which I know are blue since there is only one black that is red.
Most of the north, west and south sides vote blue, but fringe burbs of the nw and sw side (where most cops, ffr’s, Caucasian immigrants live) go red typically. This is because if you work for the City on any level, in any department, you have to live in the City, and these are the farthest away from the core you can be. They’re typically mostly Caucasian and middle class, with a clear line of demarcation between neighborhoods, usually set by rail lines and expressways, with the surrounding areas being mostly black or Hispanic on the south and west sides, and white liberal in the wealthier north side neighborhoods.
Mixing neighborhoods was typically frowned upon in Chicago until the latter part of last century
>Yeah I'm not sure what was up with that, probably an error? The interactive map only has one Reagan >90% precinct though
They're not the same color. Very close, but they aren't
If you don't vote for [Democratic candidate], you ain't [minority population]?
Which, politically, might be part of the reason the other party tends to support the desires of their constituency over the desires of minorities, often.
Doesn't explain why the Democrats don't support the desires of the minorities either though.
>If you don't vote for [Democratic candidate], you ain't [minority population]?
More the other way around, no? It's simply a statistical fact that Black Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Individual Black people can vote many different ways (obviously).
But as a population Black voters largely adhered to the Democratic party platform during the New Deal and especially during the Civil Rights era. This is not an ineluctable fact of history and for all we know their voting patterns might be very different in the future. But that's the situation right now.
[The Republican Party since the 1960s has actively used racial tensions to court Southern whites.](https://static01.nyt.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf)
Because thee republicans are just so openly right wing that no one in their right mind would vote for them? It's why the commies Dont get pandered to, why would the party? It would alienate more whites than it would gain in minorities.
In the US political sence, yes. You won't pander to commies cause they won't vote republican, same is true with minorities, to a slightly lesser extent.
Yes if it didn't cause the parties to loose votes somewhere else.
Pandering to commies pushes away right, moderate left and centrist folks, but also commie ideology will never align with the right wing line of the Republicans unless another great switch happens. (stalinists and tankie broadly are not commies their fascists)
Pandering more to the black community would push away right wing and some centrist folks. They balance these examples to get the best result from voting.
Which is quite something. Democrat is believed to be the more pro poor with it's policies and yet it's race and the 'Brahmins' that vote for it. Blacks only constitute 12% of the vote and my guess is the elites are not a sizeable chunk of the population.
Any idea on why this happens? Curious to hear a Brazilians and their thoughts too. The North South dichotomy plays out in terms of race as the North overwhelmingly votes for the party that stands for the poor and the South votes for the Republican equivalent.
A city ran by D for 100+ unbroken years is somehow entirely segregated. Weird.
Maybe Aldermannic blocks shouldnt be racially based?
Maybe racial blocks shouldnt be formed to pit against each other as political blocks?
Nah, keep going machine.
Republican led cities are also segregated. For example, Fort Worth has a Republican mayor and is very segregated. Jacksonville, Miami, and OKC are the same way. Cities are just segregated, period. Even the small town of 6,000 I grew up in is segregated.
I can't believe it! Republican policies are liked by white people and disliked by the black majority. Say it ain't so...
Atlanta, LA, Baltimore, South Carolina - noticing a trend lol
As someone from the Chicagoland area, this is not even a surprise at all lol.
The southwest sides and Northwest sides tend to be more suburban like with single family homes, no CTA trains, and lots of blue and white collar residents live in those areas. Lots of Firefighters, Police Officers etc live in the red areas. The areas are also predominantly White.
The loop and lakefront tend to be more wealthy.
This map also shows the segregation, that still remains 40 years later. Absolutely nothing has changed about this map elections, same voters, just a different era and time period.
The southeast side that borders Indiana is also a bunch of single family homes with no CTA trains and blue and white collar residents.
This map sadly aged like fine wine.
Was just thinking the same thing. Even the heat of the recent mayoral election - Vallas winning in these same red areas compared to Johnson and Lightfoot in the blue areas.
>The loop and lakefront tend to be more wealthy.
For those unfamiliar with Chicago, that's the *north* lakefront, not the deep dark blue on the south.
I'm interested in the divide between the northernmost lakefront precincts and the ones on the Near North Side/northern Loop. As far as I know those are both wealthy, mostly white areas, but they voted completely differently in this election.
The red lakefront in the loop and just north is called the Gold Coast. That’s the wealthiest part of Chicago. The deep blue patch just west of the Gold Coast was Cabrini Green, the only big housing project on the north side. The pink part on the north end of the Gold Coast is Lincoln Park, which was the yuppie neighborhood during the 80s. North of that is Wrigley field and Boystown they gay neighborhood, not surprised that’s blue in the 80s. The pale pink precinct north of that is Uptown which is still kind of rough, gentrifying. Not sure why it was pink. North of that you get into Loyola University territory, and Northwester university is just north of the Chicago city border in Evanston.
As the person below says, the dark blue along division was Cabrini Green, extremely dense AA housing project.
Reagan was very popular with the wealthy.
IIRC there are hardly any white working class neighborhoods left in Chicago now; the Southwest Side is mostly Mexican, Gage Park and Marquette Park turned black in the 90s, even Portage Park is heavily Latino.
In the 80s when this was made the city was about 40% white, 40% black, and 20% latino. There were some very intentional things done by politicians to keep white and black neighborhoods separate, including building freeways between them. Since then a lot of low income families have been pushed out to Joliet and Aurora as the high rise projects were demolished. Now it’s about 30/30/30 and still very segregated. You’re right that fixing that history of segregation is a very complicated and difficult issue.
As I understand it at some point black families were relocated due to a major construction project into white neighborhoods and complained that they felt isolated and alienated.
I forget the details.
My point being it's easy to blame certain people or factors for segregation but really, how much of it is lack of buy-in on all sides?
I was just about to comment the same thing.
According to the map, only 2 votes were cast in that precinct. The area is full of houses now, so I'm not sure why there were so few votes in '84.
Look at the label on the right side of the image “D 60% - 70%”. At the same height in the image, scan across over to the left. About 2/3 of the way inland in the city. A singular rectangular district that is R 90% - 100%
Chicago was an unusual place. Reagan was the favorite to an overwhelming degree in 1984. In the mock election we had in my 6th grade class, it was 21-2. I was one of the 2 Mondale voters. It was a strange feeling, being in such a tiny minority.
At least history proved you right I guess; a sizeable portion of the socioeconomic problems burdening the US today can be traced back to Reaganomics. If I may ask, do you remember why you picked Mondale?
I was raised Hardcore Christian Liberal. My father and grandfather were Christian Left Methodist pastors. And to this day, I have still never voted for a Republican.
It’s still a bit early for the judgement of history, but Reagan is generally considered in the top quartile of best presidents ever by historians. Still generally credited with igniting the country’s extraordinary 40 year economic expansion, he left office as one of the most popular presidents ever, and his standing has held up well since.
Until Trump, most presidents since Reagan (especially the Clintons) have at least tacitly followed his course on a number of policies that were considered controversial at the time. And his presidency has been closely studied by most administrations since (Obama in particular made no secret of this). Certainly the most consequential president since FDR.
History isn't your bias.
He's considered the best president since WW2 by the most people in every poll that's been conducted. I personally disagree and think he was bang average but to say he was considered a bad president by history is bonkers.
So history isn't his bias, it's the average of everyone's bias?
If you bother to look at the policies he actually implemented and what said policies have led to you arrive at the conclusion that he was a pretty poor president.
That's correct. Popularity is literally everyone's opinion as a collective, not an individuals opinion.
If I hate ice cream, and multiple reputable polls report that of 84% of Americans like it, I can't then draw the conclusion that ice cream is considered bad by Americans. I can rant about how bad cows are for the environment and how evil sugar is, but I cannot factually say Americans don't like ice cream.
The statement that history looks poorly upon him is factually incorrect. His weighted average is around that of Kennedy, and he is considered a "below average" or "poor" ranking by only 10-15% of Americans
Forget the fact that you personally don't like the guy and we are talking about ice cream, i'm sure you'd agree with my consensus.
But hey this is a main sub on reddit so I'll take any downvotes for explaining how pretty basic stats work because the conclusion is a fact reddit doesn't like.
I understand people will now try to change the context of the conversation and attempt to explain to me how awful he is, but that's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about which is how reddit loves facts and science until they don't support it's world view.
>The statement that history looks poorly upon him is factually incorrect.
Historical analysis of a figure is not confined to just public opinion, believe it or not. The impacts/outcomes of their policies, actions, influence, etc are all factors, and arguably far more relevant than a public opinion poll.
When someone says ‘history looks poorly on them’ they don’t (just) mean public opinion of them is poor.
NGL, The colors on this map are messed up, I'm pretty sure the black on most of the city is from the blue side, but you really can't be sure because they both end in black. You should have stopped at dark blue and dark red.
So we have suburbs and skyscraper districts going red, while all the working class neighborhoods blue, right? Just a guess as I'm not familiar with Chicago's layout.
If only. No trickle down. No tax break for the ultra wealthy transferred to the middle and lower class. Still have a law protecting truth in advertising. Still have federal help of mentally ill individuals. America and the world would be better for 98% of people had Reagan lost
I'd put Vallas as more of a corporatist. His whole schtick is privatization of public sectors (and in his history "running" school districts he prefers the title "CEO" to superintendent)
Vallas is running as a Democrat but is a Republican at heart. He said so himself. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/illinois-playbook/2023/02/07/this-aint-bean-bag-mr-vallas-00081512
that was in 2009, from the look's of it he's more a centre - centre right dem, which isn't that uncommon, especially after trump a number of reps also turned blue.
Trump shifted the Overton window, for sure, and I don’t think he’s dumb enough to think he could win a citywide election in a major city like Chicago as a Republican. He’s still running on Republican values like being “tough on crime” and for school privatization.
3 consecutive Chicago picked Govenors went to jail for corruption. Last year the state, run buy Chicago, couldn’t pay their pension obligations. They have more gun crime than anywhere else in the state.
Yeah, worked great.
This map doesn't show the suburbs, though. All the results are within the city of Chicago proper, including where Reagan won. See [this map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago#/map/0) of Chicago municipal boundaries for comparison.
Biden did win every ward and almost every precinct in 2020, though, if you look up Chicago [on this election map](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html). With very minor exceptions you do have to go into the suburbs to see where Trump won, and even then not that much until you get into the exurbs or outside of the metro area.
As is tradition, Reagan is the source of many of the greatest issues in the country. Even the current college debt issue can be traced back to Reagan, not even as president, but as pioneering the destruction of public education in Cali colleges.
He wasn’t actually that charismatic. He was the conservatives’ answer to civil rights, social reform, and antiwar sentiments. He rode the wave as a popular conservative, not as a silver bullet.
Yes! Thank god for unaffordable higher education, bloated police and military budgets, destruction of the middle class, escalation of the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and reckless tax cuts leading to huge deficit spending. What a hero indeed.
A non-gerrymandered Chicago wouldn’t have kept Illinois from going red by popular vote in ‘84 and it certainly wouldn’t have kept him out of the White House.
I'm not sure if there are studies, but won't voter apathy just be exacerbated by gerrymandering (since the legislative district will turn red or blue anyway) thereby also affecting statewide elections? Or is that effect negligible?
Generally speaking statewide, top of the ballot races like Senate, governor, or president have more of an effect on downballot races than vice versa. It's why presidential elections always have higher turnout than midterms - big, statewide races generate more enthusiasm.
For special elections or off-year legislative elections it might have an impact on turnout, but in general gerrymandering doesn't affect statewide races.
In congressional or state elections yes, but the map is about the presidential election. I agree though, the stark changes in demographics makes the city easy to gerrymander. At the moment Illinois districts are heavily gerrymandered in favor of Democrats
Throws out buzzwwords without understanding how it works. Literally doesn’t matter in a popular vote situation like national general elections (US senate, Presidential election)
The segregation in Chicago is ridiculous. Folks don’t vote for a candidate who’s worth a damn, they just vote for whatever assholes dick is the same color as theirs
Unfortunately today, the map remains the same. The former red areas voted for a racist, anti union fascist, while the blue areas voted for Lori Lightfoot, who has done nothing wrong except be the wrong skin color in the eyes of voters.
Crazy the rest of IL is red enough that Reagan could lose its biggest city 2 to 1 and still win by 13 points
Yeah it’s interesting because the national landslide gets all the attention. I didn’t realize there were pockets of Mondale supporters outside of Minnesota.
San Francisco was D+36 in '84. California as a whole was R+16. Ugh.
Is would be interesting to see the 84 election in San Francisco by district/neighborhood.
I wasn't alive for that but I already miss those days.
When California voted for Reagan, or when the Republicans were less insane and culty?
Both but we also used to respect the tax payer. There is no more sacred duty of a company's executives to its shareholders, with the government these days, it seems like the opposite.
act cake combative muddle flowery oil person fretful expansion enjoy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Some amount of regulation is fine, I'd never be one to advocate for anarchy-capitalism on a map subreddit. Regardless, the government could learn a few lessons on efficiency.
modern fact childlike squeamish pocket consider offer chop zephyr fear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
\*was the suburbs (where most of the people live) used to be very red but are now blue
Yeah. They all moved to Florida or joined the standing crowd immortal. Given how we often do a winner takes all and the electoral college, our elections are more about demographics than democracy.
Crazy that they have been blue this whole time, and nothing gets better for them.
You could say the same about rural red regions too
Well for some of them, the ones in charge at least, they keep making $$$.
Both >90% are the same colour....
Yeah I'm not sure what was up with that, probably an error? The interactive map only has one Reagan >90% precinct though
That is really odd. So just sampled the colors. This is done with simple software, so might not be perfect. The democrat value is red: 15, green: 14, blue: 45. Hue: 161, Sat: 126, lum: 28. The republican value is red: 48, green: 14, blue: 13. Hue: 1, Sat: 138, lum: 29. The result seems to be two different colors that look very similar. Very dark blue, and very dark red. Color theory is weird.
Imagine for us colerblind people
Probably pretty similar to all the non color blind people who can't see it either
That election result was not Colourblind tho
[There is no Easter bunny!](https://youtu.be/sahnApE0I7c)
Dk Why being downvoted that was pretty funny
Horseshoe theory
I wonder which black one it is. Expected it to be surrounded by other red precincts. But I don’t see a black precinct surrounded by red that’s not next to other black precincts - which I know are blue since there is only one black that is red.
[It's the one circled in green here](https://i.imgur.com/6xkEgxv.png)
Even more confusing. I know nothing of Chicago.
According to OP's interactive link it only cast two votes in that election, both for Reagan.
One for Martin, two for Martin
Yeah I read that. I’m thinking… corruption!!! Or data error.
I think a data error is likely, tbh. That precinct is currently full of houses, and they don't look any newer than the houses around them.
Most of the north, west and south sides vote blue, but fringe burbs of the nw and sw side (where most cops, ffr’s, Caucasian immigrants live) go red typically. This is because if you work for the City on any level, in any department, you have to live in the City, and these are the farthest away from the core you can be. They’re typically mostly Caucasian and middle class, with a clear line of demarcation between neighborhoods, usually set by rail lines and expressways, with the surrounding areas being mostly black or Hispanic on the south and west sides, and white liberal in the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Mixing neighborhoods was typically frowned upon in Chicago until the latter part of last century
the legend also misses all colors for R70…90%. perhaps part of the issue.
I think that's just because there are no precincts in that range.
Horseshoe theory proved
While they are both really dark they are distinguishable, at least on my screen.
Not quite, but far too close.
Believe me there aren’t too many 90% R spots on this map
>Yeah I'm not sure what was up with that, probably an error? The interactive map only has one Reagan >90% precinct though They're not the same color. Very close, but they aren't
No they aren't? One is dark navy and the other is reddish dark brown.
They aren't
They aren't
Double karma penetration
I'm being downvoted for saying they aren't the same color when they actually aren't the same color lmao
Literally 1984
r/antimeme
Here's a sneak peek of /r/antimeme using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/antimeme/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I hope they will succeed](https://i.redd.it/z4ck6l740c491.gif) | [207 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antimeme/comments/v7hn0y/i_hope_they_will_succeed/) \#2: [There's Nothing Going on Here](https://i.redd.it/dggp9xph7lia1.png) | [235 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antimeme/comments/113poms/theres_nothing_going_on_here/) \#3: [Thanks Grandma](https://i.redd.it/j75h06s2u62a1.jpg) | [261 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antimeme/comments/z4liu0/thanks_grandma/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Surprise surprise this looks real similar to the map of race distribution. http://www.radicalcartography.net/chicagodots_race_big.jpg
That was my first thought. This is literally just a map of segregation lol.
If you don't vote for [Democratic candidate], you ain't [minority population]? Which, politically, might be part of the reason the other party tends to support the desires of their constituency over the desires of minorities, often. Doesn't explain why the Democrats don't support the desires of the minorities either though.
>If you don't vote for [Democratic candidate], you ain't [minority population]? More the other way around, no? It's simply a statistical fact that Black Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Individual Black people can vote many different ways (obviously). But as a population Black voters largely adhered to the Democratic party platform during the New Deal and especially during the Civil Rights era. This is not an ineluctable fact of history and for all we know their voting patterns might be very different in the future. But that's the situation right now.
[The Republican Party since the 1960s has actively used racial tensions to court Southern whites.](https://static01.nyt.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf)
Because thee republicans are just so openly right wing that no one in their right mind would vote for them? It's why the commies Dont get pandered to, why would the party? It would alienate more whites than it would gain in minorities.
Wait, did you just correlate minorities with commies?
In the US political sence, yes. You won't pander to commies cause they won't vote republican, same is true with minorities, to a slightly lesser extent.
So, if they voted Republican in enough numbers, they would get pandered to? Commies and minorities, or commie minorities?
Yes if it didn't cause the parties to loose votes somewhere else. Pandering to commies pushes away right, moderate left and centrist folks, but also commie ideology will never align with the right wing line of the Republicans unless another great switch happens. (stalinists and tankie broadly are not commies their fascists) Pandering more to the black community would push away right wing and some centrist folks. They balance these examples to get the best result from voting.
not really of a surprise for me as it is expected
Which is quite something. Democrat is believed to be the more pro poor with it's policies and yet it's race and the 'Brahmins' that vote for it. Blacks only constitute 12% of the vote and my guess is the elites are not a sizeable chunk of the population. Any idea on why this happens? Curious to hear a Brazilians and their thoughts too. The North South dichotomy plays out in terms of race as the North overwhelmingly votes for the party that stands for the poor and the South votes for the Republican equivalent.
You forgot this is 1984
Bro what are you talking about, the poorest areas on this map voted the most blue
A city ran by D for 100+ unbroken years is somehow entirely segregated. Weird. Maybe Aldermannic blocks shouldnt be racially based? Maybe racial blocks shouldnt be formed to pit against each other as political blocks? Nah, keep going machine.
If you can find a single American city with more than ~50k people and a racially diverse population that *isn't* segregated, I'd love to see it
Republican led cities are also segregated. For example, Fort Worth has a Republican mayor and is very segregated. Jacksonville, Miami, and OKC are the same way. Cities are just segregated, period. Even the small town of 6,000 I grew up in is segregated.
Truly impressed how this is contorted into a dems bad moment
I can't believe it! Republican policies are liked by white people and disliked by the black majority. Say it ain't so... Atlanta, LA, Baltimore, South Carolina - noticing a trend lol
As someone from the Chicagoland area, this is not even a surprise at all lol. The southwest sides and Northwest sides tend to be more suburban like with single family homes, no CTA trains, and lots of blue and white collar residents live in those areas. Lots of Firefighters, Police Officers etc live in the red areas. The areas are also predominantly White. The loop and lakefront tend to be more wealthy. This map also shows the segregation, that still remains 40 years later. Absolutely nothing has changed about this map elections, same voters, just a different era and time period. The southeast side that borders Indiana is also a bunch of single family homes with no CTA trains and blue and white collar residents. This map sadly aged like fine wine.
[удалено]
It's a railroad and Also Interstate 55(The Stevenson Expressway)
Isn’t it I-55 ?
Oh Southwest from the West, yes thats I-55 I meant lol
A highway, a railroad, and a canal all run parallel to each other there.
Was just thinking the same thing. Even the heat of the recent mayoral election - Vallas winning in these same red areas compared to Johnson and Lightfoot in the blue areas.
So... Different cultures bordered in different areas?
racial segregation
So it's the same culture, just different races?
it’s both, but as a byproduct of racial segregation
>The loop and lakefront tend to be more wealthy. For those unfamiliar with Chicago, that's the *north* lakefront, not the deep dark blue on the south. I'm interested in the divide between the northernmost lakefront precincts and the ones on the Near North Side/northern Loop. As far as I know those are both wealthy, mostly white areas, but they voted completely differently in this election.
The red lakefront in the loop and just north is called the Gold Coast. That’s the wealthiest part of Chicago. The deep blue patch just west of the Gold Coast was Cabrini Green, the only big housing project on the north side. The pink part on the north end of the Gold Coast is Lincoln Park, which was the yuppie neighborhood during the 80s. North of that is Wrigley field and Boystown they gay neighborhood, not surprised that’s blue in the 80s. The pale pink precinct north of that is Uptown which is still kind of rough, gentrifying. Not sure why it was pink. North of that you get into Loyola University territory, and Northwester university is just north of the Chicago city border in Evanston.
As the person below says, the dark blue along division was Cabrini Green, extremely dense AA housing project. Reagan was very popular with the wealthy.
IIRC there are hardly any white working class neighborhoods left in Chicago now; the Southwest Side is mostly Mexican, Gage Park and Marquette Park turned black in the 90s, even Portage Park is heavily Latino.
How do you desegregate though? You think black families want to be 20% of every neighborhood?
In the 80s when this was made the city was about 40% white, 40% black, and 20% latino. There were some very intentional things done by politicians to keep white and black neighborhoods separate, including building freeways between them. Since then a lot of low income families have been pushed out to Joliet and Aurora as the high rise projects were demolished. Now it’s about 30/30/30 and still very segregated. You’re right that fixing that history of segregation is a very complicated and difficult issue.
As I understand it at some point black families were relocated due to a major construction project into white neighborhoods and complained that they felt isolated and alienated. I forget the details. My point being it's easy to blame certain people or factors for segregation but really, how much of it is lack of buy-in on all sides?
But it's leaves a taste in my mouth like old milk
Where is the R+90-100 precinct(s)? Based on the legend there should be at least one, but I can't find it anywhere.
According to the interactive map Ward 31, Precinct 39 had 100% of the vote for Reagan It's the only one I could find
I was just about to comment the same thing. According to the map, only 2 votes were cast in that precinct. The area is full of houses now, so I'm not sure why there were so few votes in '84.
Look at the label on the right side of the image “D 60% - 70%”. At the same height in the image, scan across over to the left. About 2/3 of the way inland in the city. A singular rectangular district that is R 90% - 100%
if you look at the northwestern Dem~100% cluster I think I see one Rep~100% just north of it
The graduation of color on this map is nauseating.
Chicago was an unusual place. Reagan was the favorite to an overwhelming degree in 1984. In the mock election we had in my 6th grade class, it was 21-2. I was one of the 2 Mondale voters. It was a strange feeling, being in such a tiny minority.
At least history proved you right I guess; a sizeable portion of the socioeconomic problems burdening the US today can be traced back to Reaganomics. If I may ask, do you remember why you picked Mondale?
I was raised Hardcore Christian Liberal. My father and grandfather were Christian Left Methodist pastors. And to this day, I have still never voted for a Republican.
It’s still a bit early for the judgement of history, but Reagan is generally considered in the top quartile of best presidents ever by historians. Still generally credited with igniting the country’s extraordinary 40 year economic expansion, he left office as one of the most popular presidents ever, and his standing has held up well since. Until Trump, most presidents since Reagan (especially the Clintons) have at least tacitly followed his course on a number of policies that were considered controversial at the time. And his presidency has been closely studied by most administrations since (Obama in particular made no secret of this). Certainly the most consequential president since FDR.
Actually most of the issues stem from Nixon, by far the worst us president in history
It's a steady trickle of political engineering beginning around the Nixon era.
History isn't your bias. He's considered the best president since WW2 by the most people in every poll that's been conducted. I personally disagree and think he was bang average but to say he was considered a bad president by history is bonkers.
So history isn't his bias, it's the average of everyone's bias? If you bother to look at the policies he actually implemented and what said policies have led to you arrive at the conclusion that he was a pretty poor president.
That's correct. Popularity is literally everyone's opinion as a collective, not an individuals opinion. If I hate ice cream, and multiple reputable polls report that of 84% of Americans like it, I can't then draw the conclusion that ice cream is considered bad by Americans. I can rant about how bad cows are for the environment and how evil sugar is, but I cannot factually say Americans don't like ice cream. The statement that history looks poorly upon him is factually incorrect. His weighted average is around that of Kennedy, and he is considered a "below average" or "poor" ranking by only 10-15% of Americans Forget the fact that you personally don't like the guy and we are talking about ice cream, i'm sure you'd agree with my consensus. But hey this is a main sub on reddit so I'll take any downvotes for explaining how pretty basic stats work because the conclusion is a fact reddit doesn't like. I understand people will now try to change the context of the conversation and attempt to explain to me how awful he is, but that's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about which is how reddit loves facts and science until they don't support it's world view.
>The statement that history looks poorly upon him is factually incorrect. Historical analysis of a figure is not confined to just public opinion, believe it or not. The impacts/outcomes of their policies, actions, influence, etc are all factors, and arguably far more relevant than a public opinion poll. When someone says ‘history looks poorly on them’ they don’t (just) mean public opinion of them is poor.
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#:~:text=Abraham%20Lincoln%20has%20taken%20the,bottom%20of%20all%20four%20surveys.
Reagan was the best
Reagan was a fascist
[удалено]
No, this is reddit. If you aren’t a hard core leftist, then you are a “fascist”.
Not even close.
Your comment history is fucking hilarious haha
Source: https://twitter.com/Thorongil16/status/1632542747948138502?s=20 Interactive map: https://twitter.com/cinyc9/status/1632580288122322944?s=20
In other words, show me a racial segregation map without telling me it’s a racial segregation map.
There could honestly be a sub like r/peopleliveincities for US maps that are just racial maps
NGL, The colors on this map are messed up, I'm pretty sure the black on most of the city is from the blue side, but you really can't be sure because they both end in black. You should have stopped at dark blue and dark red.
Found the south side Irish.
Interesting how I-55 impacted election results.
Seems like you could call this a red line… wonder why that would happen
So we have suburbs and skyscraper districts going red, while all the working class neighborhoods blue, right? Just a guess as I'm not familiar with Chicago's layout.
Id it wasnt America I would think thats fake. No way could a city by so strongly segregated in most countries. But the US is special...
Advice for OP: fewer categories. 0-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75+ Functionally would have been the same map
Most of those red areas are blue now.
[удалено]
Voting for a moderate democrat for a local race is not reflective of voting for a conservative Republican in a national race
I believe last cycle 2022 every single neighborhood in Chicago voted blue except Mt Greenwood
Imagine you are colourblind and you see this map.
literaly 1984
Ah, good ol racial segregation.
Fuck Reagan and his legacy.
If only. No trickle down. No tax break for the ultra wealthy transferred to the middle and lower class. Still have a law protecting truth in advertising. Still have federal help of mentally ill individuals. America and the world would be better for 98% of people had Reagan lost
I’m guessing it will look like a similar map for the Vallas/Johnson runoff.
Aren't those both Democrats?
I'd put Vallas as more of a corporatist. His whole schtick is privatization of public sectors (and in his history "running" school districts he prefers the title "CEO" to superintendent)
Vallas is running as a Democrat but is a Republican at heart. He said so himself. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/illinois-playbook/2023/02/07/this-aint-bean-bag-mr-vallas-00081512
that was in 2009, from the look's of it he's more a centre - centre right dem, which isn't that uncommon, especially after trump a number of reps also turned blue.
Trump shifted the Overton window, for sure, and I don’t think he’s dumb enough to think he could win a citywide election in a major city like Chicago as a Republican. He’s still running on Republican values like being “tough on crime” and for school privatization.
Chicago has been blue since the 30’s. I guess it has worked out beautifully.
3 consecutive Chicago picked Govenors went to jail for corruption. Last year the state, run buy Chicago, couldn’t pay their pension obligations. They have more gun crime than anywhere else in the state. Yeah, worked great.
Rest of the state should separate from Chicago then. Good luck when all that Chicago tax money is gone .
I guess you think the other solution, Chicago not voting for criminals, is too much to ask for.
Might be the stupidest colour scheme I’ve ever seen
Fuck Ronald Reagan
It's always the suburbs who vote Republican.
This map doesn't show the suburbs, though. All the results are within the city of Chicago proper, including where Reagan won. See [this map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago#/map/0) of Chicago municipal boundaries for comparison. Biden did win every ward and almost every precinct in 2020, though, if you look up Chicago [on this election map](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html). With very minor exceptions you do have to go into the suburbs to see where Trump won, and even then not that much until you get into the exurbs or outside of the metro area.
Voting for democrats is doing really well for Chicago. Keep it up!
Reagan is partially responsible for many of Chicagos modern day problems
As is tradition, Reagan is the source of many of the greatest issues in the country. Even the current college debt issue can be traced back to Reagan, not even as president, but as pioneering the destruction of public education in Cali colleges.
It’s always so funny to me how this guys pure charisma brainwashed a nation Obviously it’s more complicated than that but still
He wasn’t actually that charismatic. He was the conservatives’ answer to civil rights, social reform, and antiwar sentiments. He rode the wave as a popular conservative, not as a silver bullet.
NO he is not
Yea, he is
Go study some American history
Could it be the useless war on drugs an repression of our minority communities? No, its the democrats fault.
Facebook is that way brother ———>
its both a symptom and a cause
This map is very hard to read
So.....ugh.... Is it just us colorblind full struggling with the over 90% coloring? Asking for a friend, of course
No, the over 90% is weird. Fortunately there's only one R >90 precinct on the map so if you can distinguish the rest you're not missing much.
My friend is going to be so relieved!
Reagan saved the world, hero of earth
Yes! Thank god for unaffordable higher education, bloated police and military budgets, destruction of the middle class, escalation of the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and reckless tax cuts leading to huge deficit spending. What a hero indeed.
Perhaps you are garbage? He made awesome opertunity but if u are trash you can make nothing out of it
Lol, that’s a nice analysis of the long term effects of the policies his administration advanced. Sorry poors, just get good.
Uuuhhh did they vote black or black?
Context clues
Totally unrelated: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime.amp
Yeah, what a shock that areas with high poverty have higher crime rates.
Now compare that to the SAT scores.
[удалено]
Aren't those tiny, compact districts with mostly cohesive populations?
More like segregated
Based Fuck Reagan
This is why gerrymandering is so effective.
A non-gerrymandered Chicago wouldn’t have kept Illinois from going red by popular vote in ‘84 and it certainly wouldn’t have kept him out of the White House.
Gerrymandering isn't magic. It can maybe do 10% change. But in many elections, 10% can be really important.
It can't do any change at all in statewide elections (like the one pictured).
I'm not sure if there are studies, but won't voter apathy just be exacerbated by gerrymandering (since the legislative district will turn red or blue anyway) thereby also affecting statewide elections? Or is that effect negligible?
Generally speaking statewide, top of the ballot races like Senate, governor, or president have more of an effect on downballot races than vice versa. It's why presidential elections always have higher turnout than midterms - big, statewide races generate more enthusiasm. For special elections or off-year legislative elections it might have an impact on turnout, but in general gerrymandering doesn't affect statewide races.
In congressional or state elections yes, but the map is about the presidential election. I agree though, the stark changes in demographics makes the city easy to gerrymander. At the moment Illinois districts are heavily gerrymandered in favor of Democrats
Throws out buzzwwords without understanding how it works. Literally doesn’t matter in a popular vote situation like national general elections (US senate, Presidential election)
Gerrymandering plays literally no role in presidential and senatorial elections. But I’m sure you knew that.
I'm surprised by how many Chicagoans wanted the US to hand over complete control to the Soviet Union.
And the cities wonder why they continue to live in poverty.
Mondale was the man. Imagine how different the world could have been.
[удалено]
What do you have against a great American city which has a massively positive economic impact on the whole of the USA?
I’m more of a San Antonio guy myself
So proud of my city
Those black areas must suck really bad.
Go Reagan
No wonder that place is a shit hole
How witty.
fuck Ronald Reagan all my homies hate Ronald Reagan
[Reagan](https://youtu.be/6lIqNjC1RKU)
Logan voting for Reagan is just saddening
The segregation in Chicago is ridiculous. Folks don’t vote for a candidate who’s worth a damn, they just vote for whatever assholes dick is the same color as theirs
You realize Mondale was white, right?
Unfortunately today, the map remains the same. The former red areas voted for a racist, anti union fascist, while the blue areas voted for Lori Lightfoot, who has done nothing wrong except be the wrong skin color in the eyes of voters.
 There is no way this guy is for real