Why is Washington Blue?

[xsited1]

It was Red when I left years ago. Somebody pegged it when they said King County has stacked the deck.

I'm living in Arkansas now and just about every politician is a Democrat, but the majority voted for McCain. Go figure.

 

[Turboswede]

It was Red when I left years ago. Somebody pegged it when they said King County has stacked the deck.

I'm living in Arkansas now and just about every politician is a Democrat, but the majority voted for McCain. Go figure.

Its not just King County, King county has 2 Congressional seats, one is a democrat McDermott and the other (the affluent east side) is a Republican Reichart.

The other 5 Western Washington Seats are all Democrats so that includes Kitsap (Rural/military), Pierce (Blue Color/Military/Rural) counties, Snohomish (commuters/ Rural/ Military), and South West Washington (Rural/Commuters).

So, King County is more of a split between "Urban" Democrats and "Blue Blood" Republicans.

But we still manage to have very low taxes & lots of protection against the state.

 

[AllieBaba]

Washington is blue because the liberal elitists discovered Seattle and and infiltrating the state. It's the same reason Oregon is blue. Most of our land is rural...but because the cities, Eugene and Portland, are overwhelmingly liberal, we get to be dragged along by people who don't relate to us, don't like us, and who want to control the land we own.

It's lovely.

The only completely red state is Oklahoma, somebody told me yesterday. I would like to live there.

 

[Turboswede]

Washington is blue because the liberal elitists discovered Seattle and and infiltrating the state. It's the same reason Oregon is blue. Most of our land is rural...but because the cities, Eugene and Portland, are overwhelmingly liberal, we get to be dragged along by people who don't relate to us, don't like us, and who want to control the land we own.

It's lovely.

The only completely red state is Oklahoma, somebody told me yesterday. I would like to live there.

But Washington has been blue for a long time, and all the areas outside Seattle in Western Washington are blue while the affluent Seattle suburbs are red so that argument dosen't make much sense.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

King County. Heavily populated with educated software engineers and coffee connoisseurs who love trees and whales almost as much as they love their moms.

-Joe

And there are lots of Canadiens who don't come with American phobias and fear of shadows.

And there's Pikes Place .. mmmmmm

 

[AllieBaba]

But Washington has been blue for a long time, and all the areas outside Seattle in Western Washington are blue while the affluent Seattle suburbs are red so that argument dosen't make much sense.

Really? Do you have a link that backs that up because if it's true, it is complete news to me...

 

[AllieBaba]

This seques into a running dialogue I've been having with my family about the way the working class is being pushed to the sidelines and essentially neutralized and eliminated by elitist liberals who first shut down the industries which we depended on, then prevented us from developing/dividing/using our own land (once all the land around the cities had developed to the nth, creating wealth for those citizens, and creating a never ending job market for the blue collars who choose to live in cities), then swoop in in huge packs to buy up the land for recreational purposes or to satisfy their vanity. Meanwhile, the people who have always lived in the rural areas can't find property to buy, can't work, can't even eke a living out of their own land if it interferes with land use laws imposed by DC environmentalists who think they have a right to dictate to us how to earn a living, and how to best use our own land.

The tiny towns I've lived in all my life are changing as strangers from the cities buy up houses and the big tracts (owners aren't allowed to sell land in less than 160 acre parcels, and most of the parcels come with federal mandates of "no improvements". You can't even put a house on them.) They bluster in, have changed the face of our schools and local government, adopt a generally sneering attitude of "look what we're doing for the poor stupid serfs". Meanwhile, the families who have been here for generations slide into poverty, their kids either escape or hang around with no viable profession to be had, and the people who buy up these ranches make a mint selling little "vacations" to their rich buddies and their buddies' buddies, who come around hunting season, go on canned hunts, and think they're really roughing it.

All our blood is trickling away...many of them up to Alaska, where they can still make a living logging, mining, fishing, and where they're still able to purchase land without an edict from God and about $3 million.

 

[Turboswede]

Really? Do you have a link that backs that up because if it's true, it is complete news to me...

Sure, I love talking about my home State!

Here is a link that talks about WA 8th CD that has been Republican since it was formed in 1983 from the “East Side” Seattle suburbs, the median income for the district is almost $69,000 so I think the term “affluent” is appropriate. Its Software folks & other urban professionals in the Redmond / Bellevue area. The population is 84% white and 8% Asian.

Washington's 8th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a link that talks about WA 6th CD that has been solidly Democrat since 1965. It comprises includes McCord AFB, Fort Lewis, Bremerton Naval Shipyard and the Trident sub base at Keyport/Bangor. It also includes rural Clallam, Jefferson, Mason, Kitsap and Grays Harbor (Home of Nirvana) counties. I grew up there and I can attest that it’s about as far from the “Liberal Elite” as you can get without going to the other side of the Mountains. The median income for the district is $39,205.

Washington's 6th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now this is what I think most Conservatives picture Seattle as, it’s the 7th CD represented by Democrats since 1979. It is Basically the city of Seattle and Vashon Island. Seattle is Urban and 69% white (most minorities in the state) while Vashon Island is very, um, let me put it this way, there are a lot of Honda Insights and Toyota Priuses that live on Vashon. Anyway, the median income for the district is about $46,000 or about $23,000 less than the Republican 8th CD.

Washington's 7th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another Rural Democratic CD is the 2nd Representing Rural Skagit & Whatcom counties. This district also contains the Boeing assembly facility at Paine Field and the Naval Base in Everett. It has been Democratic since 1965 except for a 6 year stint under Metcalf during the Gingritch era. The district is 88% Caucasian and has a median income of $45,000

Washington's 2nd congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One district that tends to Flip/Flop but has gone Democrat since 1999 is the 1st CD that includes the affluent northern Seattle Suburbs, and Bainbridge Island. This district went GOP from 1953-1993 and then again 1995-1999. It is 83% white (8% Asian) and has a median income of $58,565 placing it in between Seattle and the East side suburbs economically.

Washington's 1st congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even Eastern Washington voted democrat until the Gingrich period with both the 4th and 5th CD switching from the Democrats to the GOP in 1995 and staying there ever since. For those of you out there that have never driven across WA, there is a big climate and culture shift on either side of the state. Now this is an oversimplification but Western Washington is green, soggy and listens to rock. Eastern Washington is yellow, dry and listens to country.

Washington's 5th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington's 4th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The truly strange WA district is the 3rd, it is just plain Rural, 90% white (4% Hispanic) and has voted Democrat since 1960 except for a 4 year stint during the Gingritch era. In the latest election it wasn’t even close with Baird pulling 64% of the vote.

I don’t think it’s the “Liberal Elite” migrating into Seattle as the Seattle Metro Area is still split 1 seat Democrat and 1 seat Republican and the Republican district has a much higher household median income suggesting that it is home to more “Elites” than the Democratic Voting inner city.

The biggest argument against the whole “Democratic Elite” thing is that from the 60’s on WA has been predominantly a Democratic State even in our rural and poorer areas and Washington experienced a great expatriation to California in the 70’s (When Boeing nearly went bust) so we were Democratic long before Northern California decided to move here in the 90’s.

The point is, you can have candidates elected from the Democratic party for 40+ years and still not see all the violation of liberty people seem to think the Democrats bring with them. Maybe it’s just a Western States thing?

 

[Turboswede]

This seques into a running dialogue I've been having with my family about the way the working class is being pushed to the sidelines and essentially neutralized and eliminated by elitist liberals who first shut down the industries which we depended on, then prevented us from developing/dividing/using our own land (once all the land around the cities had developed to the nth, creating wealth for those citizens, and creating a never ending job market for the blue collars who choose to live in cities), then swoop in in huge packs to buy up the land for recreational purposes or to satisfy their vanity.

So, the elite kill industry in Portland and then create a never ending job market for blue collars that live in the city? That sounds a bit circular to me. Then they (the liberal elite) prevent you from developing the land that you own but swoop in to buy the land for recreation, are you saying that people who buy land should be limited in its use or shouldn’t sounds circular again.

Why shouldn’t people who buy land be able to use it for recreation, or to satisfy their vanity or whatever? Telling people how land can and can’t be used would seem to be the job of the liberal elite in (Salem?)

Even in Oregon the argument seems flawed in that the 4th CD is Rural, white (92%) has a median income of about $35,000 and has voted Democratic since 1975. That doesn’t sound like an area that has been taken over by liberal elites from California. Same goes (basically) for the 2nd and 3rd districts. I left out the 1st District because that’s Portland and I think that is what you are basing your analysis on.

The only Oregon CD that is solid GOP is the 2nd district and that has a higher median family income than the 4th CD and has more minorities so the argument about the liberal elite doesn’t seem to carry through.

Meanwhile, the people who have always lived in the rural areas can't find property to buy, can't work, can't even eke a living out of their own land if it interferes with land use laws imposed by DC environmentalists who think they have a right to dictate to us how to earn a living, and how to best use our own land.

This has been going on since the 16th century, people always migrate from the country into the cities to find work because that’s where the jobs are. In an effort to stop that the same federal government that enforces environmental standards also hands out $40,000,000,000 a year in farm subsidies (more than it does in cash welfare). In addition, the majority of public aid in the west is rural, not urban.

The US taxpayer coughs up a lot of cash keep the small rural towns going, where would Pendleton be without checks from the USDA and AFDC?

The tiny towns I've lived in all my life are changing as strangers from the cities buy up houses and the big tracts (owners aren't allowed to sell land in less than 160 acre parcels, and most of the parcels come with federal mandates of "no improvements". You can't even put a house on them.)

That’s a county ordinance issue and is designed to prevent urban sprawl because the folks in the county that pull the strings don’t want developers to come in and divide the land into 1/10th Acre plots.

They bluster in, have changed the face of our schools and local government, and adopt a generally sneering attitude of "look what we're doing for the poor stupid serfs".

How many can they be if each one needs to buy 160 Acres of land? They don’t bring any revenue to pay for the schools and local government, aren’t those funded by property taxes in Oregon?

Meanwhile, the families who have been here for generations slide into poverty, their kids either escape or hang around with no viable profession to be had,

It’s Oregon for Pete’s sake, not El Salvador. I had a lot of friends who grew up in Medford, or the Dales, or Bend, paid their way through the U of O and are perfectly happy accountants, architects and engineers now.

and the people who buy up these ranches make a mint selling little "vacations" to their rich buddies and their buddies' buddies, who come around hunting season, go on canned hunts, and think they're really roughing it.

None of my friends from Oregon were ranchers, mostly their parents were teachers or small business owners (one bar and one family restaurant).

All our blood is trickling away...many of them up to Alaska, where they can still make a living logging, mining, fishing, and where they're still able to purchase land without an edict from God and about $3 million.

Oh, so the only way people in rural areas should be able to make a living is off of public resources (that’s what logging, mining and fishing are). So it’s wrong for a software developer to set up a center in Burns because the jobs provided involve some technical training? Sorry to tell you this but its 2008 not 1908 and more Oregonians would rather be systems analysts than steeplejacks.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's The Dalles, not The Dales.
And I don't give a shit what people use their land for...hence my indignation that a bunch of limp wristed, pale faced liberal accountants in Portland and worse, DC, tell people exactly what they can do with their property.

Essentially the elitists of the cities decided the ruralites couldn't make a profit from their land...as the city dwellers have been allowed to do from day one. And that's the problem. They have edged these people out of the equation, then swooped in to buy up the few parcels that are available.

It's ruined our state, ruined our economy, and destroyed a whole population of people as the lumber industry was dismantled, then the farming industry, the fishing industry, and finally even the industry of land development.

 

[Turboswede]

It's The Dalles, not The Dales.

Sorry, spell check got that one without me noticing.

And I don't give a shit what people use their land for...hence my indignation that a bunch of limp wristed, pale faced liberal accountants in Portland and worse, DC, tell people exactly what they can do with their property.

Now I am not an expert or OR real property, but I think most of those decisions are made at the County level, at least they are in WA. Federal rules requiring an environmental impact statement is kind of a business use threshold test, if you are a land owner and don’t think development of you land would be profitable to justify just finding out what the environmental impact would be, then the use you are considering is probably not economically viable to begin with.

At the State / County level, if you don’t like the zoning requirements, change them. That’s what democracy is all about.

Essentially the elitists of the cities decided the ruralites couldn't make a profit from their land...as the city dwellers have been allowed to do from day one. And that's the problem. They have edged these people out of the equation, then swooped in to buy up the few parcels that are available.

They didn’t decide that a profit couldn’t be made off the land, the land’s owners who sold the land made that decision. Unless imminent domain or something like that kicked in whoever sold the land was probably not coerced into doing so. You don’t sound very conservative claiming that land owners should not have been allowed to sell their land to whoever they want.

It's ruined our state, ruined our economy, and destroyed a whole population of people as the lumber industry was dismantled, then the farming industry, the fishing industry, and finally even the industry of land development.

Yes, there are a lot fewer buggy whip manufactures in Washington State today too. Time change and people need to change with the times. If Oregon has been “ruined” then the South must just be devastated.

Oregon has a lower rate of poverty than:

• Mississippi
• Louisiana
• Texas
• Kentucky
• Arkansas
• Tennessee
• Alabama
• West Virginia
• Oklahoma
• North Carolina
• South Carolina
• Georgia

Higher Median Income than

• Missouri
• Texas
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Oklahoma

Lower Unemployment than

• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Kentucky
• Georgia
• Missouri

Lower Taxes Per Capita than

• North Carolina
• Virginia
• Oklahoma
• Louisiana
• Mississippi

Higher Per Capita Product than

• Georgia
• Tennessee
• Oklahoma
• Missouri
• Kentucky

Fewer Prison Inmates Per Capita Than

• Louisiana
• Oklahoma
• Texas
• Mississippi
• Alabama

Lower infant mortality rates than

• Louisiana
• Alabama
• Tennessee
• Georgia
• Oklahoma

Not quite as ruined as all those states that are bastions of conservatism.

 

[Luissa]

Sorry, spell check got that one without me noticing.



Now I am not an expert or OR real property, but I think most of those decisions are made at the County level, at least they are in WA. Federal rules requiring an environmental impact statement is kind of a business use threshold test, if you are a land owner and don’t think development of you land would be profitable to justify just finding out what the environmental impact would be, then the use you are considering is probably not economically viable to begin with.

At the State / County level, if you don’t like the zoning requirements, change them. That’s what democracy is all about.



They didn’t decide that a profit couldn’t be made off the land, the land’s owners who sold the land made that decision. Unless imminent domain or something like that kicked in whoever sold the land was probably not coerced into doing so. You don’t sound very conservative claiming that land owners should not have been allowed to sell their land to whoever they want.



Yes, there are a lot fewer buggy whip manufactures in Washington State today too. Time change and people need to change with the times. If Oregon has been “ruined” then the South must just be devastated.

Oregon has a lower rate of poverty than:

• Mississippi
• Louisiana
• Texas
• Kentucky
• Arkansas
• Tennessee
• Alabama
• West Virginia
• Oklahoma
• North Carolina
• South Carolina
• Georgia

Higher Median Income than

• Missouri
• Texas
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Oklahoma

Lower Unemployment than

• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Kentucky
• Georgia
• Missouri

Lower Taxes Per Capita than

• North Carolina
• Virginia
• Oklahoma
• Louisiana
• Mississippi

Higher Per Capita Product than

• Georgia
• Tennessee
• Oklahoma
• Missouri
• Kentucky

Fewer Prison Inmates Per Capita Than

• Louisiana
• Oklahoma
• Texas
• Mississippi
• Alabama

Lower infant mortality rates than

• Louisiana
• Alabama
• Tennessee
• Georgia
• Oklahoma

Not quite as ruined as all those states that are bastions of conservatism.

YOu really need to stop proving your point!
One thing I do have to say is during the gubernatorial race here Rossi would campaign here saying how Chris was not fixing our roads and doing nothing for us on the east side. Last spring and summer almost every main north south street was redone. Also he put up a billboard here saying,"Don't let Seattle steal this one!"

 

[Turboswede]

YOu really need to stop proving your point!
One thing I do have to say is during the gubernatorial race here Rossi would campaign here saying how Chris was not fixing our roads and doing nothing for us on the east side. Last spring and summer almost every main north south street was redone. Also he put up a billboard here saying,"Don't let Seattle steal this one!"

Rossi would have been fine but I woked for Chris in a prior life so I am glad she ended up winning. I think we should more to improve eastern WA and I sure didn't think it would have been fair for them to help pay for the Arena to keep the Sonics.

 

[Luissa]

Rossi would have been fine but I woked for Chris in a prior life so I am glad she ended up winning. I think we should more to improve eastern WA and I sure didn't think it would have been fair for them to help pay for the Arena to keep the Sonics.

I agree with you there! And we do need more help over here! but I don't know if it is all here but since she became governor our roads over here seem to be getting fixed a lot more. Of course we voted a few of things in ourselves but we also have been getting money from the state to help and our north south freeway finally got started. One reason I didn't like Rossi is due to min. wage which many people in SPokane live off of. I don't know if he would have really lowered it but I didn't want to take the chance. Plus there is the social issues I don't agree with.

 

[Turboswede]

I agree with you there! And we do need more help over here! but I don't know if it is all here but since she became governor our roads over here seem to be getting fixed a lot more. Of course we voted a few of things in ourselves but we also have been getting money from the state to help and our north south freeway finally got started. One reason I didn't like Rossi is due to min. wage which many people in SPokane live off of. I don't know if he would have really lowered it but I didn't want to take the chance. Plus there is the social issues I don't agree with.

Yes, the minimu wage thing was what would have convinced me to go with Chris absent any other reason. I paid for college on our minimum wage back in the day and anyone how says its just for high school kids is full of...well...it.

 

[xsited1]

Its not just King County, King county has 2 Congressional seats, one is a democrat McDermott and the other (the affluent east side) is a Republican Reichart.

The other 5 Western Washington Seats are all Democrats so that includes Kitsap (Rural/military), Pierce (Blue Color/Military/Rural) counties, Snohomish (commuters/ Rural/ Military), and South West Washington (Rural/Commuters).

So, King County is more of a split between "Urban" Democrats and "Blue Blood" Republicans.

But we still manage to have very low taxes & lots of protection against the state.

I've seen Washington in the top 10 states with the most oppressive taxation. (The best and worst states for taxes - MSN Money) Has something changed?

 

[Turboswede]

I've seen Washington in the top 10 states with the most oppressive taxation. (The best and worst states for taxes - MSN Money) Has something changed?

Weird because the article says Washingon is 17th but the source sited in the article has Washington ranked at 35th

The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens: All States, One Year, 1977-2008

I know that it doesn't pay to smoke here for sure.

 

[xsited1]

Weird because the article says Washingon is 17th but the source sited in the article has Washington ranked at 35th

The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens: All States, One Year, 1977-2008

I know that it doesn't pay to smoke here for sure.

Actually, the article says 9th. Virginia was 17th:

Washington
6.5%*
$0.36
$2.03
$0.26
11.1%
16
34.0%
9

Nevertheless, your link seems much more accurate. I was surprised that the MSN Money article has Arkansas rated as 32nd since the taxes are rather high here. Politicians are already talking about raising taxes here in Arkansas to take care of budget deficits. If a business has a deficit, do they raise the price of their products or do they cut spending? Most of the time, they can't raise the price of their products because of competition, but obviously the government doesn't have competition so that's what they do.

 

[Turboswede]

Actually, the article says 9th.

It’s like that line, “there are 2 ways to line, ling and statistics”

Here the issue is how are the numbers presented and what do they mean that’s why WA can be 9, 17 and 35 on a list of the “highest” taxed.

The 9th Number the MSN article sites are based on state taxes only (no accounting for local/property taxes) when combined with the Federal offset and is based on 2006 tax law.

In 2006 if you paid State income tax that tax was then deductible against your federal taxes. For states like Washington this as a big factor pushing us up the “highest combined State/Federal” tax list. For example, in WA if you pay an 6.5% sales tax, a high gas tax and smoke, none of those taxes are deductible on your 1040 so you are being taxed again by the federal government on amounts that have been paid to the state government so from a combined Fed/State perspective if you are in a 25% federal bracket you will be paying 6.5% (Sales Tax) + .5% (Gas & Smokes & Booze) + 25% (Federal) or 32.0% combined.

On the other hand if you pay a 8% income tax and are in a 25% tax bracket you will pay a total of 8% (State income) + 25% (Federal Income) – (25% x 7% or 1.75%)( federal Deduction for state taxes paid) – (7% x 25% or 1.75%)(State deduction for Federal income taxes paid) = 29%. In effect the WA tax rate is 1% lower but, due to the deduction for state taxes paid on the federal return and the state deduction for federal withholdings the aggregate rate for the state without the income tax is 3% higher.

The MSN article then says, on a state only tax basis (not aggregated with the Federal Income Tax) Washington is at 17th on the list when.

The Tax Foundation Link I sent you (which I believe to be the best figure for comparison) states that WA is 35th when you also factor in local taxes like property taxe into the numbers. It is the best number to look at overall tax burden faced by state residents because since 2007 State Sales taxes have been allowed as an itemized deduction on the 1040.

 

[Againsheila]

Washington State gives instate tuition to illegals and gives them driver's licenses. They don't check for citizenship when you register to vote so I think we have a heck of a lot of illegals that are voting. This could be why Gregoir won this time instead of Rossi.

I think Obama would have won regardless.