Is Nashville Liberal or Conservative?

[fieldmarshaldj]

What's the most liberal part of Nashville?

Also, a new question: which city is more liberal--Nashville or Memphis?

Facts:

Memphis--gave Kerry 16% win over W.

Nashville--gave Kerry 10% win over W.

Memphis--gay index of 105.

Nashville--gay index of 125.

I know these two factors alone don't determine how liberal a city really is, but they are the most indicative cold, hard facts we can use, in my opinion.

And, no, AceMentor, I didn't see that article in the paper last year. Sounds interesting, though.

What is different in regards to Nashville vs. Memphis is that White Memphians (is that what they call themselves ?) tend to be more Republican than white Nashvillians. This can be traced to the political polarization that occurred in the 1960s. Nashvillians never quite reacted in the same way during the Civil Rights Era (to its credit). While Nashville has sent a string of White liberal Democrats to Congress since Conservative Dem J. Carlton Loser was ousted by Dick Fulton, Memphis since 1962 went all over the map, going from longtime old-line stalwart Clifford Davis (who had been around since the Boss Crump era), who was knocked off in the 1964 primary by liberal George Grider, who in turn was beaten in 1966 by conservative Republican Dan Kuykendall (Albert Gore, Sr's 1964 Senatorial opponent). Sadly for Kuykendall, who was Congressman during that dreadful 1967-75 period, he failed to cultivate Black voters who were, alas, drifting towards more radical leftist politics and politicians. As we all know now, White Memphians were already fleeing out of what was then the 9th Congressional district (8th from 1973-83), into what makes up the bulk of the western end of the 7th, and the demographic shift saw Kuykendall's base vanish. A young Harold Ford, Sr. was able to capitalize on Watergate and pick off a few White voters to beat Kuykendall in '74 (though had Watergate not occurred, he might've held on for at least another cycle or two). Of course, over time, Ford, Sr. turned out to be just as much a bigot and racially divisive as some had accused Kuykendall of being. Ironically, the rise of a strong Black Republican candidate named Rod DeBerry in the '90s saw Ford, Sr. abdicate to his son lest that "abomination" happen to take his seat.

In any event, Nashville has probably benefitted from that political stability (and avoiding the aforementioned racialist politics) far more so than our sister city Memphis. What may have saved Nashville was Metro Government, something Memphis didn't consider at the time (though it still may not have done them much good).

Forgive my going on a bit here...

[fieldmarshaldj]

Using the results of one election is really a bad indicator on how liberal or conservative a state or area might be. First you have to take the leap of faith that liberals vote for Democratics and conservatives vote for Republicans. While that might seem to be an easy enough jump, keep in mind that in this last election the two biggest items on why people voted were dealing with terrorists, and dealing with the economy. Neither is a province of being liberal or conservative as everyone will agree that terrorists should be eliminated, and something should be done to improve the economy.

(This is forgetting the set number of people in each party's base that will vote for "their party" no matter who runs)

Where the differences between the two parties comes from is in how they deliver the message they will do a bettter job and how bad they paste the other side as being a worthless. Kerry clearly failed on both of these efforts and did not connect with a majority of the people. Even Jimmy Carter said that this week he felt that Kerry was simply out of touch with the majority of the USA. I am thoroughly convinced that a candidate from the northeast ivory tower elite cannot win a national election in the USA. Remember the last president from this camp was 45 years ago.

Case in point, GW Bush was an unknown in 2000 and lost the popular vote to Al Gore. He would have also lost the election in my opinion except the supreme ct got involved and stopped the recount in Florida. On the other hand, in 2004 you have a President who is clearly a failure at everything that he said he would do for the country, but he still won the not only the election but the popular vote too because on the two items I mentioned above, he did a better job at connecting with the swing vote. Given his continued failures this year he might have very well lost the election if it where held this month, but Kerry was a really bad candidate.

I'd like to believe liberals would be committed to winning a war on terror as conservatives are, but it's pretty obvious that during the '04 campaign, you couldn't tell the difference in rhetoric from Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than from Dean, Kerry, and most of the Democrat base. Too many liberals have a vested interest in seeing things ground to dust (and actively cheer as the number of casualties rise in Iraq to score political points) and have a deep-seated hatred of what America stands for (not only here, but abroad). The old-time pro-America liberal politicians (embodied by distinguished individuals like the late Washington Sen. Scoop Jackson, or even Hubert Humphrey, for that matter) are gone. Watergate replaced them with the likes of Tom Hayden, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Dellums, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Tom Harkin, Al Sharpton, Patty Murray, Jesse Jackson Sr., Howard Dean, etc., etc., and their champions like Michael Moore. These aren't just rhetorical potshots, but the sad reality of how the radical fringe has become the mainstream of the Democrat party today. Some people saw that in '04 and it was partly why Bush managed a win (though it should've been by a far-larger majority). Why some vote the way they do can go beyond that. As I cited in a previous post, you still have country-bumpkin Whites who think they'll face hellfire and damnation for voting for a party of Lincoln candidate, you have Black voters who think Republicans will burn down their churches and reenslave them (and believe Lincoln was a registered Democrat !), then again, you have country-club liberals who vote Republican because they don't want to associate with those "colored hordes" (I'm sure more than a few in Belle Meade, and they know who they are). Sadly, there are a lot of ignorant fools who cast misguided votes one way or the other because they don't take the time to educate themselves (then again, you have entire classes of people pledged to keeping the people ignorant, and they, too, know who they are). I have enough problems with Conservative Republicans as it is and their gutlessness and timidity, though not so much I'd turn to the Howard Deans, Cynthia McKinneys, Al Sharptons, John Kerrys, and Michael Moores of this world.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Amen. I really don't understand how the democrats didn't get this. If you really think about it, every single president since Jimmy carter (aside from ronald reagan) has been from the south. The reason being that the south will vote either way. I really think that Bill Clinton won because he won the south, and al gore as well as john kerry lost because they couldn't win the south. The south has a history of voting democrat but i can guarantee that very few southerners to this day will trust a new england multi-millionaire to be their leader. Its just not gonna happen.

What's rather humorous is that if you remove Dubya's accent, he still technically is a Connecticut native (just part of the huge numbers of Americans that moved out of that part of the country - even my parents fled John Vliet Lindsay's apocalyptic early '70s NYC, where I just narrowly avoided being born in). John Kerry himself is a former country-club Massachusetts RINO (and very much an example of why the MA GOP is an almost non-entity today, since the working and middle-class people that would be the prime targets for Republicans in other states were told they and their populist/Conservative rhetoric could stay with the Dems - and in that state, vestiges of it still do), and now what Howard Dean calls part of the "Merlot Democrats."

To quote the wonderful Paul Giamatti as Miles Raymond in "Sideways", "I'm not drinking any f***ing Merlot !"

[fieldmarshaldj]

@fieldmarshaldj - Thanks for providing the numbers and a very good political analysis (it certianly didn't bore me!).

I would still say all those counties, except for Stewart are heavy Dem (which I had forgotten about being so close), even if their rural more conservative Dems. Anything over 5% is usually considered a good margin.

Most of those Tennessee river counties retain strong rural Dem bases that are weathered the tide so far when it comes to how they vote in national elections. Many of the less rural-agricultural dependent counties in Middle and West TN are getting pretty competative though, and when the old guard Dems leave on the state level those areas will be much more competative then they have been in the past.

I guess I tend to look more at the raw numbers than percentages. But since the 1960s, the power there is more akin to a House of Cards. Ned McWherter knew it, and struggled & conspired to keep Republican growth at bay there and in other rural areas (conceding only East TN, though he had some "fun" wiping out their legislators and eliminating our GOP Minority Leader in Nashville back in the early '90s - and I won't comment about the injustice and undemocratic representation of Nashville that has 1 GOP representative out of 10, despite a 40% Republican voting demographic - and you'd better believe we will get those seats once we take control of the House). Similar to West Tennessee was the Pennyrile area north of the border in Kentucky. 11 years ago, it had unbroken control by Dem politicians since the party was still called Jeffersonian Republicans (pre-1825), and only in 1863-65 did it elect "1" pro-Republican Congressman (of whom wasn't even one technically, an Unconditional Unionist). That area sent legendary pols like Speaker Linn Boyd (pre Civil-War) and Vice-President Alben Barkley to Washington. However, a 1970s era one-term moderate-Conservative Democrat named Ed Whitfield switched to the GOP, won the seat for the party for the first time ever, and today, Republican wins have spread downballot, absolutely unthinkable even as recently as 1992. Although it is unlikely that top-down approach will occur here in that section of Tennessee mostly contained within John Tanner's 8th Congressional district (as Tanner himself remains untouchable, if only due to gerrymandering), cracks have been occuring, and like in KY, once we get rightful control of line-drawing to reflect our voting strength, it will all come tumbling down for Democrats in that area.

[fieldmarshaldj]

And even in the past election of 2004, it was a lot more than just a "very few southerners" who voted for Kerry. In every southern state except Alabama, Kerry drew 40% or more of the vote. In TN, he got 43%. While not enough to get elected, that's more than just a very few.

It's rare you have technical (percentage-wise) landslides in Presidential elections, but Kerry's performance matched up almost equally to Mondale & Dukakis's % performances. That's not a very spectacular percentage to crow about, and almost the barest minimum of the Dem base you can get in Tennessee. And if you look even at those numbers and who makes up that base, Democrats are in a far more tenuous position. For example, if Republicans got Black voters up to 30% (from their current 10%, a dreadful figure), Dems would cease to be even remotely competitive almost anywhere in the South. And as is worth pointing out, many Black voters are not Democrats because they are liberal in ideology (if they voted solely on issues, rather than candidates and party labels, they'd make a lot of Conservative Republicans look like Howard Dean with their preferences).

[Claws]

Today I found an old City Paper article that tells how liberal Nashville really is. Here's the article.

[Plasticman]

It's simple. Liberals tend to move to large cities where the government programs, publc housing, free medical care, and all such freebie benefits are easy to access. Poor people (city poor) tend to support dems because they mis-perceive them as their saviors ever since Roosevelt and the "New Deal" which turned out to be a bum deal. My Tennessee grandma passed away at 84 two years ago and I can remember us getting into laughing debates as she was a southern yellow-dawg demmcrat and actually believed "The Republican iz fer the rich and the demmycrat is fer the poor!" Of course, I tried to explain reality to her but my respect for her right to believe as she wants outweighed my need to try to change her so I always conceded by just laughing with her and agreeing that "both parties need work". And as far as black people's votes....I would be very insulted if I was black because the dems take them for granted. My wife's best friend here in GA is a black republican lady, pro-bush, pro-Iraq war and all of it. Her friend IS insulted by it and she herself says that many black people vote democrat because they were raised to and for no other reason. I don't really believe that but the republicans are making a dent in the black vote, even if a small one.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Hehe, I think I'm gonna like you, Plastic.

[Rural King]

Of course not all Democrats are liberals, esp. not in Tennessee or in many other southern states. The Tennessee Democratic Party is centrist party with a tilt to the right on most social issues. The Tennessee Republican Party until recent years also used to be much more centrist as well, however its shifted a tad too far right here lately I think for its own good.

Alexander and McWherter are IMO two examples of two great modern Governors of Tennessee, both of whom were of different parties.

I've always liked the balance in Tennessee government. There is a great book on Tennessee State politics if anyone is interested.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Of course not all Democrats are liberals, esp. not in Tennessee or in many other southern states. The Tennessee Democratic Party is centrist party with a tilt to the right on most social issues. The Tennessee Republican Party until recent years also used to be much more centrist as well, however its shifted a tad too far right here lately I think for its own good.

Alexander and McWherter are IMO two examples of two great modern Governors of Tennessee, both of whom were of different parties.

I've always liked the balance in Tennessee government. There is a great book on Tennessee State politics if anyone is interested.

While some of the TN Democrats haven't all gone to Pelosi kool-aid land, yet, the center-right claim becomes more and more questionable by the day as they come to fall in line more with the leftist National party. The TN GOP remains rather shockingly complacent and too timid in dealing with the Democrats in this state, of whom have been getting away with murder for decades. As for Alexander and McWherter, I never had much good to say about either. Alexander did nothing to grow the Republican party and left it in absolutely moribund condition when he left office and has amassed a disappointing record in DC as Senator (a job he didn't deserve).

McWherter, who had worked hard since the '70s disenfranchising the emerging GOP majority, had a high tolerance for corruption on his watch (from the time he served as Blanton's Speaker until the Rocky Top scandals), and his years as Governor were some of the most melancholy, moribund and statist in recent memory. I'm looking forward to the day we have strong and unapologetic Conservative GOP leadership from the Governorship on down to the legislature, which will be a nice refreshing change at long last.

[Rural King]

Not sure how many of TN Dems are falling anywhere near the National Dem positions on many hot button issues (esp the rural members who make up make up the true backbone of the party), but everyone has their own perspective, which I respect. I have pretty fond memories of good bond ratings, industrial expansion, new roads, etc under Alexander and McWherter. Sundquist is the eight years that I feel the state went kind of rutterless and started taking on water.

fieldmarshaldj - out of curiosity, who would be you ideal governor out of the current Republican line-up? Someone like Ed Bryant or Bill Dunn?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Not sure how many of TN Dems are falling anywhere near the National Dem positions on many hot button issues (esp the rural members who make up make up the true backbone of the party), but everyone has their own perspective, which I respect. I have pretty fond memories of good bond ratings, industrial expansion, new roads, etc under Alexander and McWherter. Sundquist is the eight years that I feel the state went kind of rutterless and started taking on water.

fieldmarshaldj - out of curiosity, who would be you ideal governor out of the current Republican line-up? Someone like Ed Bryant or Bill Dunn?

I'd go so far as to say I haven't been particularly impressed with any of the Governors in my lifetime (I was born during the Winfield Dunn Administration). I had higher hopes for Sundquist, but had I known he was going to morph into the second coming of Ray Blanton (if not in obvious and blatant criminality, but in the deep mistrust he inspired), I and many others wouldn't have ever supported him in 1994. I actually voted for John Jay Hooker for Governor in '98 (I thought he would've made a particularly fascinating and entertaining Governor - certainly giving the establishment in both parties coronaries).

While I'm actively cheering on the defeat of Bredesen this year, I have no real candidate to support at the moment (perhaps Van Hilleary - who has no business being in the Senate race; another intriguing suggestion would be Fred Thompson, who would easily defeat Bredesen despite his $$; Bill Frist could've also been a potential challenger, but he's done such a lackluster job as Majority Leader, I look forward to his permanent retirement from politics). Perhaps getting an unconventional candidate, someone maybe from the business world, might be the ticket. As for Ed Bryant, his expertise is the Congressional realm, and he has more than earned the right to the nomination for the Senate seat (which he should've received in '02), and I'm strongly supporting him for that.

[sleepy]

Not sure how many of TN Dems are falling anywhere near the National Dem positions on many hot button issues (esp the rural members who make up make up the true backbone of the party), but everyone has their own perspective, which I respect. I have pretty fond memories of good bond ratings, industrial expansion, new roads, etc under Alexander and McWherter. Sundquist is the eight years that I feel the state went kind of rutterless and started taking on water.

I'm looking forward to someone who represents the issues that affect the majority of Tennesseeans, most of whom are barely middle-class if truth be known.

And before we forget--despite all the glowing news that we on message boards are all too happy to post--Tennessee remains a poor state on any national measurement.

The state needs to support education, particularly community colleges which can be real economic engines, as well as the university systems. I will add to that the necessity of affordable healthcare and a more equitable tax system.

[Rural King]

^Living in a micropolitan area in a more rural region of the state, albeit a somewhat better off portion of a otherwise not to well off region by most national standards, or some statewide standards, I can understand that statement. Education and better employment opportunities (more and better paying) are major issues facing the state (esp. the more rural areas and micropolitan areas), and education attainment is a key factor limiting the state in economic recruitment at this point, because we are pretty darn competative in most other regards. However, with that being said, for what Tennessee spends on education we get alot better return on our spending then some other states (ie as far as how our spending relates to how we rank nationally). We do need to get our education system in better shape though IMO as well.

[sleepy]

^Living in a micropolitan area in a more rural region of the state, albeit a somewhat better off portion of a otherwise not to well off region by most national standards, or some statewide standards, I can understand that statement. Education and better employment opportunities (more and better paying) are major issues facing the state (esp. the more rural areas and micropolitan areas), and education attainment is a key factor limiting the state in economic recruitment at this point, because we are pretty darn competative in most other regards. However, with that being said, for what Tennessee spends on education we get alot better return on our spending then some other states (ie as far as how our spending relates to how we rank nationally). We do need to get our education system in better shape though IMO as well.

My problem with post-secondary education in Tennessee is the fact I read that it costs a Memphis resident something on the order of only $300/yr more to go to Ole Miss as an out of state student than to go to UM as an in state student. The point being that tuition in Tennessee is really, really high.

I know too that UT-Memphis has lost many faculty due to the budget cutbacks. That's an urban medical school, nursing school, health sciences school, dental school, pharmacy school that could be a real spark but it's always seemed to languish. Hopefully, the UT-Baptist biotech research facility will do something.

And the University of Memphis is one of only two Carnegie Level One public research universities in the state (UT-Knoxville is the other). In other words, UM has something on the order of only 7000 undergrads, but 13,000 grad students. I think that brainpower could be better harnessed.

As it is, UM's law school sits in a sorryazz building that floods regularly, and is on some hitlist for accreditation because of facilities, even though it has the highest bar pass rate in the state.

Tennessee's good at snaring things like HQ's for Int'l Paper and Nissan, but most jobs in reality seem to be warehouse work for $10/$12 an hour. That's beats picking cotton or working tobacco fields, but it seems a dead end, particularly when the state gives away the treasury to attract those jobs.

In the 60's, North Carolina really put the push on for post-secondary education--I can't remember the Governor's name--and ended up with Triangle Research Park.

EDIT--Minnesota gives out tax goodies to relocating or expanding companies as well, but only to companies that pay well, and this state does very well. Remember that Memphis gave a PILOT tax break to a Microtel Hotel recently.

[fieldmarshaldj]

In the 60's, North Carolina really put the push on for post-secondary education--I can't remember the Governor's name--and ended up with Triangle Research Park.

I believe you're thinking of Terry Sanford.

[Rural King]

I wish we were getting $10-12 dollar hour jobs on a regular basis, thats a good wage outside of Nashville or Memphis, and a decent wage there. Lots of the jobs tend to pay $850-950 an hour and hopefully offer reduced cost family insurance plans which helps even out the low wage; and is a wage people can get by on, but not easily without lots of overtime. If Tennessee was adding subtantial numbers of $10-12 dollar an hour jobs on a regular basis outside of Memphis and Nashville I would be thrilled, in fact those are the level of pay jobs I would say most of Tennessee is going after and the type that would best serve the populace.

Higher education in Tennessee is getting rather expensive and in many ways becoming structurally underfunded (esp. in faculty and research); and that in the long run could in the long run hurt the state's competiveness in several areas. Higher ed does need more funding IMO, not sure how to fix primary education though, throwing money at does not seem to be the sole solution there, nor anywhere, there is a social/cultural dynamic involved there that is negatively impacting student performance and behavior in the school environment.

Higher Ed though IMO would be responsive to better funding, esp. in regards to attracting/retaining faculty and developing research programs at our state universities. More aid to help people attend Trade Schools and Community Colleges would greatly help to, and by that I mean financial assistance so they can afford to attend school and still pay their bills; its very hard to go to school and work a full-time job and be successful at either.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Lots of the jobs tend to pay $850-950 an hour

Holy crap ! Can you fix me up with one ?

[Rural King]

^Like processing chicken? How about building showers or fireplaces, these probably pay a little higher to boot after awhile?

These are all decent jobs too and I am absolutely glad we have them.

[sleepy]

I wish we were getting $10-12 dollar hour jobs on a regular basis, thats a good wage outside of Nashville or Memphis, and a decent wage there. Lots of the jobs tend to pay $850-950 an hour and hopefully offer reduced cost family insurance plans which helps even out the low wage; and is a wage people can get by on, but not easily without lots of overtime. If Tennessee was adding subtantial numbers of $10-12 dollar an hour jobs on a regular basis outside of Memphis and Nashville I would be thrilled, in fact those are the level of pay jobs I would say most of Tennessee is going after and the type that would best serve the populace.

Higher education in Tennessee is getting rather expensive and in many ways becoming structurally underfunded (esp. in faculty and research); and that in the long run could in the long run hurt the state's competiveness in several areas. Higher ed does need more funding IMO, not sure how to fix primary education though, throwing money at does not seem to be the sole solution there, nor anywhere, there is a social/cultural dynamic involved there that is negatively impacting student performance and behavior in the school environment.

Higher Ed though IMO would be responsive to better funding, esp. in regards to attracting/retaining faculty and developing research programs at our state universities. More aid to help people attend Trade Schools and Community Colleges would greatly help to, and by that I mean financial assistance so they can afford to attend school and still pay their bills; its very hard to go to school and work a full-time job and be successful at either.

Maybe I was off on the wage deal, but it just seemed that the vast majority of new jobs opening up in Memphis were all about the $10-$12/hr. range. I've said in earlier posts that wages like that are better than nothing, but with 1 person earning that with 3 kids, that puts them just outside the federal poverty guidelines. Somebody with 3 kids would still qualify for food stamps.

Anyway, a lot of states aim more for higher-paying jobs it seems.

In a way, the fact that those wages are considered good in rural Tennessee sort of proves my point that TN is a poor state. Of course, there's the old line how we're better than Mississippi with $6.50/hr catfish cleaning jobs.

About ten years ago when I was living in New Orleans, the newspaper did an article contrasting Memphis and New Orleans economies. Basically, the paper praised Memphis for creating those $10/hr warehouse jobs for a basically uneducated workforce like New Orleans had. Except in New Orleans there were no jobs, or only $5.15/hr jobs.

About K-12 education--I agree that it's not so much money as social attitudes. At the same time, referring to New Orleans again, when I taught there the schools didn't even have textbooks. And that was a tough row to hoe for an English teacher.

[Lexy]

Nashville is more of the Conservative-Liberal type. It goes both ways (or either way) depending on the issue at hand.

[Rural King]

^ I agree, Nashville is pretty moderate place where urban enthusiasts and those in support and search of suburban living can both be happy, where those who are conservative, liberal, moderate, and evertyhing else on the map can find a place to call home, and a place where the big city's amenities are around every corner, but old small city charms remain tucked away in many a local.

[fieldmarshaldj]

The biggest problem, where Davidson County is concerned, is the shocking lack of any two-party system. The city proper hasn't elected a Republican Mayor since the 1880s, to Congress since 1872, and has rarely sent more than just the 1 (out of 10) members to the State House (zero to the State Senate), and this does not reflect the voting realities by any stretch (since roughly 40% of the county votes GOP, and for some statewide candidates, has voted majority GOP). Not having a viable two-party system is a recipe for bad government. If cities with a fraction of the GOP voters that Nashville has manages to elect Mayors, and other officials, Nashville should be able to as well. (I mean, c'mon, 125+ years of one party control is ludicrous !).

Although the reasons for the undemocratic representation to the state legislature is clearly due to Democrat gerrymandering, a large part of the problem, it seems, is that local Republicans (at least the money people) prefer to back local Democrats rather than put in the work to actually create a viable two-party system in the county. I find this rather appalling and disgraceful (but then, I've never had a warm fuzzy feeling about the Country-Club Republicans, heaven forbid those Belle Meade types have to hobnob with the middle-class, working-class, or (gasp !) "those Black and Brown people").

[Lexy]

The biggest problem, where Davidson County is concerned, is the shocking lack of any two-party system. The city proper hasn't elected a Republican Mayor since the 1880s, to Congress since 1872, and has rarely sent more than just the 1 (out of 10) members to the State House (zero to the State Senate), and this does not reflect the voting realities by any stretch (since roughly 40% of the county votes GOP, and for some statewide candidates, has voted majority GOP). Not having a viable two-party system is a recipe for bad government. If cities with a fraction of the GOP voters that Nashville has manages to elect Mayors, and other officials, Nashville should be able to as well. (I mean, c'mon, 125+ years of one party control is ludicrous !).

Although the reasons for the undemocratic representation to the state legislature is clearly due to Democrat gerrymandering, a large part of the problem, it seems, is that local Republicans (at least the money people) prefer to back local Democrats rather than put in the work to actually create a viable two-party system in the county. I find this rather appalling and disgraceful (but then, I've never had a warm fuzzy feeling about the Country-Club Republicans, heaven forbid those Belle Meade types have to hobnob with the middle-class, working-class, or (gasp !) "those Black and Brown people").

Good point. I get the feeling that sometimes there seems to be a 'fear', among local money holders, of starting a push for a second party in the city. That is a bit troubling for me. But really, I am just one of the many middle class people, that you spoke of, in town. Who am I to have a say anyway? LOL!!!!!!

[Rural King]

Well, I'm sure the Republicans would gerrymander the state just as much as the Democrats have. Thats a fact of politics, state representatives and state senators want safe seats, neither party is going to draw competative districts if they can help it, unless its to make their side more competative in said district. The mayor's seat has nothing to do with state drawn districts, so that just shows the Democratic strength within Nashville.

The City of Nashville seems to be doing fine under Democratic leadership IMO; as many other cities would like to have its economic growth rate and rising national prestige as a place to do business.

On the other side of the ledger Knoxville is a extremely strong Republican city; as is Jackson, which there was a story just in todays's Jackson Sun about which Republican would be the next city and county mayor-Madison County even has a Republican boss who will probably make the decision! So its not like this is a one way street in the state. Both parties have strongholds and monopolies currently.