Is Nashville Liberal or Conservative?

[fieldmarshaldj]

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!!!!!!

It's worth mentioning that some zip codes in this county were some of the biggest contributors to the national GOP, so you'd think they'd at least give a few crumbs to help out the locals outside of Beth Halteman-Harwell's bailiwick. I think once the Republicans finally get the upper-hand on redistricting (which will likely be by 2012), and create fairer districts within the county (again, based on voting %'s as it is, we should have at least 4 out of 10 House seats and at least 1 or 2 of the Senate seats), it will force the local money people to have to participate in the process. Perhaps some argue that by remaining major players behind the "Dem" candidates, they keep the Mayor's office in the hands of a pro-business candidate, rather than an extremist, divisive nut you see elsewhere in the country that tends to represent the current extreme left in the Dem party these days.

[Rural King]

I don't Nashville, or Memphis for that matter, would elect a really "out-there" lefty on the city level, the city/county political and social demographics aren't there, esp. in Nashville. Tennessee is too moderate to conservative, even in the cities for that to happen IMO.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

Based on current voting %'s, if the Republicans drew the lines as outrageously as the Democrats have in this state since after 1970, the Democrats would probably make up less than 20% of the legislature. As it is, the Republicans have been receiving more votes overall for the legislature in the past decade, with an ever-widening gap each cycle (the gap is now over 10% in the GOP's direction - in the House especially, the phrase "gross disenfranchisement" is a legitimate claim to be made). The critical mass of holding off their majority voting to a minority of seats is already occurring (the Senate already fell).

Again, my biggest problem here in Nashville remains, there IS no two-party system. It's not fair, and it's highly undemocratic. Prior to Reconstruction and the Civil War, Nashville used to be a very vigorous bastion of two-party politics between the Whigs and the Democrats. That was certainly beneficial then, and would be just as much today. Not even Mexico or the old Soviet Union kept that long a solid period of absolute one-party control without opposition as long as the Democrats have in Nashville. Even staid and "boring" Knoxville has elected a Democrat Mayor in the past 25 years, and that gentleman was strong enough to be the standard-bearer for Governor in 1982 (Randy Tyree), and occasionally elects Democrats to other offices. Jackson's GOP trend is more a recent development as well, and it is doubtful they'll go 120 years with them once elected.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I don't Nashville, or Memphis for that matter, would elect a really "out-there" lefty on the city level, the city/county political and social demographics aren't there, esp. in Nashville. Tennessee is too moderate to conservative, even in the cities for that to happen IMO.

Well, Memphis's problem tends to be its high tolerance for electing corrupt and divisive figures to office, from the Fords on down. They are, of course, quite liberal. Sadly, at least on the federal level, Nashville's Rep, Jim Cooper, has left behind the more moderate reputation he had as the 4th district Congressman (or his dad, Prentice Cooper, the former Governor, who was a Conservative), and votes an appallingly left-wing agenda, so much so as to make ole Bob Clement (of whom I was no fan of, either) look like Jesse Helms (his record being even more liberal than Harold, Jr !). I suspect someday he, too, may want to come back and be Mayor.

[Rural King]

^^ Thats do to the concentration of Republicans in East Tennessee, where they can win with 70-80 percent of the vote or win un-oppossed, where Dems almost always have a opponent now (unlike 20 years ago) and win with 50-70 percent, with way more being in the 50-60 range with very few being un-oppossed. You can't shift the dominance of East Tennessee Republican majorities onto the results from the rest of the state. West and Middle Tennessee district lines are able to produce more competative seats than East Tennessee, where no matter how you draw the lines Republicans would win the vast majority of the Grand Division outside of a few urban center districts.

Well, Memphis's problem tends to be its high tolerance for electing corrupt and divisive figures to office, from the Fords on down. They are, of course, quite liberal. Sadly, at least on the federal level, Nashville's Rep, Jim Cooper, has left behind the more moderate reputation he had as the 4th district Congressman (or his dad, Prentice Cooper, the former Governor, who was a Conservative), and votes an appallingly left-wing agenda, so much so as to make ole Bob Clement (of whom I was no fan of, either) look like Jesse Helms (his record being even more liberal than Harold, Jr !). I suspect someday he, too, may want to come back and be Mayor.

I think you will have to admit your definition of liberal is a tad broader than most. Harold Ford, Jr. is a Blue Dog and has a very moderate voting record by objective political standards.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^^ Thats do to the concentration of Republicans in East Tennessee, where they can win with 70-80 percent of the vote or win un-oppossed, where Dems almost always have a opponent now (unlike 20 years ago) and win with 50-70 percent, with way more being in the 50-60 range with very few being un-oppossed. You can't shift the dominance of East Tennessee Republican majorities onto the results from the rest of the state. West and Middle Tennessee district lines are able to produce more competative seats than East Tennessee, where no matter how you draw the lines Republicans would win the vast majority of the Grand Division outside of a few urban center districts.

I think you will have to admit your definition of liberal is a tad broader than most. Harold Ford, Jr. is a Blue Dog and has a very moderate voting record by objective political standards.

I crunched the numbers, and even with Democrats not contesting all the seats, and Republicans failing to field candidates in some areas, the gap continues to widen for the Republican voting majority. It's no longer an "East Tennessee" thing anymore, this is happening elsewhere, too (in fact, there are a few East TN seats that were designed to "corral" Republicans that have Democrat members, mostly due to previously troubled GOP incumbents). Many of the districts where Republicans have been "packed" in Middle TN, for example, truly defy the imagination (Charles Sargent's was about the most egregious example). I sort of equate the disenfranchisement of the TN GOP to what we've seen in states like VA and TX in the past decade, where a Dem minority foisted their lines on their respective states.

As for my definition of liberal, its a mainstream one (and I don't mean media, either). The American Conservative Union puts out a list of key votes each year that tends to agree with its more liberal counterpart groups (say for example, a Congressmember might get an 80% from the ACU, you'll find that they scored a 20% from the ACLU). If a Democrat tends to score at or below 25%, they're liberal, and the closer one gets to 0, the more leftist they get. Harold, Junior scored a 21% for 2004, and Jim Cooper scored a 13% (% Conservative scores). While Junior may be more "moderate" compared to the moonbats, he is still clearly a liberal where the votes count. There's little worry his votes will find much broad appeal statewide in the Senate contest (of course, that's the least of his worries right now).

[Rural King]

So the ACU is the bench mark? Can I use ACLU numbers then? Neither is what I would term objective, which is the point.

How is Sargent corraled, he is in Williamson the most Republican county in the state, his distict is drawn fairly compact too. If you drew him into southern Davidson that would be Republican friendly too.

East Tennessee heavy Republican lean skews the numbers. Of course the Dems draw seats favorably to them, but it does not change the fact that Middle and East Tennessee have a strong Democratic voting blocs and most any district drawn (excluding the Memphis and Nashville burbs) will be competative to some degree, its just a matter of how much and who has the edge.

[fieldmarshaldj]

So the ACU is the bench mark? Can I use ACLU numbers then? Neither is what I would term objective, which is the point.

How is Sargent corraled, he is in Williamson the most Republican county in the state, his distict is drawn fairly compact too. If you drew him into southern Davidson that would be Republican friendly too.

East Tennessee heavy Republican lean skews the numbers. Of course the Dems draw seats favorably to them, but it does not change the fact that Middle and East Tennessee have a strong Democratic voting blocs and most any district drawn (excluding the Memphis and Nashville burbs) will be competative to some degree, its just a matter of how much and who has the edge.

I could cite many different groups whose numbers would mesh with opposing ideological groups. The ACU and the ACLU were convenient references, so would be the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action). I respect their ideologically opposed ratings systems as being generally quite accurate with respect to Congressional figures.

Although I don't have the figures in front of me (I assembled a spreadsheet for the past decade), virtually the highest vote-getters (not as a percentage, but actual vote tallies) were Republicans to the last, whereas some in directly adjacent districts were Democrats receiving some of the lowest votes (raw votes), while still winning their respective districts. The inequities were quite apparent. Davidson County, being one of the most outrageous examples, where I've found upwards of 40% of the voters support GOP legislative candidates, yet they get 10% of the seats (i.e. 1 seat). You can guess which member usually gets the highest actual votes in the county, even with decent competition.

In any event, East TN Republican voters don't skew the result nearly as much as you'd believe, because they are more than offset by Democrats elsewhere (and as I cited before, the Democrats hold some seats in Republican areas due to problems with formerly troubled incumbents). As it stands, if you put up competitive candidates in all 99 House seats, you'd still have Republicans winning a majority of the votes (but not the seats), solely due to the lines. Sundquist, in retaliation to his fellow Republicans, even attempted to foist the greatest disenfranchisement plan in recent memory to place 55% of the voting Republicans into 33% of the legislative seats. Even some reasonable Democrats didn't dare touch that outrageous plan with a 10-foot pole, essentially leaving in place the already previous gerrymander of the '90s, and still the GOP continues to obtain supermajorities in order to win seats that Democrats barely need a fraction of to hold. I could go over all the districts one by one if you'd like, to prove my point, but I think I'd bore the joint to tears.

[Rural King]

Seriously, I understand that the districts are drawn to favor the party in power. Its how the game is played, by all sides. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm not sure how you would draw lines in Davidson though without also gerrymandering lines specifically elect 4 Republicans.

Back to Nashville mayorship, thats a county wide vote, and the Dems still are able to win the elections for 120 years running. The local electorate simply has preferred to elect Dems and the Dems have a powerful operation there.

If you want to start a thread detailing each house and senate seat, I'd read it. I'm sure alot of other folks. would too.

Edit - 11:45 PM: I think I have talked about this enough though and made my points, I think other folks should continue this discussion outside of our debate. So I will bow out now to let that happen

[fieldmarshaldj]

Seriously, I understand that the districts are drawn to favor the party in power. Its how the game is played, by all sides. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm not sure how you would draw lines in Davidson though without also gerrymandering lines specifically elect 4 Republicans.

Back to Nashville mayorship, thats a county wide vote, and the Dems still are able to win the elections for 120 years running. The local electorate simply has preferred to elect Dems and the Dems have a powerful operation there.

If you want to start a thread detailing each house and senate seat, I'd read it. I'm sure alot of other folks. would too.

Well, without gerrymandering anything, there should be (at minimum) 2 GOP House seats in the county. Halteman-Harwell's district is really 2 GOP districts in 1. As you may recall, adjacent to her seat prior to 1993 was the House Republican Leader, John Chiles's district. The district was deliberately chopped in two (which was Purcell's hatchet job), and that was simply being greedy (I mean, you have 8 out of the 10 seats at this point, trying to squeeze out a 9th, or even a 10th when 40% vote for the opposition is an outrageous exercise in disenfranchisement). Dividing Halteman-Harwell's seat in 2 would get us back that West Nashville district. How to get an additional 2 seats is the other question. I would tend to draw narrow-strip districts extending out past the county lines to jam more suburban voters (presumably GOP) into the districts and place the higher Dem-voting districts near the central core into the smallest number of districts possible. Well, it's all an academic exercise, anyhow. There are a lot of Republicans anxious to repay the Democrats in kind for many decades of disenfranchisement, and when the final lines are presented, a lot of jaws will drop.

Like I said, I don't fault the Nashville Democrats for their strength in maintaining a 120-year hold on the Mayor's office (or most anything else), my complaint goes more to the Republicans for not even the most feeble attempts to contest. They've got the money to make it competitive, but they just prefer their own influence within the Democrats. I just dislike it greatly.

I may do that thread you suggest in the future, but analyzing 99 seats is going to be an abominably long discussion, best left perhaps for another time (maybe closer to the elections this year).

[Claws]

I'm getting the impression from my research that Nashville is much more liberal than conservative. Check out this article, for instance.

[Rural King]

^ I don't think that means much. Davidson is a much larger county than any of the rest, so it would have numerically more gay couples.

I also don't buy gay = liberal. There are plenty of conservative gay individuals, esp. when it comes to economic issues. Its like saying most African-Americans are liberal because they vote disproportionally for the Democratic Party, and thats definately far from the truth.

[poonther]

One recent mark against Nashville being liberal is that your local NBC affliate, WSMV Channel 4, banned the TV show "Book of Daniel." The NBC station premiered the pilot but got so many negative callers about the show that management has decided not to air future episodes even though that show won the ratings time slot for your market for that Friday evening (1/6.) Nashville is the largest TV market (#30) not airing the show. I do realize that your TV viewing market includes more than Davidson County and that could be a factor in the banning of this show.

[fieldmarshaldj]

One recent mark against Nashville being liberal is that your local NBC affliate, WSMV Channel 4, banned the TV show "Book of Daniel." The NBC station premiered the pilot but got so many negative callers about the show that management has decided not to air future episodes even though that show won the ratings time slot for your market for that Friday evening (1/6.) Nashville is the largest TV market (#30) not airing the show. I do realize that your TV viewing market includes more than Davidson County and that could be a factor in the banning of this show.

I didn't even contact the station, but I certainly applaud their actions. After reading up on that horrid piece of garbage, written by an anti-Christian bigot, you couldn't have gotten more offensive if you hired some white actors to put on a black-face minstrel show, aired it on BET, and called it "The Watermelon Hour."

[rocky top buzz]

I personally think the area is far more conservative than liberal. I believe most of the people around who who vote democrat do so because that's how they were raised (You brush your teeth before bed, put your pants on one leg at a time, and vote for the guy with the 'D' next to his name. Most people around here don't support the homosexual agenda being shoved in our faces, the continual declining of values displayed on TV (you can't even watch the family channed with your kids at night), and the general 'political correctness' movement.

I've talked to several people who vote democrat and have no real reason. I've only talked to one person who had a logical reason for voting democrat. The head of a local United way agency votes democrat because democrats, as he says, are willing to continually give money to the poor without expecting them to take personal responsibility. Republicans are willing to help out the poor and needy, but with the intent of that person educating and bettering themselves and getting off the public roles.

[poonther]

I'd say based solely on the last two post to this thread, the answer to your question Claws is conservative, very conservative.

And finally, the thing I don't understand about when people are offended by TV and movies is this. When I see a program that is offensive to me, I just simply don't go to the theatre to watch it or I turn the channel or better yet turn my TV off. Everyone thinks different and I'd never want or expect things in the media not to appear just b/c I personally found them offensive. Thinking otherwise is kinda arrogant isn't it? I mean this country is full of different types and kinds of people and that to me is what makes it great.

[Rural King]

I personally think the area is far more conservative than liberal. I believe most of the people around who who vote democrat do so because that's how they were raised (You brush your teeth before bed, put your pants on one leg at a time, and vote for the guy with the 'D' next to his name. Most people around here don't support the homosexual agenda being shoved in our faces, the continual declining of values displayed on TV (you can't even watch the family channed with your kids at night), and the general 'political correctness' movement.

I've talked to several people who vote democrat and have no real reason. I've only talked to one person who had a logical reason for voting democrat. The head of a local United way agency votes democrat because democrats, as he says, are willing to continually give money to the poor without expecting them to take personal responsibility. Republicans are willing to help out the poor and needy, but with the intent of that person educating and bettering themselves and getting off the public roles.

Most people in Tennessee vote Democrat alot more than just habit. The TN Dems are alot more socially conservative than the national or northern party peers. The party tends to be moderate-to-right of center on social issues, and in many cases many of the elected Dems hold very conservative social stances, this is do to the fact that the backbone of the party is its rural membership. Same thing goes for social responsiblity, not many Dems outside of a a small handful of inner city Dems are liberal on things like benefits for the poor with no strings attached, and most city Dems are more moderate middle of the road on such issues. The Dems differ from the Repubs. mainly on economic stances, as Dem carry alot more weight it seems with voting blocs such as small businesses, labor, minorities, rural farmers (to some extent still, varies on region), etc., than Republicans who tend to carry more big business, religous issues, smaller gov. /lower taxes, etc. blocs. I don't see much difference between the state parties on most social issues, other than claims that the Dems aren't conservative enough, even though the majority are very conservative by all most all objective standards.

Note: Lets watch where this discussion goes and keep in on track without getting into hot button debates on specific issues that might offend people who read these boards. There are political forums for pure ideological debates on such issues. I'd rather our discussions in regards to this topic stay more general and regional in nature. Thanks.

[fieldmarshaldj]

And finally, the thing I don't understand about when people are offended by TV and movies is this. When I see a program that is offensive to me, I just simply don't go to the theatre to watch it or I turn the channel or better yet turn my TV off. Everyone thinks different and I'd never want or expect things in the media not to appear just b/c I personally found them offensive. Thinking otherwise is kinda arrogant isn't it? I mean this country is full of different types and kinds of people and that to me is what makes it great.

Because at some point, someone has got to put their foot down over outrageous garbage written by bigots. Imagine for a moment if a channel decided to air my aforementioned example "The Watermelon Hour." Imagine the outrage from Black leaders demanding that racist garbage like that be removed from network programming and others standing up and saying "well, if you don't like it, change the channel." I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. While you might make the argument if it is on a pay-cable channel, they may have more leeway to air questionable programming, but when it airs on a network channel, where anyone can watch it (including children), you'd expect the network to demonstrate a bit more social responsibility.

Unfortunately, with absolutely no balance in tv/film writing or programming, we've been treated to a litany of attacks against "normal America", for whom Hollywood never ceases to show anything but laughable contempt and disdain for. When NBC chose to air this bigoted filth, they fully deserved all the justified attacks for their decision. It was simply time for the grown ups to step in and say, "that's about enough."

[sleepy]

I doubt if Nashville democrats particularly register leftwing on any national standard anyway. Perhaps the issue is that Nashville republicans are as happy with moderate/rightwing Nashville democrats as they would be with moderate/rightwing Nashville republicans.

And I suspect too that Belle Meade folks are doing just dandy with local democratic leadership, so why upset that applecart?

OT--Hope state senator Steve Cohen runs for Frist's seat and wins, though he's rumored to run for Ford, Jr.'s congressional seat.

[sleepy]

Well, Memphis's problem tends to be its high tolerance for electing corrupt and divisive figures to office, from the Fords on down.

Sen. Ford was a state official. Local Memphis government was rated quite high in its level of efficiency. Don't have the link, but could look it up--Memphis was ranked above Nashville in that area.

I don't Nashville, or Memphis for that matter, would elect a really "out-there" lefty on the city level, the city/county political and social demographics aren't there, esp. in Nashville.

Steve Cohen is an "out there" lefty by Tennessee standards--the lone advocate for medical marijuana and one of 3 senators to vote against the gay marriage ban. He's also clean as a whistle and represents "historic Memphis"--Midtown and old East Memphis.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I doubt if Nashville democrats particularly register leftwing on any national standard anyway. Perhaps the issue is that Nashville republicans are as happy with moderate/rightwing Nashville democrats as they would be with moderate/rightwing Nashville republicans.

And I suspect too that Belle Meade folks are doing just dandy with local democratic leadership, so why upset that applecart?

OT--Hope state senator Steve Cohen runs for Frist's seat and wins, though he's rumored to run for Ford, Jr.'s congressional seat.

I'm watching this revisionism of Tennessee Democrats as being "rightist/Conservative" with much amusement. Congressman Jim Cooper votes well to the left of his constituents (I never thought I'd miss Bob Clement, but Coop has accomplished that miracle for me) and is certainly a liberal Democrat, as is Harold Ford, Jr.. As for the Belle Meade Country-Club set, they certainly don't reflect my views of giving the thumbs-up to an undemocratic one-party machine.

While Steve Cohen provides some levity in the state Senate, he certainly won't be winning any statewide offices by popular vote (doubtful he'd be able to win the Congressional seat, either - the Fords would never tolerate it, especially a Caucasian Jew, regardless of how liberal he is). I was rather disappointed in him the other week when he showed little "tolerance" for Jesus's name being mentioned during Senate prayers. Unless he's trying to impress the ACLU wingnuts, that certainly won't go over well with mainstream Tennesseans.

[Rural King]

^ Well on the state level the Tennessee Democratic Party is a socially conservative party while being more moderate on economic issues with their members reflect their districs (ie rural Dems are more conservative than then urban members), . I would say Lincoln Davis (4th), John Tanner (8th), and Bart Gordon (6th) are all middle of the road to conservative on most issues and reflect their districts positions, while Ford (9th) and Cooper (5th) are moderate to left leaning -on some issues-, and are not too far out of line with their more urban consituents who re-elect them comfortably.

I never said Dems are a rightwing party, I do argue on social issues they lean right on most issues, while being basically middle of the road on most other issues.

[southsideJ]

Because at some point, someone has got to put their foot down over outrageous garbage written by bigots. Imagine for a moment if a channel decided to air my aforementioned example "The Watermelon Hour." Imagine the outrage from Black leaders demanding that racist garbage like that be removed from network programming and others standing up and saying "well, if you don't like it, change the channel." I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. While you might make the argument if it is on a pay-cable channel, they may have more leeway to air questionable programming, but when it airs on a network channel, where anyone can watch it (including children), you'd expect the network to demonstrate a bit more social responsibility.

Unfortunately, with absolutely no balance in tv/film writing or programming, we've been treated to a litany of attacks against "normal America", for whom Hollywood never ceases to show anything but laughable contempt and disdain for. When NBC chose to air this bigoted filth, they fully deserved all the justified attacks for their decision. It was simply time for the grown ups to step in and say, "that's about enough."

The above comment is inflammatory and highly offensive. You should keep in mind that not everyone shares your specific views on social issues. Calling the writer of the show in question a bigot is offensive and it is a knee jerk reaction. Did you watch the show? do you know the writer personally? Do you know his other bodies of work? Do you have any legitmate reasons for calling someone a bigot? Because it explores issues such as homosexuality? drugs? sin? As a former preacher's son, I can say that the depictions aren't unrealistic.

What I found offensive was WSMV's decision to air Pat Robertson to "balance," the programming. In my opinion Mr. Robertson is "unbalanced," to put it nicely. His views are extreme and hate filled and go against the very teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus would never have a church turn away someone b/c of sin. Jesus taught love. Robertson however, was on TV just the other day celebrating with a smile b/c he says that God told him that this is the year that the sinners will pay after having gotten away with things for so many years. Mr.Robertson is a sick man in my opinion and I was much more offended by WSMV deciding to air his smut than I was by "Book of Daniel."

Your opinion may be that you are part of "Normal America," and the rest of us are sick freaks destined to burn in hell, but perhaps the United State--and Nashville too-- is a slightly larger, more diverse place than you suspect. Perhaps you should consider that not everyone agrees with you when you fly off on a rant like the one above. And there is (or is supposed to be) something called freedom of speech in this country whether the 1950s mentality types like it or not. Your "Watermelon Hour" example was in poor taste and was a weak example. You forget--the KKK is still allowed to have marches in this country. Its extremely offensive to me but they are protected by law.

As far as this show being on network television in full view of children--there are much worse things on television. Ever heard of reality TV? There will always be controversial or unpleasant things around children. That is why it is up to parents to educate, monitor and restrict what their children take in from the world.

[Rural King]

Well I think this thread has ran its course for now, as multiple people on both sides of the ideological aisle have stated to me they have been offended by recent statements in it, thus I think its time to say farewell to it. A new local/state political thread can be started if you all so desire, but I think this particular thread is going to cause me headaches in the future. So on goes the lock.