Omaha Forums

Sooooooo... According to Forbes, Omaha ranks as the 8th most conservative city in the US.

http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-m ... america/4/
Article here.

I don't really agree with it. Maybe if you consider all the suburbs, sure, but the city as a whole? No.

RNcyanide wrote:Sooooooo... According to Forbes, Omaha ranks as the 8th most conservative city in the US.

http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-m ... america/4/
Article here.

I don't really agree with it. Maybe if you consider all the suburbs, sure, but the city as a whole? No.

Omaha is actually pretty moderate. I guess they must have had some interesting criteria. One thing I notice with Omaha is it's pretty much impossible to only associate with people of one political philosophy. If you're in, say, Portland, it's pretty much impossible to find someone to the right of Paul Krugman, as such conservatives are viewed as subhumans who inhabit some exotic hinterlands. Here I think people from different political backgrounds can actually get along Then there's me, an anarchist, who thinks you're all nuts

Professor Woland wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:Sooooooo... According to Forbes, Omaha ranks as the 8th most conservative city in the US.

http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-m ... america/4/
Article here.

I don't really agree with it. Maybe if you consider all the suburbs, sure, but the city as a whole? No.

Omaha is actually pretty moderate. I guess they must have had some interesting criteria. One thing I notice with Omaha is it's pretty much impossible to only associate with people of one political philosophy. If you're in, say, Portland, it's pretty much impossible to find someone to the right of Paul Krugman, as such conservatives are viewed as subhumans who inhabit some exotic hinterlands. Here I think people from different political backgrounds can actually get along Then there's me, an anarchist, who thinks you're all nuts

Hey me too!! I'm just a simple man who wants to watch the established orders burn.

But yes, I agree, our city is neither red nor blue, but more purple than anything.

RNcyanide wrote:

Professor Woland wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:Sooooooo... According to Forbes, Omaha ranks as the 8th most conservative city in the US.

http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-m ... america/4/
Article here.

I don't really agree with it. Maybe if you consider all the suburbs, sure, but the city as a whole? No.

Omaha is actually pretty moderate. I guess they must have had some interesting criteria. One thing I notice with Omaha is it's pretty much impossible to only associate with people of one political philosophy. If you're in, say, Portland, it's pretty much impossible to find someone to the right of Paul Krugman, as such conservatives are viewed as subhumans who inhabit some exotic hinterlands. Here I think people from different political backgrounds can actually get along Then there's me, an anarchist, who thinks you're all nuts

Hey me too!! I'm just a simple man who wants to watch the established orders burn.

But yes, I agree, our city is neither red nor blue, but more purple than anything.

I don't want to see established orders burn, I'm more like William Godwin, I'd like to see us evolve out of having formal political authority. It won't happen in my lifetime, but a man can dream.....

Professor Woland wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:

Professor Woland wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:Sooooooo... According to Forbes, Omaha ranks as the 8th most conservative city in the US.

http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-m ... america/4/
Article here.

I don't really agree with it. Maybe if you consider all the suburbs, sure, but the city as a whole? No.

Omaha is actually pretty moderate. I guess they must have had some interesting criteria. One thing I notice with Omaha is it's pretty much impossible to only associate with people of one political philosophy. If you're in, say, Portland, it's pretty much impossible to find someone to the right of Paul Krugman, as such conservatives are viewed as subhumans who inhabit some exotic hinterlands. Here I think people from different political backgrounds can actually get along Then there's me, an anarchist, who thinks you're all nuts

Hey me too!! I'm just a simple man who wants to watch the established orders burn.

But yes, I agree, our city is neither red nor blue, but more purple than anything.

I don't want to see established orders burn, I'm more like William Godwin, I'd like to see us evolve out of having formal political authority. It won't happen in my lifetime, but a man can dream.....

I don't think evolution will help us evolve into more effective and representative forms of government...

RNcyanide wrote:

Professor Woland wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:

Professor Woland wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:Sooooooo... According to Forbes, Omaha ranks as the 8th most conservative city in the US.

http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-m ... america/4/
Article here.

I don't really agree with it. Maybe if you consider all the suburbs, sure, but the city as a whole? No.

Omaha is actually pretty moderate. I guess they must have had some interesting criteria. One thing I notice with Omaha is it's pretty much impossible to only associate with people of one political philosophy. If you're in, say, Portland, it's pretty much impossible to find someone to the right of Paul Krugman, as such conservatives are viewed as subhumans who inhabit some exotic hinterlands. Here I think people from different political backgrounds can actually get along Then there's me, an anarchist, who thinks you're all nuts

Hey me too!! I'm just a simple man who wants to watch the established orders burn.

But yes, I agree, our city is neither red nor blue, but more purple than anything.

I don't want to see established orders burn, I'm more like William Godwin, I'd like to see us evolve out of having formal political authority. It won't happen in my lifetime, but a man can dream.....

I don't think evolution will help us evolve into more effective and representative forms of government...

Not biological evolution (though the possible effects of transhumanism here could be significant) more like we just realize that we don't need clowns in political office ordering our comings and goings.

Breaking the quote chain.

Unfortunately, if there's one thing the government does well, it's doing absolutely everything in the worst way possible, and additionally, keeping everyone under the impression that they need them. Hence my 'burn that |expletive| down' attitude.

RNcyanide wrote:Sooooooo... According to Forbes, Omaha ranks as the 8th most conservative city in the US.

http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-m ... america/4/
Article here.

I don't really agree with it. Maybe if you consider all the suburbs, sure, but the city as a whole? No.

It's easy to view Omaha as moderate when compared to the sea of tradition/political conservatism around it. I think articles like this should be taken for a grain of salt but unfortunately it will reinforce negative stereotypes of our city.

I agree that the eastern part of Omaha is a far cry from San Francisco but it's DEFINITELY much more progressive than the suburbs.

So many of the cities in the US over 500K in population have center ring decay like STL and have drifted to the left as the GOP leaning people leave to live in a place where life makes more sense, they feel that they are actually benefiting from their taxes to some extent, and they don't get treated like a defective life form (not even a person) by left wingers and the government.

Because Omaha can annex, we have maintained the input from literal thinkers who pay taxes and literally expect some of that tax money to be spent in their general area for their general well being. Because other cities see these folks get frustrated with the nature of identity politics, and endless "short term programs" that always seem to take the taxes from their area and spend it elsewhere, and leave to move to an out side the city burb, they do not have the buffering of left wing statism and racial politcs that Omaha does. We seem more conservative to those who are used to the structure of other cities.

Seems like a stretch to me. Just off the top of my head, one of Omaha's most notable figures (Warren Buffett) is a well-known Democrat. Last fall, in the midst of another strong Republican showing at the polls, Ashford won back the district for the Dem's. And in 2008, since Nebraska is one of only 2 states that splits up electoral college votes, Obama picked up one vote from Omaha.

That's not to say Omaha doesn't have it's share of conservatives, but the 8th most conservative city?

ozbone69 wrote:Seems like a stretch to me. Just off the top of my head, one of Omaha's most notable figures (Warren Buffett) is a well-known Democrat. Last fall, in the midst of another strong Republican showing at the polls, Ashford won back the district for the Dem's. And in 2008, since Nebraska is one of only 2 states that splits up electoral college votes, Obama picked up one vote from Omaha.

That's not to say Omaha doesn't have it's share of conservatives, but the 8th most conservative city?

I see your points. Forbes didn't really provide any rationale for their rankings.

Omaha absolutely sways conservative when compared to other large cities. The higher you move the floor for population the more we move up the rankings.

iamjacobm wrote:Omaha absolutely sways conservative when compared to other large cities. The higher you move the floor for population the more we move up the rankings.

Yes, but this is artifactual as I mentioned above. If you look at STL, it is smaller than Omaha technically because all the people who could, moved to the ring of burbs around it. Measure right wing-left wing in that metro area, you see a center that is left wing and a ring around it that is right wing. Same with all cities that can't annex and to some extent with Omaha. Look at Sarpy Co, much more conservative, even away from the base, than Douglas Co. People with money who want to see some of their tax money benefit their family/neighborhoods move to where that can actually happen.

If they are talking about the whole Metro, 8th seems about right, but just within the city limits (Douglas Co) It probably still leans more left. Omaha is in Nebraska, so that tends to push it further right and also has an effect on outsider's perception of Omaha.

As someone pointed out earlier, Omaha's city limits as well as a good chunk of the more conservative parts of Sarpy Co. no less, just recently voted in a Democratic congressman during a year not so favorable to Democrats overall --- that certainly puts our city a good ways out from a general label of "most conservative".

In my opinion there has always been a general vibe of fiscal conservatism (sometimes very strong fiscal conservatism) mixed with moderate social views in Omaha. When you include Sarpy County, you definitely start getting pockets of people who are somewhat strongly socially conservative, but even then I wouldn't consider Sarpy to be super culturally conservative either.

I think it's just the fact that almost every bigger city in America is at least slightly liberal -- so we just come off as seeming more conservative than we actually are.

If my Facebook feed is any indication (which it isn't) most of the prog derp that shows up comes from Omaha and most yokel derp comes from people out of state.

I'm not sure that the election of Brad Ashford is really a barometer in this debate:

- Ashford was a former Republican
- District 2 just had decades of Republican representation
- Ashford's election was an anti-Terry vote if anything, after some really stupid remarks by him as well as a general dissatisfaction with long-standing incumbents.

NEDodger wrote:I'm not sure that the election of Brad Ashford is really a barometer in this debate:

- Ashford was a former Republican
- District 2 just had decades of Republican representation
- Ashford's election was an anti-Terry vote if anything, after some really stupid remarks by him as well as a general dissatisfaction with long-standing incumbents.

Highly doubt Ashford gets a second term too.

iamjacobm wrote:

NEDodger wrote:I'm not sure that the election of Brad Ashford is really a barometer in this debate:

- Ashford was a former Republican
- District 2 just had decades of Republican representation
- Ashford's election was an anti-Terry vote if anything, after some really stupid remarks by him as well as a general dissatisfaction with long-standing incumbents.

Highly doubt Ashford gets a second term too.

I agree Ashford won not because of anything he stood for or promised, but because it was an anti-Terry vote, but when it comes to Congress, for the most part, the hardest election is always your first. I haven't been politically conscious for very long, but it seemed like Terry had nothing to speak for of his time in Washington. It was almost as if he forgot about his district. As long as Ashford doesn't fall into that trap, he should be okay.

RNcyanide wrote:

iamjacobm wrote:

NEDodger wrote:I'm not sure that the election of Brad Ashford is really a barometer in this debate:

- Ashford was a former Republican
- District 2 just had decades of Republican representation
- Ashford's election was an anti-Terry vote if anything, after some really stupid remarks by him as well as a general dissatisfaction with long-standing incumbents.

Highly doubt Ashford gets a second term too.

I agree Ashford won not because of anything he stood for or promised, but because it was an anti-Terry vote, but when it comes to Congress, for the most part, the hardest election is always your first. I haven't been politically conscious for very long, but it seemed like Terry had nothing to speak for of his time in Washington. It was almost as if he forgot about his district. As long as Ashford doesn't fall into that trap, he should be okay.

Ashford will be OK if the GOP can't run a good person. If they do, he will lose Millard where he is still disliked after his crappy turn as their state Senator. He will win east Omaha except for south Omaha if the GOP runs a good presidential candidate. He will lose west Omaha and as the really red parts of Sarpy Co have been moved into first district, he will lose parts of the remaining Sarpy Co.

bigredmed wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:

iamjacobm wrote:

NEDodger wrote:I'm not sure that the election of Brad Ashford is really a barometer in this debate:

- Ashford was a former Republican
- District 2 just had decades of Republican representation
- Ashford's election was an anti-Terry vote if anything, after some really stupid remarks by him as well as a general dissatisfaction with long-standing incumbents.

Highly doubt Ashford gets a second term too.

I agree Ashford won not because of anything he stood for or promised, but because it was an anti-Terry vote, but when it comes to Congress, for the most part, the hardest election is always your first. I haven't been politically conscious for very long, but it seemed like Terry had nothing to speak for of his time in Washington. It was almost as if he forgot about his district. As long as Ashford doesn't fall into that trap, he should be okay.

Ashford will be OK if the GOP can't run a good person. If they do, he will lose Millard where he is still disliked after his crappy turn as their state Senator. He will win east Omaha except for south Omaha if the GOP runs a good presidential candidate. He will lose west Omaha and as the really red parts of Sarpy Co have been moved into first district, he will lose parts of the remaining Sarpy Co.

I disagree about South Omaha. Latinos vote mostly democratic (especially so after what has been said about them during this election cycle) and as long as they turn out to vote, I think Ashford could win there easily. I agree that he will never have the support of West O or Sarpy County (middle, upper middle, and upper classes will most likely vote Republican as they always do).

Didn't Stothert do well in South Omaha?

We are assuming we know what the economist that did this study for Forbes defined "liberal" and "conservative" to mean. Did he mean fiscal liberal/conservative or social liberal/conservative, or a combination of the two?

Conservatives are the silent majority in Omaha in my experience, both fiscally and socially. North Omaha and Midtown are fiscally and socially liberal, but the two-parent homes in Omaha are largely conservative like everywhere else, even in parts of North Omaha and Midtown. South Omaha is moderately-liberal, but latinos are generally more socially liberal but fiscally conservative. For instance, and yes I know this is cherry picking, but the GOP field right now has two latinos (Cruz and Rubio) and another who is married to a latino (Bush).

Omaha is no doubt a very fiscally conservative city. Nebraska has one of the best run economies in the US, and you don't get that way by electing fiscal liberals to office.