I'm puzzled how this is defining "Urban area", especially the "greater" ones. "Greater SF" includes all of the East Bay, but only west of the hills; Palo Alto, but not San Jose; Marin County, but not Solano.
All I can say is it's definitely not MSAs, and it seems to include some suburbs and not others with no clear pattern. As a result, a whole lot of the "greater [major city]" areas look a lot bluer than they might if it were displaying the full economic area.
(And it spends a whole paragraph on the Census's definition of urbanized area, but that doesn't explain why, says, Concord, CA, also in the database, is chopped off from Greater SF.)
because Southern Democrats were in the process of realigning with Republicans
I think you're missing a word here.
White people are broken. That's the problem.
But there's no talking to them about it.
That seems pretty harsh. It's just a missing word.
But there's usually no talking to them about it.
Looks like Durham-Chapel Hill-Hillsborough doesn't much allow Republican neighborhoods.
re:1 This affects measuring all sorts of things, and is super annoying.
I know of one region with a dozen municipal areas but a population of
damn, bitten by the ol left bracket. I'd forgotten how literal unfogged is. 10 should have continued:
less than 500k; only some of them aggregate into the "Greater X" and not necessarily the obvious ones. Reporting is of course different everywhere so trying to get some sort of aggregate picture is difficult to impossible.
as a somewhat related aside, this was an interesting read despite (for me) the centering of christian thought (fair enough, given the source).
||
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/three-cheers-socialism
|>
