IBJNews

Democrats now run biggest cities, except Indianapolis

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Twenty years ago, half of the 12 largest U.S. municipalities had a Republican mayor. When Democrat Bill de Blasio takes office in New York City on Jan. 1, none will.

As middle-class residents moved out of cities and immigrants and young people replaced them, the party lost its grip on population centers even as it increased control of governor’s offices and legislatures. The polarization has pitted urban interests against rural areas and suburbs, denying Republicans a power base.

De Blasio’s election means that besides New York, there will be Democratic mayors next year in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, San Jose, California, Austin, and Jacksonville. In San Diego, a runoff between a Democrat and Republican will be held in February to replace Democratic Mayor Bob Filner, who resigned in August amid charges of sexual harassment.

So, at least for a month, Indianapolis, led by moderate Greg Ballard, will become the most populous U.S. city run by a Republican mayor.

“The New York election hopefully is somewhat of a wake-up call,” said Scott Smith, the Republican mayor of Mesa, Arizona, and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. “If that doesn’t get Republicans on the national level more interested, then it should.”

In New York, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 6- to-1, yet voters hadn’t elected a Democrat since David Dinkins beat Rudolph Giuliani in 1989. Dinkins lost a rematch four years later. De Blasio, 52, won this month by the biggest margin by a non-incumbent in city history on a vow to close the growing gap between rich and poor.

With its concentration of Wall Street professionals and urban poor, New York has one of the highest income disparities among large U.S. cities, according to U.S. Census data. While more than 26 percent of households earned at least $100,000 in 2012, almost a quarter earned less than $25,000.

In all but three of the dozen most populous cities, mayoral elections are nonpartisan and candidates’ affiliations don’t appear on the ballot. Yet their party is often known to voters.

In Boston’s nonpartisan election Nov. 5, both candidates were Democrats. State Rep. Marty Walsh defeated City Councilor John Connolly, in part because opponents painted Connolly as the “Republican” after he attracted donations from that party, Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic consultant in Boston, said.

Demographics help produce the trend, said Bruce Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, a not-for-profit research organization in Washington, D.C.

Racial and ethnic minorities that overwhelmingly support Democrats accounted for 83 percent of U.S. population growth from 2000 to 2008, with most living in the largest metro areas, according to Brookings’s 2010 “State of Metropolitan America” report. And cities themselves are growing. Between 1950 and 2010, the proportion of Americans living in urban areas increased to 80.7 percent from 64 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Two decades ago, crime was the dominant issue in those places, so law-and-order Republican mayors such as Giuliani in New York and Richard Riordan in Los Angeles were popular, Katz said.

“My motto was, ‘Tough enough to turn L.A. around,’” Riordan said.

Today, the emphasis is on economic matters and equality – issues that Democrats champion, Katz said.

“There’s this old notion that there’s no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage,” Katz said. “That’s not entirely true.”

Voters selecting mayors care most about who can do the job, and national Republicans are too often focused on dogma, said Ballard in Indianapolis,

“If they campaign or govern with a basis in ideology, they’re going to fail,” said Ballard, a 59-year-old former Marine who has supported mass-transit expansion and opposed a ban on same-sex marriage. “Being a mayor is about getting things done, and I do wish a few more people understood that.”

National Republicans haven’t made cities a priority, said Smith of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. While the 2012 Democratic National Convention gave prominent roles to mayors, including a keynote address for San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, no big-city mayors were featured at the Republican convention.

More Republicans won’t become big-city mayors until the party’s policies “align a little more closely with what’s good for African-Americans, Hispanics and poor whites,” said Ed Rendell, the former Democratic mayor of Philadelphia and governor of Pennsylvania.

Republicans, however, have increased their share of governorships to 30 from 22 since 2006, according to the Republican Governors Association. They’ve also taken the mayorships of smaller cities even as they fail to gain traction in the most populous ones, Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the party’s national committee in Washington, said by e-mail.

“We are happy with the success we’ve had in statewide and local elections, but we know we need to find a way to communicate our principles to a wider audience,” she said.

The divide is dramatic in places such as Texas, where Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin are run by Democrats while the state as a whole is reliably Republican. All statewide offices are held by Republicans, including Governor Rick Perry, a 2012 Republican presidential candidate, and the party controls the legislature.

As a result, when Democrats and mayors advocated issues such as higher taxes to support education and expanding Medicaid under President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, Republicans blocked them, said Mark Jones, chairman of the political-science department at Rice University in Houston.

Democratic mayors are “really left to their own devices,” Jones said.

The nation’s divide makes consensus difficult on decisions such as whether a state should allow hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, said Joel Kotkin, who teaches about urban studies at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

“Not only do people have different views, but they don’t even see the other people,” Kotkin said by phone. “Having a one-party system is just not a very good way to get to the best policy.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Indianapolis - An Oversized Country Town!
    Very interesting! I am not sure that this really means anything now and as well as for the future! If you read many of the Comments at the end of this story, it really makes you wonder about why Indianapolis is even called and/or considered a "big city". I have always considered the City of Indianapolis as nothing more than an "oversized country town"!
  • Thanks Steve...
    for your explanation. I'm so surprise that so many people are so unaware that back in 1970 the old city limit expanded to include most of Marion County, with the exception of Speedway, Beech Grove, and Lawrence. That's why we have this inflated population count.
  • Know Nothings
    Some of you must be on home detention. I travel a lot on business to a number of non-destination cities like Indianapolis. Nobody lives in them anymore. The flight is driven by schools, crime and property taxes.
  • LOLz
    Indianapolis larger than Detroit, Denver, Boston, San Francisco?????? Please don't make me laugh so hard.
  • Keep in mind...
    Indianapolis is a "big city" because it has a consolidated city-county government. The more suburban, GOP-leaning areas of Marion County would typically be separate cities and towns in other metro areas.
  • Misleading
    The only reason Indianapolis lists so high on the "biggest cities" rankings is because it annexed anything and everything with Unigov. The metropolitan statisical is area is much more meaningful; under that ranking the Indianapolis area is 33rd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
  • Bigger than you think
    Major Luls, by population, Indianapolis is the 13th largest city in the nation. Larger than Detroit, Denver, Boston, San Francisco, Las Vegas, etc.
    • Indianapolis? Big city?
      Did you really just use the phrase "biggest cities" to describe this place, then put NYC in the same sentence?

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

      2. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

      3. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

      4. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

      5. I live downtown Indy and had to be in downtown Chicago for a meeting. In other words, I am the target demographic for this train. It leaves at 6:00-- early but doable. Then I saw it takes 5+ hours. No way. I drove. I'm sure I paid 3 to 5 times as much once you factor in gas, parking, and tolls, but it was reimbursed so not a factor for me. Any business traveler is going to take the option that gets there quickly and reliably... and leisure travelers are going to take the option that has a good schedule and promotional prices (i.e., Megabus). Indy to Chicago is the right distance (too short to fly but takes several hours to drive) that this train could be extremely successful even without subsidies, if they could figure out how to have several frequencies (at least 3x/day) and make the trip in a reasonable amount of time. For those who have never lived on the east coast-- Amtrak is the #1 choice for NY-DC and NY-Boston. They have the Acela service, it runs almost every hour, and it takes you from downtown to downtown. It beats driving and flying hands down. It is too bad that we cannot build something like this in the midwest, at least to connect the bigger cities.

      ADVERTISEMENT