
Where your ideology says you should live - eplanit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/17/where-your-ideology-says-you-should-live/
======
yeldarb
Population density alone isn't a great measure of how "urban" an area is.

I got Lester, IA which apparently has an off the charts population density of
464,912 people per square mile! Total population is only 294 though...

------
aaronbrethorst
Interesting, and dead-on. The zip code it chose for me is the one that borders
my current zip code to the west, and happens to be the same one the article's
author mentions. #3 is the one I currently live in, and #4 is the last one I
lived in.

also, in case anyone cares:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_(Seattle)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_\(Seattle\))

~~~
hga
Yeah. Tweaking "I prefer urban areas" (I like both), to "Agree" also go me
within spitting distance of where I was born, raised, and have retired to.

GeoIP would not seem to be a strong component, for the "Don't Include" and
"Disagree" options were a long ways away (both near the state capitol, in
fact), although in my Purple state with two big cities there's really a lot of
areas for everyone.

------
freshyill
I got Takoma Park, MD. Looking at the stats, I guess the nickname, "The
People's Republic of Takoma Park" is pretty much accurate.

The place I actually live was #3 on the list, so close enough I guess.

------
jaweegian
Interesting. I got my current city as choice #2 for my state (Lookout
Mountain, GA). My fiancee and I are considering moving to Greenville, which is
my top result for SC.

------
dice
Great. According to this I should be living in Bolinas, CA where the cheapest
house currently for sale is $1,249,000. I'll get right on that.

------
IvyMike
As far as I can tell, California & Democrat = live in San Francisco. If I say
"non-urban" it puts me... outside of San Francisco.

~~~
georgemcbay
Yeah, I got Inverness. My answers were the obvious liberal ones, except gun
control which I'm not fanatical about in either direction, but I don't believe
increased gun control is a real and practical solution to any problem we
currently have as a country.

I think I'll be staying in San Diego, though; it skews fairly conservative for
California but like most places you can find plenty of people with similar
views to your own here if that's what you're after.

------
kokey
I wonder if the data is accessible. What I'm interested in is testing my
theory that people in urban areas are more pro-environment.

------
jordan0day
This doesn't seem to weight the "prefer to live in urban areas" item very
highly. It placed me in a town of 207.

------
rrbrambley
I already live in the zip code it said I should ideally reside in. And #3 was
my previous zip code. Hm.

------
jwgur
Small nit-pick: "Pro-gun" is not an ideology, it's a position that _might_
flow from an ideology e.g. libertarianism, or might just be a stand-alone
position.

~~~
hga
"Pro-gun" is an utterly reliable touchstone. Granted, it doesn't say if you're
e.g. libertarian or paleoconservative, the two that are reliably pro-gun (I'm
some of both), but it's a really really good marker.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
What's a 'paleoconservative'? (just curious)

~~~
protomyth
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism)

~~~
hga
Skimming the beginning of the article, it looks pretty good.

The origin of the name is in part in reaction to neoconservatives (the real
ones, not the silly, almost meaningless epithet it's become post-9/11). They
were Communists/socialists/liberals, err, the latter are now progressives
again, who lost faith due to the manifold failings of the Left. There's of
course a lot more to say about them, especially their attitudes towards
change, the distinguishing characteristic is that paleocons never had a phase
when they were on the Left.

~~~
protomyth
I love how names change and mean totally different things depending on the
era. Just the change in meaning of the word "Liberal" could fill a book and
tends to bring confusion to some current pundits.

~~~
hga
In this case it seems to be a brand equity issue. I gather that starting with
Wilson, the label Progressive---that I'll note not exactly Leftist Teddy
Roosevelt self-identified as---accumulated damage, and by the time I was
politically aware, circa 1970, it had for quite some time been replaced by
Liberal.

By 1988 George H. W. Bush was successfully using the word to attack Michael S.
Dukakis (although Bush was rather liberal, as the word was used then, e.g.
anti-gun, but Dukakis was outright radical, so it worked), and now it's back
to Progressive. Or is it Forward! to it ^_^?

