Can we talk about how predictably rural counties vote red and urban counties vote blue?

[panamaican]

Even if rural folk aren't actually more self reliant if they merely harbor the illusion that they are then that could still affect their voting habits. The fact that multiple people have cited this as a reason tells me there's some truth to the idea even if its only true in the minds of rural people.

Yes but something being true in a person's mind doesn't make it actually true. And that's my point - I agree that it's true in their minds and so they vote that way. They believe they're more self-reliant but, in practice, they're not. So the only real difference between them and the liberals is which type of handouts they want, not that one wants and the other doesn't.

That they vote as if they are truly self-reliant while being reliant is just an ugly band aid that needs to be ripped off.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Rural minority communities also vote democrat, like these near the southern border. It's all about demographics.
Big cities attract lots of minorities/poor to work on cheap services. Yeah PhDs also vote democrat but they're too small a group to matter.

Many of these "rural" areas are also not rural in any sense of the word, they're suburbs where people work on big cities during the day.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes but something being true in a person's mind doesn't make it actually true. And that's my point - I agree that it's true in their minds and so they vote that way. They believe they're more self-reliant but, in practice, they're not. So the only real difference between them and the liberals is which type of handouts they want, not that one wants and the other doesn't.

That they vote as if they are truly self-reliant while being reliant is just an ugly band aid that needs to be ripped off.

Sure I can agree with that but I'm just saying we shouldn't underestimate the power of self perception in motivating voting habits or other political behavior.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-7

Take a look at southern Texas
Starr County...that's a true rural county, most people there work on agriculture. It's as blue as it gets


See, the guy who is defending democrats is a minority called Panamaican. LOL

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes but something being true in a person's mind doesn't make it actually true. And that's my point - I agree that it's true in their minds and so they vote that way. They believe they're more self-reliant but, in practice, they're not. So the only real difference between them and the liberals is which type of handouts they want, not that one wants and the other doesn't.

That they vote as if they are truly self-reliant while being reliant is just an ugly band aid that needs to be ripped off.

I'd argue that no one is really self-reliant in any meaningful sense in America.

This goes into some depth on a point I've made here many times:

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016...ian-disruption-of-patterns-of-life-.html#more

 

[Islam Imamate]

Did she?

Yes she did, the whole free trade bit was a big deal during the campaign and Trump championed government intervention by reducing free trade while Hillary advocated for more free trade. I don't necessarily agree with the free trade advocates but if we're being honest they are trying to get the government out of the way so that companies can more easily do business across national borders.

Coal production has been slowly phased out as a result of environmental regulations. Trump obviously got rid of those regulations. It's not like he's artificially trying to breathe life into a dead industry. He simply got rid of what he felt was handicapping the coal mining business. If the business is truly dead, then it stays dead.

Once the costs of doing business get lower in the United States, businesses won't have to move abroad in order to take advantage of unruly third world countries, which allow ruthless worker exploitation.

Many labourers are willing to make compromises from their own labour rights, in order to compete in a "new world" where the temptation for a business to move abroad grows greater and greater, as long as this allows them to retain their jobs. But they are simply not willing to lay down and watch their national industries, which the American labourers have poured their own hearts and souls into building up to their current extent, turning their backs on the American citizens in order to benefit what might sometimes constitute as America's geo-political enemies.

It is the likes of Hillary who will ensure that America cannot stay competitive, and that its businesses will be forced to move elsewhere, often to countries which may well be the harbingers of America's eventual doom, while the labourers must rely on government hand-outs to get by.

Its not accurate to solely blame environmental regulations for coal's decline. Its mostly declined simply because of market forces; alternatives are simply superior. Renewable energy is becoming cheaper and cheaper and eating up more of the market share but really its been natural gas which has been pushing out coal. To ask for a return of coal mining jobs is to ask the government to act against market forces or in your words, to see the government as a lifeline.

 

[bufetadanacara]

In the city people are used to having the government constantly looking over their shoulder and telling them what they can and cannot do.

Out "in the county" where people live off of dirt roads/gravel driveways and shit... they're used to taking care of themselves and don't like having the government looking over their shoulder and shit.

This is going to sound cunty too but the way the parties are portrayed in regards to welfare benefits and such you have larger concentrations of almost brutally poor in the cities in large concentrations.... of course those people will vote more for the party that states "we're looking out for you and THOSE people want to take your benefits" while those in more rural areas will vote for the party that says "THOSE people want to take your hard earned money with blood and sweat and give it to the degenerate with a POS Oldsmobile with a set of $2000 rims on it"

To paraphrase.

This is exactly it.


Rural people work for themselves and don't expect handouts. They sure as hell don't want to pay for others welfare either. Rural people need to dig their own wells, blow their own snow, cut our own lawns, maintain their own septic beds, do their own maintenance on their buildings, many even grow their own food, etc. etc. etc.

City people are used to having everything done for them. Obviously they want big government who promises them free money, free education, free everything.

 

[lilelvis]

Nope. Just an ugly truth. Real self reliant, don't need government types don't ask the government to protect their social security, their medicare or their industries/jobs. They just strap up and deal with it.

This dovetails with a war room thread I made this morning. Not to derail this thread, but people could vote for smaller government, and against expanded social programs because of their beliefs, even though they use those programs.

 

[lfd0311]

Unfortunately, the War Room does not allow me to upload images from my phone. But if you look at a county map of the US voting results in 2016, you'll see that virtually all the big cities vote blue and all the rural areas of the country vote red.

Though this is not news, I don't see many people talking about this divide.

People that have jobs requiring hard physical labor, farming, drilling oil, working in the countryside, etc. almost always vote republican.

People sitting in cubicles, staring at a computer screen in a corporate building consistently vote democratic.

Why do you think that is?

Because it's impossible to tell people who bust thier asses all day earning something about how privileged they are.

 

[panamaican]

Sure I can agree with that but I'm just saying we shouldn't underestimate the power of self perception in motivating voting habits or other political behavior.

I agree.

 

[panamaican]

I'd argue that no one is really self-reliant in any meaningful sense in America.

This goes into some depth on a point I've made here many times:

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016...ian-disruption-of-patterns-of-life-.html#more

I'd agree with that as well. It's probably one of the bigger changes in how I see the world and it's a result of my work.

No one does anything without significant input from everyone else and the government. This idea that anyone is running around accomplishing anything of value and that they could achieve even more if there was just ZERO government interference is a strange fiction indeed. The amount and type of government needed is a reasonable debate. That some people are self-reliant on the political/economic scale and others aren't isn't.

 

[panamaican]

This dovetails with a war room thread I made this morning. Not to derail this thread, but people could vote for smaller government, and against expanded social programs because of their beliefs, even though they use those programs.

Yes they might but they generally don't. They generally complain about smaller government and against expanded social programs until such cuts would affect them. They want smaller government and reduced social benefits for others. The scale of government and social programs which benefit their lifestyles are rarely the programs they ask the government to take the axe to.

Instead they ask for more government there. Manufacturing and immigrant labor (labor not random visitors) being 2 obvious areas.

 

[Whippy McGee]

People in concentrated areas are easier to brainwash and manipulate. Only the strong come out of cities as Conservatives or Independents. All the weak minded go right to Liberalism.

 

[bufetadanacara]

I live in the city as a pretty accomplished, youngish person. I have a masters degree and six figure salary job after putting myself through school. Everyone in my circle tends to be in a similar situation education and career wise, which is why I moved to the city in the first place...for opportunity and to be around a bunch of progressive, forward thinking people who actually have shit going on in their lives. Not being stuck in small town, fly over America where the underachieving mope around because they don't understand what it takes to make it in the modern world.

The culture of cities tends to trend progressive because that is often the mindset that has the capability to thrive in a competitive and globalized economy. Knowing how to work with people from a wide range of backgrounds and utilizing those strengths, being tolerant, having creative vision and problem solving ability.

I did the same thing. I was raised in a rural area and couldn't wait to get out of there. I spent 20 years living in cities, ranging from huge (7 million) to small (100,000) populations. I did this in a variety of countries as well, involving different languages and cultures. (I think the differences between rural and city folk is a worldwide thing). I was making really good money and I have had many circles of friends, consisting of mostly young, educated, financially successful people with "forward thinking". We were all so full of energy, "cultured", always expanding our horizons and questioning everything, never settling.

It was fun but once my son reached a certain age, I realized that I wanted to raise my son in a rural environment. I missed the sense of community and the values of the "simple folk". I am very happy with my decision to return to the country, I forgot how nice it feels to have a strong community where most people know each other and have each other's backs. I also realized how humble most rural folk are compared to city folk.




I also laugh at the comments regarding the "intelligence" of city dwellers vs rural. If I.Q. is the measurement, then of course city people will score higher. They have a larger percentage of university graduates, I am sure.
I just question the validity of knowing what the capitol of Lithuania is when the person doesn't even know how to change his own tire. I know which one is more important to me. To me that is the difference between city and rural.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Because it's impossible to tell people who bust thier asses all day earning something about how privileged they are.

Top kek. I live in a semi-rural area and most of the hard work is done by illegals who work for the property owners. In fact some of them are privileged in a pretty explicit way since many have owned their property for a long time and take advantage of grandfather clauses on regulations that affect newcomers.

Don't get me wrong, I quite prefer the company of my neighbors over urban folk but I'm just not under any romantic illusions about them either.

This dovetails with a war room thread I made this morning. Not to derail this thread, but people could vote for smaller government, and against expanded social programs because of their beliefs, even though they use those programs.

But these so called self reliant types only vote against the social programs that others use, not the ones they use. They don't make a fuss about agricultural subsidies or SS, they make a fuss about food stamps and Section 8.

 

[lfd0311]

Top kek. I live in a semi-rural area and most of the hard work is done by illegals who work for the property owners. In fact some of them are privileged in a pretty explicit way since many have owned their property for a long time and take advantage of grandfather clauses on regulations that affect newcomers.

I grew up in Iowa. The town I grew up was about 20k people and was the biggest town for counties. I now live in the 2nd largest town in the state, which has a whopping 127k people in it. This is a pretty rural state. Every farmer I know, which is a lot of them by the way, does their own manual labor. Most of them are certified CPAs on top of that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I grew up in Iowa. The town I grew up was about 20k people and was the biggest town for counties. I now live in the 2nd largest town in the state, which has a whopping 127k people in it. This is a pretty rural state. Every farmer I know, which is a lot of them by the way, does their own manual labor. Most of them are certified CPAs on top of that.

Yet your town and my town vote similarly so the common denominator here does not seem to be what you think it is.

Besides, its quite silly to pretend city people don't bust their asses. Is construction work not a hard job? Plenty of that in cities. Sewage work? A lot of that too. Even cleaner jobs can be stressful and difficult. Your post was basically a less simple version of "farmers good, city folk bad". If you're satisfied with that level of analysis then that's fine by me but don't be surprised when others find it a bit wanting.

 

[lilelvis]

Top kek. I live in a semi-rural area and most of the hard work is done by illegals who work for the property owners. In fact some of them are privileged in a pretty explicit way since many have owned their property for a long time and take advantage of grandfather clauses on regulations that affect newcomers.

Don't get me wrong, I quite prefer the company of my neighbors over urban folk but I'm just not under any romantic illusions about them either.

But these so called self reliant types only vote against the social programs that others use, not the ones they use. They don't make a fuss about agricultural subsidies or SS, they make a fuss about food stamps and Section 8.

What is the distinction between social programs that rural poor use, and that urban poor use? you lost me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Btw @lfd0311, your home state ranks 2nd in the nation when it comes to receiving agricultural subsidies and 4/5 farmers receive some form of subsidy so I find your argument about them being harder to convince of their privilege rather ironic considering they are in fact quite privileged in that sense. Sure they're still busting their asses but they're nonetheless receiving government handouts.

 

[Yellowking]

I did the same thing. I was raised in a rural area and couldn't wait to get out of there. I spent 20 years living in cities, ranging from huge (7 million) to small (100,000) populations. I did this in a variety of countries as well, involving different languages and cultures. (I think the differences between rural and city folk is a worldwide thing). I was making really good money and I have had many circles of friends, consisting of mostly young, educated, financially successful people with "forward thinking". We were all so full of energy, "cultured", always expanding our horizons and questioning everything, never settling.

It was fun but once my son reached a certain age, I realized that I wanted to raise my son in a rural environment. I missed the sense of community and the values of the "simple folk". I am very happy with my decision to return to the country, I forgot how nice it feels to have a strong community where most people know each other and have each other's backs. I also realized how humble most rural folk are compared to city folk.




I also laugh at the comments regarding the "intelligence" of city dwellers vs rural. If I.Q. is the measurement, then of course city people will score higher. They have a larger percentage of university graduates, I am sure.
I just question the validity of knowing what the capitol of Lithuania is when the person doesn't even know how to change his own tire. I know which one is more important to me. To me that is the difference between city and rural.

Right, but you went for the opportunity correct? That is what the city has in abundance over rural areas. I don't mean just the actual # of good paying jobs themselves, but the opportunity to be around a high # of people who are successful and driven, and have the ability to get big projects or potential business ventures off the ground. Like that old saying that you are the amalgamation of the handful of people you spend the most time around. Just being in the mix and having the exposure is an advantage.

I agree mostly about intelligence and ability, because i am originally from a pretty rural area far away from any metropolitan areas and made my own way, I'm not impressed with just degrees. I review resumes from people that went to Ivy League schools all of the time, and I care far less about where they went and moreso about what they did with the opportunity, ie did they take up smart internships or fellowships, work anywhere or accomplish anything while they went to school or after?

Because you lived a lot of your life in cities, would you think it is important for your son to eventually have the exposure to that fast paced culture and opportunity also?