1 2 > 
 
   
 

Rural vs Urban votes

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7481
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 November 2020 10:20
 

As a predictable aspect of this most recent election, we’ve seen that urban demographics trend democratic while rural demographics remain strongly republican. (I’m thinking, at this moment, of the Ohio map, where the cities are relative islands of democratic votes floating in a sea of republican-leaning districts.)

What draws the rural population to the republicans most strongly?  Is it an intentional association, or is it more that rural communities simply tend to be more religious/conservative than urban communities?

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16192
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 November 2020 13:59
 

And they will control the senate for the foreseeable future.

More conservative, religious, and far less diverse.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22030
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
14 November 2020 19:27
 

They are mostly white and fear the “ other”.  They don’t want change and inclusion, so they vote for the man who will maintain their privilege.

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3597
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
15 November 2020 00:56
 

This is in addition to what EN said, not in opposition.

Economically, rural areas are dominated by agriculture and extraction sectors, with a little dollop of tourism thrown in and just enough service sector to see to the immediate local needs of the other sectors. The dominant sectors have been on a trend toward increasing mechanization and automation for decades (maybe centuries). Young people tend to leave to get jobs in more urban areas, which makes the people who remain in these areas among those who I mentioned elsewhere are going extinct, socially speaking, This leads to existential fears, and those fears feed conservative tendencies. At the same time, increasing mechanization and automation make the economies more dependent on general business conditions, and more Republican-leaning as a result.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10273
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
16 November 2020 16:23
 
EN - 14 November 2020 07:27 PM

They are mostly white and fear the “ other”.  They don’t want change and inclusion, so they vote for the man who will maintain their privilege.

Very likely that.  Conservatives have been losing the culture wars for the past 15 years, and that frightens and disgusts them.  There is probably an element of fear of retribution by the people who they held down.  For example, read the following and examine your initial reaction:

While orbiting Earth, the astronauts aboard reported to Mission Control that God had appeared to all of them and gave them a message to relay to the people when they returned to the surface.  When the astronauts returned, they quickly set up a news conference which was well attended by major news outlets.  The first question asked was, “What is God’s message?!?!”  The commander of the mission calmly spoke, “Yes, God has a message for us, but first I need to tell you something - she’s black.”

 

What baffles me is, why would a poorer person vote against their economic self-interest, or put their fears above their economic self-interest?  Sometimes I think pride is the only thing they have, and as long as they have someone below them on the social ladder then they will vote for the guy who keeps the classes below them down.

Of course, there is the prosperity gospel that America offers equal economic opportunity to all, and everyone gets the economic standing they deserve.  But that just an excuse of keeping poor people down because they are poor and giving more to the wealthy because they are wealthy.  It is the gospel of cruelty.

https://youtu.be/4K5fbQ1-zps

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  615
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
16 November 2020 20:03
 

Democrats haven’t put the working class economic interests first.  They put corporate interests first.  They passed NAFTA with some nod’s towards working class interests, but they weren’t effective.

There’s a fairly simple concept for union workers that Democratic elites seemed to have no concept of: seniority.

When your plant closes, and you get trained for a new job at a different plant, you start at the bottom.  You lost all of your seniority.  You spend 15-20 years working your way up the seniority ladder, and it’s all gone.  New people in unions get the bad shifts.  They work 3rd shift, then after a while, 2nd shift.  They become eligible for senior positions.  Then their plant closes, and they go to a new one.  And they start off as the new person in a shop.  They’re back on 3rd shift.

Clinton gave them job retraining, but new jobs just put them in this cycle.  The Democrats sold them out.  Not completely, and not entirely… but just enough.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7197
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
16 November 2020 22:46
 

Isn’t it just a case of more rules being needed where lots of people are crammed together? And fewer rules being needed—or desirable—where population density is lower? It makes sense, then, that the party of big government would be popular in urban areas while the party of more limited government would be popular in rural areas.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16192
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
17 November 2020 09:02
 

Back about 1970 I came up with the Theory of the Proliferation of SOBs. This was while I was a graduate student in Austin, at the time a small town with a big university. Another grad student and his wife were from New York City and expressed amazement that I would leave my car unlocked when I parked it. That triggered a line of thought relating to SOBs and population density. In a small community people know most other people, if only by reputation, and so if a person is an SOB everybody knows it and avoids them or takes measures against them. That produces social pressure against being an SOB so you get a pretty tight community with not more than a few surly bastards who everybody avoids. Then, as population density increases, people start encountering more people they don’t know and they get more wary in their relations. Finally a tipping point is reached where you have to become an SOB yourself in order to protect yourself from all those other SOBs. Have never seen much that contradicts this.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7481
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
17 November 2020 09:09
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 November 2020 10:46 PM

Isn’t it just a case of more rules being needed where lots of people are crammed together? And fewer rules being needed—or desirable—where population density is lower? It makes sense, then, that the party of big government would be popular in urban areas while the party of more limited government would be popular in rural areas.

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as big govt. vs. small govt. sentiment.

I mean, rural voters in red states are actively voting against their own best self-interest. Don’t they recognize this?

 

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  985
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
17 November 2020 09:29
 
burt - 17 November 2020 09:02 AM

Back about 1970 I came up with the Theory of the Proliferation of SOBs. This was while I was a graduate student in Austin, at the time a small town with a big university. Another grad student and his wife were from New York City and expressed amazement that I would leave my car unlocked when I parked it. That triggered a line of thought relating to SOBs and population density. In a small community people know most other people, if only by reputation, and so if a person is an SOB everybody knows it and avoids them or takes measures against them. That produces social pressure against being an SOB so you get a pretty tight community with not more than a few surly bastards who everybody avoids. Then, as population density increases, people start encountering more people they don’t know and they get more wary in their relations. Finally a tipping point is reached where you have to become an SOB yourself in order to protect yourself from all those other SOBs. Have never seen much that contradicts this.

And, possibly,  that is why urban people are more in favor of impersonal global government regulation to constrain the SOBs than rural people.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  615
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
17 November 2020 09:55
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 November 2020 10:46 PM

Isn’t it just a case of more rules being needed where lots of people are crammed together? And fewer rules being needed—or desirable—where population density is lower? It makes sense, then, that the party of big government would be popular in urban areas while the party of more limited government would be popular in rural areas.

In the 19th century, railroad companies would purchase large amounts of land surrounding the location where they planned to build a station.  The closer to the station, the more valuable the land would be, since proximity to the rail itself wasn’t helpful, but rather access to a location where the train stopped.  It meant hauling your goods over a shorter distance in order to get them to market.  The railroads quickly learned this lesson, and a way of improving their profits even more.  If they tore down the station and built a new one, they could do the whole land speculation all over again.

A second problem occurred after rail lines were well-established… local monopolies.  The railroad companies became the customers of the farmers.  They purchased their goods, brought them to market, and sold them.  The farmers got the profit from the first sale, but not the second.  Since they required the railroad to get their goods to market, they couldn’t just go around the railroad in order to create competition.  The railroad had a monopoly on transport.

It wasn’t until 1902 that Roosevelt took direct action to regulate these monopolies.  Prior to that, William Jennings Bryan had managed to remain a political force due to the two major political parties largely leaving farmers behind, while he championed causes specific to farmers.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7197
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
17 November 2020 09:59
 
Jefe - 17 November 2020 09:09 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 November 2020 10:46 PM

Isn’t it just a case of more rules being needed where lots of people are crammed together? And fewer rules being needed—or desirable—where population density is lower? It makes sense, then, that the party of big government would be popular in urban areas while the party of more limited government would be popular in rural areas.

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as big govt. vs. small govt. sentiment.

I mean, rural voters in red states are actively voting against their own best self-interest. Don’t they recognize this?

Maybe it’s not quite as simple as voting against their own best self-interest, but more a matter of taking the bad with the good. Who are you to presume what their priorities should be?

I think Burt’s Theory (and mapofdou’s response) sound exactly right.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7481
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
17 November 2020 10:16
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 November 2020 09:59 AM
Jefe - 17 November 2020 09:09 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 November 2020 10:46 PM

Isn’t it just a case of more rules being needed where lots of people are crammed together? And fewer rules being needed—or desirable—where population density is lower? It makes sense, then, that the party of big government would be popular in urban areas while the party of more limited government would be popular in rural areas.

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as big govt. vs. small govt. sentiment.

I mean, rural voters in red states are actively voting against their own best self-interest. Don’t they recognize this?

Maybe it’s not quite as simple as voting against their own best self-interest, but more a matter of taking the bad with the good. Who are you to presume what their priorities should be?

I think Burt’s Theory (and mapofdou’s response) sound exactly right.

In union states, voting for union busters is a bit ‘against self interest’ isn’t it?

Agreed it’s not necessarily a simple answer that explains it all, but look at the UK and Brexit. 
Citizens voted against their own best interest just to stick it to the libs.  (In many cases…)

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7197
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
17 November 2020 15:52
 
Jefe - 17 November 2020 10:16 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 November 2020 09:59 AM
Jefe - 17 November 2020 09:09 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 November 2020 10:46 PM

Isn’t it just a case of more rules being needed where lots of people are crammed together? And fewer rules being needed—or desirable—where population density is lower? It makes sense, then, that the party of big government would be popular in urban areas while the party of more limited government would be popular in rural areas.

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as big govt. vs. small govt. sentiment.

I mean, rural voters in red states are actively voting against their own best self-interest. Don’t they recognize this?

Maybe it’s not quite as simple as voting against their own best self-interest, but more a matter of taking the bad with the good. Who are you to presume what their priorities should be?

I think Burt’s Theory (and mapofdou’s response) sound exactly right.

In union states, voting for union busters is a bit ‘against self interest’ isn’t it?

Agreed it’s not necessarily a simple answer that explains it all, but look at the UK and Brexit. 
Citizens voted against their own best interest just to stick it to the libs.  (In many cases…)

It all depends on priorities. It could be argued that Brexit happened because the EU was intransigent on immigration policy. Maybe citizens found that to be more important than the drawbacks of leaving the EU. And maybe voters in “union states” found some issues more important than unions, like gun control or abortion.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7481
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
17 November 2020 16:38
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 November 2020 03:52 PM
Jefe - 17 November 2020 10:16 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 17 November 2020 09:59 AM
Jefe - 17 November 2020 09:09 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 November 2020 10:46 PM

Isn’t it just a case of more rules being needed where lots of people are crammed together? And fewer rules being needed—or desirable—where population density is lower? It makes sense, then, that the party of big government would be popular in urban areas while the party of more limited government would be popular in rural areas.

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as big govt. vs. small govt. sentiment.

I mean, rural voters in red states are actively voting against their own best self-interest. Don’t they recognize this?

Maybe it’s not quite as simple as voting against their own best self-interest, but more a matter of taking the bad with the good. Who are you to presume what their priorities should be?

I think Burt’s Theory (and mapofdou’s response) sound exactly right.

In union states, voting for union busters is a bit ‘against self interest’ isn’t it?

Agreed it’s not necessarily a simple answer that explains it all, but look at the UK and Brexit. 
Citizens voted against their own best interest just to stick it to the libs.  (In many cases…)

And maybe voters in “union states” found some issues more important than unions, like gun control or abortion.


I hope that’s comforting in work-to-rule states where some public workers need two or three (now) underpaying jobs just to make ends meet. (Teachers in Oklahoma anyone? Emergency first-responders across multiple states, anyone?)

To me it just looks like they voted against their own best interests.

Same with Brexit.  Us the UK better off now than before?  Their economy was softening even before Covid.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7481
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
17 November 2020 16:39
 

Duplicate.

 
 
 1 2 >