Why do Republicans have more leeway to attack Democratic states/cities than vise-versa?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Republicans seem to be able to reguarly trash places like NYC, SF, Chicago, LA, ect, and sometimes see gains in those communities when they run on that messaging (for instance, Zeldin did insanely well in many parts of NYC for an R in 2022 Gov). Even in competitive elections, Republicans often use the state's largest city as a punching bag.

On the flip-side, anytime a Dem trashes rural America, or generally just seems out of touch with their needs, they face pretty significant electoral blowback. A good example would be Beto's 2022 Governor run where it seems his comments on things like confiscating guns really caused him to collapse in rural TX in 2022, especially relative to 2018, while he did mostly the same in the cities. In competitive statewide races, you almost always see Democrats make some sort of effort to appeal to rural Americans and talk about issues like rural hospitals and main St and what not.

Why is this there imbalance in our politics? Do city folk generally case less about attacks against their community? Is it because institutions such as the Senate tend to overrepresent rural voters? Would Republicans see gains if they stopped all their attacks against certain cities? Do Democrats efforts to appeal to rural communities come off as disengenious? Are city problems easier to sensationalize than rural issues?

[Suburbia]

Because their base works or attends the city for events (Yanks/Mets/Knicks games) and they want to be sure that the police that patrols the city, has the tools to do so while they're in town.

That goes by the wayside, they see liberal Democratic politicians responsible for not allowing the cops to do their job and not being afraid to arrest a minority for something wrong.

Republicans see themselves as "real Americans" and if Dems attack the rural dysfunction, then the Dems are called elitist.

It's a tricky thing.

[Vosem]

Because (as migration data shows) lots of people who live in Blue America would like to live in Red America, while the reverse is a much more marginal phenomenon. (Note that, OTOH, more rural people would like to move to an urban area than vice versa. How can both of these things be true? Why, the power of magical thinking.) Thus, when Republicans attack someplace governed by Democrats, many of the people there tend to agree, while the reverse is much less true.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Because their base works or attends the city for events (Yanks/Mets/Knicks games) and they want to be sure that the police that patrols the city, has the tools to do so while they're in town.

That goes by the wayside, they see liberal Democratic politicians responsible for not allowing the cops to do their job and not being afraid to arrest a minority for something wrong.

Republicans see themselves as "real Americans" and if Dems attack the rural dysfunction, then the Dems are called elitist.

It's a tricky thing.

Here in NYC there's this dynamic where a lot of suburbs out on Long Island and NJ want to control NYC's policies around thing like speed limit and congestion pricing, but I never see city folks really want to enforce anything upon them. Suburbs also tend to expect the city to deal with things like housing migrants, and give them money for their own projects. In general, NYC tends to give disproportionately to the state budget than what it receives back.

I think that is a fair point though about how at least rural/suburban Americans likely travel into cities every now and then whereas folks who live in cities may never visit a rural area because everything is right there. The only reason a city person might have to go to rural America is for vacation (which likely means a more touristy town) or visiting family.

Also I really hate this notion Republicans have come up with that they're the "real Americans". Part of what makes America so great and free is that there are so many different ways you can live your life and you're still just as American. You can have your own lifestyle and culture, but please respect others as equals as long as they aren't doing anything to you.

[Kamala's side hoe]

Because (as migration data shows) lots of people who live in Blue America would like to live in Red America, while the reverse is a much more marginal phenomenon. (Note that, OTOH, more rural people would like to move to an urban area than vice versa. How can both of these things be true? Why, the power of magical thinking.) Thus, when Republicans attack someplace governed by Democrats, many of the people there tend to agree, while the reverse is much less true.

This is easier to wrap your head around when you realize that rural -> urban migration generally occurs within states, not between them. But urban -> suburban or suburban -> exurban migration within a metro area frequently crosses state lines.

[SevenEleven]

Attacking rural red areas would be a clear-cut case of "punching down", something most Democrats are uncomfortable with for many reasons.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Because Republicans have leaned a lot more on grievance politics (including overt racism) than Democrats, and blue areas have a lot of economic and cultural capital (although not political capital, which makes targeting them even easier).

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Two reasons

1) Population density-In urban areas people live closer together thus you notice more issues in society. Obviously people defecating in San Francisco is going to garner more attention and discomfort than a rural area where people live miles apart.

2) Rural areas are generally safer- There are parts of urban cores in 2023 that are simply not safe to traverse at night due to their crime. Rural areas are dangerous mainly due to the wildlife and emptiness rather than the people there. There are no roaming packs of Klansmen in rural Missouri, but there are absolutely gangs in St Louis. (I know ST Louis isn't that dangerous but would you really feel comfortable walking north side past midnight?)

[Agonized-Statism]

Rural population loss is a sore spot that runs deep in the American psyche. The agrarian myth was woven into the country's folklore and nationalist ideology from the very beginning of our push to develop the continent. Going back to the industrialization of the 19th century, there's been a lot of angst about the urbanization trend being the end of the American dream of self-sufficiency, the ability to produce and enjoy a simple abundance, honest industry, a frank spirit of equality, and so on. One of my favorite songs is "Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues", which I feel captures the existential dread of life in a dead-end small town perfectly. When communities are already ravaged by natural disasters like the 1930s Dust Bowl and man-made ones like the farm debt problem of the 1980s, and the children who the communities hope will keep their way of life alive want to leave, it understandably makes the ones whose life and pride revolves around a familial identity of land ownership pretty resentful. Democrats needed at least some of the Reagan Democrats' votes until pretty recently, so yeah, of course they had less leeway to be a snob and tell the farmers or the coal miners to learn to code.

Cities, especially the bigger ones, have a different mass creed of constant reinvention and dynamism. Telling New York City to drop dead doesn't hit them quite as hard- they know there's no real danger of that happening anyway. Smallville, not so much. There's plenty of proud history in the cities too of course, but those voters aren't as likely to feel so bad about packing up and moving for a better life.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Two reasons

1) Population density-In urban areas people live closer together thus you notice more issues in society. Obviously people defecating in San Francisco is going to garner more attention and discomfort than a rural area where people live miles apart.

2) Rural areas are generally safer- There are parts of urban cores in 2023 that are simply not safe to traverse at night due to their crime. Rural areas are dangerous mainly due to the wildlife and emptiness rather than the people there. There are no roaming packs of Klansmen in rural Missouri, but there are absolutely gangs in St Louis. (I know ST Louis isn't that dangerous but would you really feel comfortable walking north side past midnight?)

To add onto your first point, a large city has a single mayor so it's easier to lay blame on someone specific. There is no one mayor or county sheriff for the Texas panhandle, so there's it's less easy to blame the region's problems on any one person. I also find a lot of issues in rural areas tend to be less sensational and more things like drug addiction, whereas as you suggest, gangs will usually break something or cause a problem anyone can visually see.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Rural population loss is a sore spot that runs deep in the American psyche. The agrarian myth was woven into the country's folklore and nationalist ideology from the very beginning of our push to develop the continent. Going back to the industrialization of the 19th century, there's been a lot of angst about the urbanization trend being the end of the American dream of self-sufficiency, the ability to produce and enjoy a simple abundance, honest industry, a frank spirit of equality, and so on. One of my favorite songs is "Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues", which I feel captures the existential dread of life in a dead-end small town perfectly. When communities are already ravaged by natural disasters like the 1930s Dust Bowl and man-made ones like the farm debt problem of the 1980s, and the children who the communities hope will keep their way of life alive want to leave, it understandably makes the ones whose life and pride revolves around a familial identity of land ownership pretty resentful. Democrats needed at least some of the Reagan Democrats' votes until pretty recently, so yeah, of course they had less leeway to be a snob and tell the farmers or the coal miners to learn to code.

Cities, especially the bigger ones, have a different mass creed of constant reinvention and dynamism. Telling New York City to drop dead doesn't hit them quite as hard- they know there's no real danger of that happening anyway. Smallville, not so much. There's plenty of proud history in the cities too of course, but those voters aren't as likely to feel so bad about packing up and moving for a better life.

I agree with your general point, but one could argue someone who lives in a city feels like their preferred way of life is under attack, because America has been built this idea of things being spread out, having a car, ect. I always worry something unique to urban lifestyle such as the NYC Subway is always at risk of completely falling apart due to the lack of emphasis placed on it by the larger state and federal gov. At both levels, it currently gets way less per capita investment than roads, but in a hypothetical world where America prided itself on dense walkable cities, I'm sure it'd be in much better shape.

[RINO Tom]

I mean, one reason for a state like Mississippi or Alabama specifically, is that a huge chunk of the people who most drag those states down statistically are Black voters who overwhelmingly support Democrats.  It also looks incredibly hypocritical and outs the party as completely fraudulent if you preach policies that “help vulnerable Americans” out of one side of your mouth and then turn around and insult a downtrodden area of the country for … being poor?

[WalterWhite]

Democrats do better in rural areas than Republicans do in rural areas; Biden won urban voters by a larger margin than Trump won rural voters.

Also, a lot of rural areas lean Democratic. Vermont and Western Massachusetts are rural, but they are solidly Democratic. There is a set of rural counties with high African-American populations in the South (i.e. the Black Belt) that votes Democratic. Rural counties across the Rio Grande Valley also vote Democratic. Until recently, Eastern Iowa, Southeastern Ohio, and Southwestern Pennsylvania also fell into this category.

[Mr. Smith]

Cities are more diverse and harder to cobble a coalition together than the more monolithic nature of rural areas.

[Kali Redcoat]

Rural population loss is a sore spot that runs deep in the American psyche. The agrarian myth was woven into the country's folklore and nationalist ideology from the very beginning of our push to develop the continent. Going back to the industrialization of the 19th century, there's been a lot of angst about the urbanization trend being the end of the American dream of self-sufficiency, the ability to produce and enjoy a simple abundance, honest industry, a frank spirit of equality, and so on. One of my favorite songs is "Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues", which I feel captures the existential dread of life in a dead-end small town perfectly. When communities are already ravaged by natural disasters like the 1930s Dust Bowl and man-made ones like the farm debt problem of the 1980s, and the children who the communities hope will keep their way of life alive want to leave, it understandably makes the ones whose life and pride revolves around a familial identity of land ownership pretty resentful. Democrats needed at least some of the Reagan Democrats' votes until pretty recently, so yeah, of course they had less leeway to be a snob and tell the farmers or the coal miners to learn to code.

Cities, especially the bigger ones, have a different mass creed of constant reinvention and dynamism. Telling New York City to drop dead doesn't hit them quite as hard- they know there's no real danger of that happening anyway. Smallville, not so much. There's plenty of proud history in the cities too of course, but those voters aren't as likely to feel so bad about packing up and moving for a better life.

I agree with your general point, but one could argue someone who lives in a city feels like their preferred way of life is under attack, because America has been built this idea of things being spread out, having a car, ect. I always worry something unique to urban lifestyle such as the NYC Subway is always at risk of completely falling apart due to the lack of emphasis placed on it by the larger state and federal gov. At both levels, it currently gets way less per capita investment than roads, but in a hypothetical world where America prided itself on dense walkable cities, I'm sure it'd be in much better shape.

"walkable cities" is such a european concept, keep that away from the good ol' US of A. Cars are as widespread as they are because the average person organically supports such an idea. It is freeing in a way that public transport never will be. I think the subway is nice but I would not shed a tear if it were to disappear.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Rural population loss is a sore spot that runs deep in the American psyche. The agrarian myth was woven into the country's folklore and nationalist ideology from the very beginning of our push to develop the continent. Going back to the industrialization of the 19th century, there's been a lot of angst about the urbanization trend being the end of the American dream of self-sufficiency, the ability to produce and enjoy a simple abundance, honest industry, a frank spirit of equality, and so on. One of my favorite songs is "Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues", which I feel captures the existential dread of life in a dead-end small town perfectly. When communities are already ravaged by natural disasters like the 1930s Dust Bowl and man-made ones like the farm debt problem of the 1980s, and the children who the communities hope will keep their way of life alive want to leave, it understandably makes the ones whose life and pride revolves around a familial identity of land ownership pretty resentful. Democrats needed at least some of the Reagan Democrats' votes until pretty recently, so yeah, of course they had less leeway to be a snob and tell the farmers or the coal miners to learn to code.

Cities, especially the bigger ones, have a different mass creed of constant reinvention and dynamism. Telling New York City to drop dead doesn't hit them quite as hard- they know there's no real danger of that happening anyway. Smallville, not so much. There's plenty of proud history in the cities too of course, but those voters aren't as likely to feel so bad about packing up and moving for a better life.

I agree with your general point, but one could argue someone who lives in a city feels like their preferred way of life is under attack, because America has been built this idea of things being spread out, having a car, ect. I always worry something unique to urban lifestyle such as the NYC Subway is always at risk of completely falling apart due to the lack of emphasis placed on it by the larger state and federal gov. At both levels, it currently gets way less per capita investment than roads, but in a hypothetical world where America prided itself on dense walkable cities, I'm sure it'd be in much better shape.

"walkable cities" is such a european concept, keep that away from the good ol' US of A. Cars are as widespread as they are because the average person organically supports such an idea. It is freeing in a way that public transport never will be. I think the subway is nice but I would not shed a tear if it were to disappear.

If you prefer a more spread out car centric lifestyle, you can have that. However, given many of the fastest growing parts of the countries are dense downtowns of large cities and US cities with robust public transit see good usage, there’s clearly also a demand for a more walkable dense lifestyle.

Even though you wouldn’t care if the NYC Subway went away, it’s very important to the nations largest city daily functioning; I guarantee you it disappearing one day would be a bet negative for the Country. NYC would become completely dysfunctional, so we’d loose our largest economic engine.

I think part of what makes America so great is how large it is; there are so many different types of communities to travel to and live in. We also have a federalist system so different states can shape their communities towards different wants and needs; zoning and density is very much a local issue. We should both be able to freely enjoy living different lifestyles in different parts of the country.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Federalism, Senate, House apportionment, Electoral College...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I actually don’t think they do that nearly as much as they did in, say, 2004.  “Hollywood liberal” and “New York values” have always been dog whistles best understood as a way of saying “my opponent is a dirty Jew” and/or “a pawn of their Jewish masters.”  For this reason, as explicit, unapologetic anti-Semitism went mainstream in the Republican Party, such dog-whistling.  

It’s like how when Republicans rant and rave about violent crime in places like NYC, Chicago, etc, what they really mean is “grab your guns because the n*gg**s are coming to rape your women and steal your money!”  If it ever becomes mainstream in Republican politics to just go around using the n-word and/or get that explicit, they’ll drop the dog whistle and just start saying what they really mean.  And they’ve been getting a lot more explicit since Trump got elected in 2016 (not that they were ever particularly subtle).

“San Francisco liberal” meant a Republican was saying someone supported the “homosexual agenda,”  but now gay rights isn’t as good an issue for Republicans to run on and the Republicans who still care about it generally prefer Republicans to be as explicit as possible when tossing homophobic red meat to the mob.  As such, using the term has become increasingly unnecessary for Republican politicians.

The Democrats definitely have their own version of this, specifically making fun of the south.  However, neither of these really play to a deep-seated, grievance-fueled bigotry the way Republican geographic attacks did for the Republican base.  As such, it was never really useful for Democratic politicians the way it was for Republican politicians.  Not that Democratic politicians don’t engage in other forms of dog whistle grievance-pandering, but geographic attacks aren’t usually one of those.

[RINO Tom]

I actually don’t think they do that nearly as much as they did in, say, 2004.  “Hollywood liberal” and “New York values” have always been dog whistles best understood as a way of saying “my opponent is a dirty Jew” and/or “a pawn of their Jewish masters.”  For this reason, as explicit, unapologetic anti-Semitism went mainstream in the Republican Party, such dog-whistling.  

It’s like how when Republicans rant and rave about violent crime in places like NYC, Chicago, etc, what they really mean is “grab your guns because the n*gg**s are coming to rape your women and steal your money!”  If it ever becomes mainstream in Republican politics to just go around using the n-word and/or get that explicit, they’ll drop the dog whistle and just start saying what they really mean.  And they’ve been getting a lot more explicit since Trump got elected in 2016 (not that they were ever particularly subtle).

“San Francisco liberal” meant a Republican was saying someone supported the “homosexual agenda,”  but now gay rights isn’t as good an issue for Republicans to run on and the Republicans who still care about it generally prefer Republicans to be as explicit as possible when tossing homophobic red meat to the mob.  As such, using the term has become increasingly unnecessary for Republican politicians.

The Democrats definitely have their own version of this, specifically making fun of the south.  However, neither of these really play to a deep-seated, grievance-fueled bigotry the way Republican geographic attacks did for the Republican base.  As such, it was never really useful for Democratic politicians the way it was for Republican politicians.  Not that Democratic politicians don’t engage in other forms of dog whistle grievance-pandering, but geographic attacks aren’t usually one of those.

Straight-up wishful thinking.  It's a built-in defense mechanism with a catchy attack-name (usually some type of -ist or -phobe!) ready to go.  I live in Chicago ... my parents cannot complain about the crime being WAY too high for any allegedly civilized city without having some deep hatred of Black people?  You don't think they'd be as worried about me if the high crime areas were White?  You think that White liberals in Chicago aren't concerned about our crime and that they only ever could be if they were big ole racists?  Complete BS.  You don't think many Democrats in cities have completely compassionless and classless things to say about poor rural Republicans?  All of their classist attacks toward these people are just motivated by a rigid, higher ideological calling? 

This "analysis" starts with the idea that Republicans are bad and Democrats are less bad.  If you want to hold that opinion, fine; but it will obviously make all of your reasoning appear completely one-sided, lazy and ridiculous to any Republican (not that you probably care).

[Oryxslayer]

Two sides to this coin.

Rhetorically, it's because the attack was once sensible,  commonly accepted,  and experienced.  For a multitude of reasons too numerous to state, some perverse some logical, people left the cities for the suburbs en masse in the middle of the 20th century.  This coupled to growing low income visible minority populations thanks to recent great migration and post-war European arrivals demolished urban tax bases leaving them less able to provide social services to those who needed them. And the suburban GOP base saw this daily on their commute to the office.

Thos is measurably not the case today. Some talk about places you don't want to find yourself at night, or places you don't want to leave your car, but this is nothing compared to the past. The system shock to the American city has resolved itself in favor of the traditional concept of the city just spread out across more space and integrated municipalities. Cities are growing and in most cases prosperous. But for a good chunk of the older GOP base, the past will always be the present. For a good chunk more,  the fear of urban decay is a reliable talking point inherited from previous leaders to an electorate used to hearing about it.



Legally,  the situation has more to do with the concentration of power. A city has one mayor, one police system,  one local government organ, and one school system. It covers the same population as countless agencies in other parts of the state.  Therefore is is easier to justify scrutiny or municipal constraints since their is a larger population at stake.  At least that's the case in recent Texas and Tennessee stuff.

[Pericles]

Attacking rural areas is just punching down. Due to the social and economic power of cities, it is both punching down and punching up at the same time. That might be why cities get less sympathy.