Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide is Splitting America

[Benj]

It's annoying when writers confuse cities and the counties that contain them. I'm certain Fort Worth and Salt Lake City both voted for Obama, and Phoenix also most likely did. (On the other hand, they seem to have left Jacksonville off of their list of big cities for Romney, though of course the "city" of Jacksonville is a bit of a joke.)

[Benj]

This is Loudoun County

Kill it with fire.

Heh. Glad you love the wealthiest county in the United States!

Anyway, yeah, Loudoun County's not the South, nor is the rest of NOVA. Henrico County is, but it's not really a swing county. At least, no more than some Atlanta suburban counties like Henry, Newton or Douglas are--it's all black Democrats and white Republicans. Those suburban counties just happen to have the right racial breakdowns to have close election results.

[Benj]

This is Loudoun County

Kill it with fire.

Heh. Glad you love the wealthiest county in the United States!

Anyway, yeah, Loudoun County's not the South, nor is the rest of NOVA. Henrico County is, but it's not really a swing county. At least, no more than some Atlanta suburban counties like Henry, Newton or Douglas are--it's all black Democrats and white Republicans. Those suburban counties just happen to have the right racial breakdowns to have close election results.

So suburban counties can only count as swing counties when they're majority white? That seems kind of unfair. I agree that Obama didn't win Newton, Rockdale and Douglas with any help from white voters, but that doesn't make those counties any less important in electoral strategy, especially if Democrats want to continue making inroads in the south.  

Well... yeah. The suburban black vote and the suburban white vote are motivated by different political issues. Mainly, black voters agree with and approve of Democrats' policies and party image almost all of the time, so the primary goal there isn't to win over more black voters by changing policies or party image but rather to improve turnout (which to an extent involves image but rarely involves policy). The goal with suburban white voters, on the other hand, is to improve the party image and tweak policies (or images of policy views) for greater appeal.

Here's the difference: When you're competing in a mostly white suburban county in the North as a Democrat, you're probably devoting equal or close to equal resources across the county and really targeting everyone. There isn't a ton of polarization in a lot of these places. When you're competing in a racially mixed suburban county in the South as a Democrat, you're probably ignoring the white conservatives and campaigning primarily or exclusively in the black areas and maybe in the few areas where there might be a handful of white Democrats.

[Benj]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

Must everything be in black and white? It's not binary, of course. But there is an undeniable migration of gays frrom the countryside into major cities. As true in northern Illinois as anywhere.

Well I think that's obvious. Why would a gay person live in countryside America? Where almost everyone goes to church and has very little education.

Neither of those statements are actually true.

While we're talking stupid stereotypes about urban whites, we should use stupid stereotypes about rural whites, too.

[Benj]

I agree with Sbane. The dominant stereotype is of urban residents as takers, not the other way around, whether "urban" means minority ghettos or Wall Street. There is overwhelming resentment towards government spending on pro-urban policies, and widespread and mainstream hatred of cities among rural and suburban politicians. The reverse just is not true. It is not acceptable for any urban politician to express resentment of rural areas, which are still lionized as the "heartland" of America.