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

[Sbane]

And you also need to account for the existence of five Conservative constituencies in inner London, a list that includes one of their safest seats anywhere.

Yeah, "Kensington and Chelsea" and "Westminster South and the City" are ultra-rich areas. Aristocratic you could say. Like I said, it's economic interest.

It is interesting to compare Chelsea with the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which should be the US equivalent.  Chelsea is as you say part of one the safest Tory seats in Britain, Upper East Side on the other hand vote Democrat (though the Republican vote is the highest of any part of Manhattan).

It would be interesting to see some kind of values-based comparison. Chelsea vote Tory for economic reasons, I wonder how big the difference between Chelsea and Upper East Side is on social issues.

Dems care just as much about protecting the interest of their wealthy constituencies as Republicans do, we just tend to forget that. If Democrats were truly about "Socialism" why would some of the richest areas of the nation (like the Bay Area) support them so strongly?

It's all about image in Manhattan. Why would a slick, worldly, educated Manhattanite vote for the party of Sarah Palin and the dirty south? I mean, how would that look???

I agree with your overall point, but I would also like to point out that some of the strongest socialist movements in America are located in the Bay Area (just look at how strong the OWS movement was in the Bay Area). Of course if the Democratic party truly became a socialist party, they would lose a lot of support in the Bay Area, especially in Silicon Valley and the more well to do areas of the east bay (but not as much in San Francisco mind you). Still, that socialist party would do much better in the Bay Area than in many rural, white areas of the country that would theoretically benefit more from socialist policies (though we would all become poorer).

[Sbane]

And you also need to account for the existence of five Conservative constituencies in inner London, a list that includes one of their safest seats anywhere.

Yeah, "Kensington and Chelsea" and "Westminster South and the City" are ultra-rich areas. Aristocratic you could say. Like I said, it's economic interest.

It is interesting to compare Chelsea with the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which should be the US equivalent.  Chelsea is as you say part of one the safest Tory seats in Britain, Upper East Side on the other hand vote Democrat (though the Republican vote is the highest of any part of Manhattan).

It would be interesting to see some kind of values-based comparison. Chelsea vote Tory for economic reasons, I wonder how big the difference between Chelsea and Upper East Side is on social issues.

Dems care just as much about protecting the interest of their wealthy constituencies as Republicans do, we just tend to forget that. If Democrats were truly about "Socialism" why would some of the richest areas of the nation (like the Bay Area) support them so strongly?

It's all about image in Manhattan. Why would a slick, worldly, educated Manhattanite vote for the party of Sarah Palin and the dirty south? I mean, how would that look???

I agree with your overall point, but I would also like to point out that some of the strongest socialist movements in America are located in the Bay Area (just look at how strong the OWS movement was in the Bay Area). Of course if the Democratic party truly became a socialist party, they would lose a lot of support in the Bay Area, especially in Silicon Valley and the more well to do areas of the east bay (but not as much in San Francisco mind you). Still, that socialist party would do much better in the Bay Area than in many rural, white areas of the country that would theoretically benefit more from socialist policies (though we would all become poorer).

But that's primarily because throughout the cold war, Americans strongly associated socialism and communism with godlessness. It's the main reason Republicans do so well today in rural areas. It's not about economics, it's about what party is more god fearing. If at some point in America's history a Christian Socialist party emerged that combined socialist economic theory with more conservative Christian principles, I bet they would have done very well in poor rural areas.

I mean, isn't that kind of what politicians like Huey Long were all about? He was a southern baptist.

Theoretically, you are right but I don't see that happening any time soon since Republicans won't do it and Democrats would need to reverse themselves on social issues. One thing to keep in mind is that these social issues get Democrats a lot of money, which is even more important after citizens v united. Democrats cannot disregard that.

[Sbane]

I just don't see 60% of the bay area voting for a economically conservative party. Look at ballot initiatives, ad the greatest support for economically liberal positions comes from the bay area. I know it might be a little hard to believe considering its income, but the bay area is just as fiscally liberal as LA county and way more than places such as San Bernardino County which have a much lower income.

[Sbane]

Suburban - Swing

NOT IN THE SOUTH.

Virginia?
Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince Willliam, Henrico?

They're blue and plus you can hardly call them suburbs anymore.

This is Loudoun County

And people say there is a lot of sprawl in California. Ha!

[Sbane]

The right wing in this country (which you are not a part of Nathan) characterizes city residents as being the "takers". I don't think many urbanites think of ruralites as such, and in any case it is not a mainstream view. Urban bashing is seen in mainstream politics, rural bashing not so much.