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

[old timey villain]

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???

[old timey villain]

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.

[old timey villain]

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.

Of course, I wasn't saying that will or should happen in the future. I'm just saying that it could have been a possibility in some sort of alternate political history of US politics.

It's just interesting to me how both parties have divided their ideologies between economic and social issues in a way that most constituents are never entirely happy with either party's platform. Democrats today rely heavily on the support of people who are worldly, educated and affluent. They like the party's progressive stance on those hot button social issues but deep down I doubt any of them want a truly egalitarian economic policy, where the wealthy are taxed heavily in order to pay for a strong social safety net. And at the same time, blue collar conservative whites love the "traditional America" diatribes from Republican politicians but I highly doubt they're in love with tax breaks for millionaires and companies that ship jobs overseas, unless they're self loathing.

[old timey villain]

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

[old timey villain]

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

The problem with the argument is rather that NoVa is not Southern anymore. Certainly less Southern than Maryland (American Whites tend to ignore that because they mean Southern White when they say Southern.)

Yes, I agree. The point I was trying to make with that picture is not that it's southern, but that it isn't urban. Many areas of Loudoun are very rural or exurban. But in truth, those are the more Republican areas- which are also probably more southern.

Overall, Southern suburbs can be competitive or even liberal but they have to either reach a critical mass of density (like Dekalb County), diversity (Fort Bend County) or a high transplant population (NoVa)

Note: Fort Bend county was never won by Obama but he only lost it by 2 points in 2008. With high minority turnout it is within reach for Dems

[old timey villain]

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.