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

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ignoring the reversed Atlas colors,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/

[Mehmentum]

FF article for linking to this site. 

[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.)

[Siloch]

Urban - Democratic
Suburban - Swing
Rural - Republican

That is why I find US politics so interesting, America is a suburban country, whoever wins the suburbs wins the election.

Take Colorado for example, if you win Jefferson and Arapahoe counties you win the state.

[freefair]

It used not be a lot more nuanced and varied, now its become like the situation in most other modern nations, with conservatism dominating in terms of land size (though for social rather than economic reasons, in the UK its the ruralities that have most of the wealthy people in).

[Gunnar Larsson]

It used not be a lot more nuanced and varied, now its become like the situation in most other modern nations, with conservatism dominating in terms of land size (though for social rather than economic reasons, in the UK its the ruralities that have most of the wealthy people in).

Actually, I would say that the situation in the US is quite extreme compared to other countries. As a statistics geek I plotted the democratic lean in each state against the 10-logarithm of its population density. The correlation is very strong, with an R2-value of 43 % (i.e. 43 % of the lean could be explained by the population density).

I did similar checks with the bundesländer and departements of Germany and France and the correlations were in general very week. If you look at just England you might get something similar to the US, but not if you look at the UK as a whole (as Scotland and Wales "destroy" the trend).

I would guess that the difference is related to the fact that the parties in the US are socially conservative vs liberal, whilst in Europe with many parties that cater to different economic and social interest the split between socially conservative and liberal parties is less clear and less relevant to the voters. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[freefair]

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.

[Gunnar Larsson]

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.

[Franknburger]

It used not be a lot more nuanced and varied, now its become like the situation in most other modern nations, with conservatism dominating in terms of land size (though for social rather than economic reasons, in the UK its the ruralities that have most of the wealthy people in).

Actually, I would say that the situation in the US is quite extreme compared to other countries. As a statistics geek I plotted the democratic lean in each state against the 10-logarithm of its population density. The correlation is very strong, with an R2-value of 43 % (i.e. 43 % of the lean could be explained by the population density).

I did similar checks with the bundesländer and departements of Germany and France and the correlations were in general very week. If you look at just England you might get something similar to the US, but not if you look at the UK as a whole (as Scotland and Wales "destroy" the trend).

Interestingly, the German CDU last November, after losing a number of high-profile mayoral races, published a strategy paper on how to stop the erosion of party support in big cities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578118931301425500.html#

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This article is clearly not about Manchester, NH.

[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???

[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).

[BaldEagle1991]

Suburban - Swing

NOT IN THE SOUTH.

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Suburban - Swing

NOT IN THE SOUTH.

Or even in much of the Midwest or Southwest.  Waukesha County, WI and the suburbs of Phoenix, AZ are not "swing"  counties.

[Siloch]

Suburban - Swing

NOT IN THE SOUTH.

Virginia?
Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince Willliam, Henrico?

[BaldEagle1991]

Suburban - Swing

NOT IN THE SOUTH.

Virginia?
Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince Willliam, Henrico?

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

[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.

[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.

[Smash255]

Suburban - Swing

NOT IN THE SOUTH.

Virginia?
Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince Willliam, Henrico?

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

They certainly are suburbs.

[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

[freefair]

Indeed, the modern US political parties leave little room for "economically leftist social conservative" and "economically conservative social liberals"(who aren't hardcore libertarians).The trouble is that being affluent, educated and open minded and urban, and being poor, traditionalist, nationalistic and rural go together far too well for either parties platform to be electorally consistent.
An "Dark Green" party could easily storm rural areas, and likewise a "Orange/Yellow"
party could storm the urban areas.
Somewhere like San Francisco Bay could go
EC-SLP- 45% (could absorb the Libertarian party but be more moderate than them)
EL-SLP- 30%
EC-SCP- 15%
EL-SCP- 10%
Whereas a pro coal EL-SC candidate in rural West Virginia..
EL-SCP- 65%
EL-SLP- 15%
EC-SCP- 10%
EC-SLP- 10%

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.)