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

[Stranger in a strange land]

Urban - Democratic
Suburban - Swing
Exurban - Republican
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.

The growth of Exurbia is a big reason why Republicans remain competitive even after losses in Suburbia over the last 20-30 years, as well as a big reason why the Republican party has become what it has.

[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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is Loudoun County

Kill it with fire.

[bgwah]

I remember Phillip/A18 arguing he lived in a rural area because  he lived in the kind of development.

[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.

[memphis]

The only thing that has changed is that minorities vote. It's not an urban/rural divide. It's an ethnic divide.

[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.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Something I think people tend to forget when looking at the incomes in places like the Bay Area is while they are pretty high, they're not in the range that the Republicans are fighting for. Obama and basically all the Democrats in Congress were against any tax increases on anyone making less than $250k a year. That's the vast majority of the Bay Area. The Republicans push the issues over the actual rich, the 1%. The upper middle class really have nothing to fear from Democratic economic policies, and in fact might actually prefer them, I have a tough time believing some say $150k median income neighborhood in the Bay Area is full of people who would prefer the Tea Party's economic rhetoric to some highly educated Keynesian professor. Also these people don't think like krazen, if you have a Master's Degree it's safe to say that you aren't going to think that public school teachers and their unions are the main reason your taxes are as high as they are, poll these people on if they'd blame teachers' unions more or things like rich tax cheats and corporations exploiting loopholes and I think it's obvious who'd they blame.

[DC Al Fine]

The only thing that has changed is that minorities vote. It's not an urban/rural divide. It's an ethnic divide.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

Yeah but suburban usually equals Democrat outside the South, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Orange County, CA.  The reason, in two words: social issues.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I remember Phillip/A18 arguing he lived in a rural area because  he lived in the kind of development.

Places like that are rural in the sense that Auschwitz was a shtetl.

[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.

This is Loudoun County

I'm guessing this is where you film movies about rich people.

[YL]

Virginia?
Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince Willliam, Henrico?

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

This is Loudoun County

Surely people who have enough money and bad enough taste to live somewhere like that vote Republican?

[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!

[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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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%

I think there was a time when these alternate divisions could have become major movements or even separate or dominant parties.  Huey Long was no social liberal, but proposed some of the most economically left-wing policies to ever be pursued by a major US politician.  He wasn't Presidential material, but he certainly had a following.  A Ross Perot victory in '92 could have led to an organized EC/SL movement, which really doesn't exist now even though a rather broad cross-section of Americans identify with these ideological tenets.

Certainly social and cultural issues are a major reason why many economically disadvantaged persons vote for the economically right-wing party, but I do think we underestimate the extent to which less-affluent whites have been convinced that the libertarian version of economic "conservatism" works in their best interests.  The ones that are receiving direct government assistance of course believe they "deserve" their own checks, but we better get those other slackers off the dole. 

I'm an economic conservative in the broad context, but I cringe when I hear people wanting the "government to stay out of (their) Medicare", or people who receive public healthcare benefits viscerally upset that someone else might get the same benefit.

[muon2]

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.

Yes, and this goes back to the article in the OP. The party correlation for most of the population is with density. In high density areas the government is seen as the critical protector of services needed for that population. In low density areas the viewed need for government services to sustain their lifestyle is greatly reduced. That leads SF to prefer fiscal liberalism in order to fund government services.

In suburban areas in the Midwest the partisan alignment flips when the neighborhoods are built out and have aged for a generation. DuPage IL is an excellent example. It was historically one of the largest counties with a strong GOP vote. Now it has been essentially fully developed for over a decade. In the last few elections DuPage is seeing a clear shift to the Dems. The public's support for government services is a major factor.

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.

Minority voting patterns are often tied to other issues than just access to government services. The parties have different positions on justice and immigration, and that can either override or accentuate the natural split due to services for dense populations.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What I find kind of interesting is, post-Civil War, the fact that in say Illinois, Chicago favored Republicans while the rural part of the state was more Democratic. Meanwhile, in New York, the largest city was Democratic while Republicans were stronger upstate. The reasons of course are obvious, but still interesting.

[memphis]

The countryside wants/needs the gov't just as much as everybody else. All those long highways connecting them to the outside world didn't fall out of the sky. Nor did farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other government force they depend on. The difference is a matter of ethnic background. White people in most metros don't vote much differently than those in the surrounding countryside.

[freefair]

Don't forget, post 1992, nearly all "presidentially" Democratic leaning states have been net contributors to the federal budget, while federal level GOP states have been net drains. Of course, pre Clinton, the same was true in reverse. Such is the nature of the realignment that has taken place in US politics. Whereas, I don't think anyone really disputes that most  European right-wing party voting areas are net contributors to their national budgets (ie Bavaria, Surrey, Stockholm, Lombardy). The areas with many very middle class ethnic minorities like Indians, "far east" Asians and Jews also lean to the right in Europe. Republican under performance in these famously prosperous and intellectual minorities is a particularly damning sign for the party.

[muon2]

The countryside wants/needs the gov't just as much as everybody else. All those long highways connecting them to the outside world didn't fall out of the sky. Nor did farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other government force they depend on. The difference is a matter of ethnic background. White people in most metros don't vote much differently than those in the surrounding countryside.

In Chicagoland the white vote in Chicago proper is heavily D. The nonHisp white population of IL-6 and 9 were similar in the last Congress before the remap. Yet since IL-9 went into the inner suburbs and the city it voted far more D than IL-6. Again, it's not about the government used, it's the perception of the amount of service needed.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Inner-city whites are generally to the left of suburban and rural whites.

Also, there's really 2 major factions of inner-city whites - who both oppose the Republicans, but because of a different set of issues. On one hand, you have the academics and artsy types. On the other hand, you have the blue-collar laborers.

[memphis]

The countryside wants/needs the gov't just as much as everybody else. All those long highways connecting them to the outside world didn't fall out of the sky. Nor did farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other government force they depend on. The difference is a matter of ethnic background. White people in most metros don't vote much differently than those in the surrounding countryside.

In Chicagoland the white vote in Chicago proper is heavily D. The nonHisp white population of IL-6 and 9 were similar in the last Congress before the remap. Yet since IL-9 went into the inner suburbs and the city it voted far more D than IL-6. Again, it's not about the government used, it's the perception of the amount of service needed.

There will be a small Dem push in some white urban neighborhoods from Jews and gays, both of whom avoid the countryside like the plague. Still, it's not like Northern Illinois is some Republican bastion outside of Chicagoland. The counties along the MS River have a small Dem lean while those in the interior have a small GOP lean. Cook County is 44% non-Hispanic white and voted 74% Dem. Lee County, to pick a random N Illinois rural county, is 88% non-Hispanic white and voted 45% Dem. The racial math is not all that different.

[muon2]

The countryside wants/needs the gov't just as much as everybody else. All those long highways connecting them to the outside world didn't fall out of the sky. Nor did farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other government force they depend on. The difference is a matter of ethnic background. White people in most metros don't vote much differently than those in the surrounding countryside.

In Chicagoland the white vote in Chicago proper is heavily D. The nonHisp white population of IL-6 and 9 were similar in the last Congress before the remap. Yet since IL-9 went into the inner suburbs and the city it voted far more D than IL-6. Again, it's not about the government used, it's the perception of the amount of service needed.

There will be a small Dem push in some white urban neighborhoods from Jews and gays, both of whom avoid the countryside like the plague. Still, it's not like Northern Illinois is some Republican bastion outside of Chicagoland. The counties along the MS River have a small Dem lean while those in the interior have a small GOP lean. Cook County is 44% non-Hispanic white and voted 74% Dem. Lee County, to pick a random N Illinois rural county, is 88% non-Hispanic white and voted 45% Dem. The racial math is not all that different.

Jews and gays do not alone account for the difference between IL-6 and IL-9. Your example of Lee is a very rural county and is not to my point about the shift as density decreases through the suburbs.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The countryside wants/needs the gov't just as much as everybody else. All those long highways connecting them to the outside world didn't fall out of the sky. Nor did farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other government force they depend on. The difference is a matter of ethnic background. White people in most metros don't vote much differently than those in the surrounding countryside.

In Chicagoland the white vote in Chicago proper is heavily D. The nonHisp white population of IL-6 and 9 were similar in the last Congress before the remap. Yet since IL-9 went into the inner suburbs and the city it voted far more D than IL-6. Again, it's not about the government used, it's the perception of the amount of service needed.

There will be a small Dem push in some white urban neighborhoods from Jews and gays, both of whom avoid the countryside like the plague. Still, it's not like Northern Illinois is some Republican bastion outside of Chicagoland. The counties along the MS River have a small Dem lean while those in the interior have a small GOP lean. Cook County is 44% non-Hispanic white and voted 74% Dem. Lee County, to pick a random N Illinois rural county, is 88% non-Hispanic white and voted 45% Dem. The racial math is not all that different.

Jews and gays do not alone account for the difference between IL-6 and IL-9. Your example of Lee is a very rural county and is not to my point about the shift as density decreases through the suburbs.

Chicago proper voted over 80% for Obama in 2012, no? It's about 30% non-Hispanic white. What percentage of Chicago's electorate was non-Hispanic white?