538 article on Senate’s Rural Skew

[Hope For A New Era]

Uhm...did the Democrats care about how "anti-democratic" the Senate was when they held seats in states like North Dakota, Arkansas, and Alaska?  Y'know, in the long ago of 2014?

I suppose the argument here is that the rise in polarization since then has helped make it clear how undemocratic the Senate is.

Also, the Democrats had to move pretty strongly to the center to win those seats. Republicans can come very close to a majority even if they run only far-right candidates. This is the main reason our country's polarization is asymmetrical.

Tbh, if I'm a Democratic policymaker, my path to retaking the Senate is something along the lines of relocating a bunch of federal agencies to Montana and Iowa.

Which is an excellent idea even without considering the political implications, and I'm amazed it still hasn't entered the political discourse, especially given this election cycle's focus on the Midwest. These are huge job and wealth builders. They're exactly what a place like Detroit needs to replace the lost industry. Moving federal agencies to spread them across the nation also allows us to "practice what we preach" in this supposedly decentralized and federal country. Bring the government to the people instead of having it be far off in DC, and help people feel less abandoned and forgotten.

I'll...stop there. I was starting to get a bit too optimistic for a second.

[Del Tachi]

Uhm...did the Democrats care about how "anti-democratic" the Senate was when they held seats in states like North Dakota, Arkansas, and Alaska?  Y'know, in the long ago of 2014?

I suppose the argument here is that the rise in polarization since then has helped make it clear how undemocratic the Senate is.

Also, the Democrats had to move pretty strongly to the center to win those seats. Republicans can come very close to a majority even if they run only far-right candidates. This is the main reason our country's polarization is asymmetrical.

If running far-right candidates wins you a majority in the Senate...then are they really "far-right"?  Such descriptors are inherently relative to the perceived political center

Why do Democrats think they're the arbiters of what "normal" political positions and conventions are?  lol

[Hope For A New Era]

If running far-right candidates wins you a majority in the Senate...then are they really "far-right"?

Yes.

Why do Democrats think they're the arbiters of what "normal" political positions and conventions are?  lol

We aren't, public opinion is. Polls show that Democratic politicians are on average are near the center and Republican politicians are on average well to the right of it.

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

The truth is that 60% of Americans support legal abortion, 70% support a public option for healthcare, 80% think corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, 78% think the wealthiest people don't pay their fair share of taxes, 87% think Social Security should be preserved even if it means raising taxes, 76% describe themselves as "somewhat" or "very" concerned about climate change, 84% (including 77% of gun owners) support universal background checks, 74% support requiring employers to provide paid parental and medical leave, 67% support same-sex marriage, and 66% support a $10 minimum wage.

The Republican Party opposes all of these. The Democratic Party supports all of them. The Democratic Party is in the center.


Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but it's the truth.

[Stuart98]

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

I think part of that was many voters wrongly perceived Trump as more moderate on social issues than he actually was, eg thinking that he was pro-choice.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

I think part of that was many voters wrongly perceived Trump as more moderate on social issues than he actually was, eg thinking that he was pro-choice.

Wrong. He was (wrongly) perceived as moderate/non-ideological on mushy "economic" stuff, like infrastructure, - gulp - health care, ah and also his rants against free trade helped.
I don't think anyone in 2016 thought Trump would be a pro-choice president.

[StateBoiler]

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

I think part of that was many voters wrongly perceived Trump as more moderate on social issues than he actually was, eg thinking that he was pro-choice.

Wrong. He was (wrongly) perceived as moderate/non-ideological on mushy "economic" stuff, like infrastructure, - gulp - health care, ah and also his rants against free trade helped.
I don't think anyone in 2016 thought Trump would be a pro-choice president.

He's a big government conservative. He's clearly non-ideological when it comes to socially conservative matters. He pays lip service but that's all it is. His stance on health care is because it's an Obama thing and he personally hates Obama for how he was treated at the White House Correspondents Dinner (might be the only reason he ran for president, good job Barack).

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

I think part of that was many voters wrongly perceived Trump as more moderate on social issues than he actually was, eg thinking that he was pro-choice.

Wrong. He was (wrongly) perceived as moderate/non-ideological on mushy "economic" stuff, like infrastructure, - gulp - health care, ah and also his rants against free trade helped.
I don't think anyone in 2016 thought Trump would be a pro-choice president.

He's a big government conservative. He's clearly non-ideological when it comes to socially conservative matters. He pays lip service but that's all it is. His stance on health care is because it's an Obama thing and he personally hates Obama for how he was treated at the White House Correspondents Dinner (might be the only reason he ran for president, good job Barack).

Yes he is, but the judges he appoints and the kind of figures he surrounds himself with (say, Jerry Falwell Jr.) are all that matters for both supporters and detractors.

[StateBoiler]

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

I think part of that was many voters wrongly perceived Trump as more moderate on social issues than he actually was, eg thinking that he was pro-choice.

Wrong. He was (wrongly) perceived as moderate/non-ideological on mushy "economic" stuff, like infrastructure, - gulp - health care, ah and also his rants against free trade helped.
I don't think anyone in 2016 thought Trump would be a pro-choice president.

He's a big government conservative. He's clearly non-ideological when it comes to socially conservative matters. He pays lip service but that's all it is. His stance on health care is because it's an Obama thing and he personally hates Obama for how he was treated at the White House Correspondents Dinner (might be the only reason he ran for president, good job Barack).

Yes he is, but the judges he appoints and the kind of figures he surrounds himself with (say, Jerry Falwell Jr.) are all that matters for both supporters and detractors.

Well those supporters and detractors I consider stupid people. He's not socially conservative, at all.

He doesn't care about judges because that has nothing to deal with him. The judicial appointments are all the Federalist Society.

[Calthrina950]

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

I think part of that was many voters wrongly perceived Trump as more moderate on social issues than he actually was, eg thinking that he was pro-choice.

Wrong. He was (wrongly) perceived as moderate/non-ideological on mushy "economic" stuff, like infrastructure, - gulp - health care, ah and also his rants against free trade helped.
I don't think anyone in 2016 thought Trump would be a pro-choice president.

He's a big government conservative. He's clearly non-ideological when it comes to socially conservative matters. He pays lip service but that's all it is. His stance on health care is because it's an Obama thing and he personally hates Obama for how he was treated at the White House Correspondents Dinner (might be the only reason he ran for president, good job Barack).

I agree firmly with this. Trump has made it clear that he doesn't care about gay marriage, and he's said little about the transgender rights issues that have become prominent in recent years. He's adopted the Republican Party's line on abortion issues, but it's obvious that he doesn't care about the issue from a moral perspective as it is-and could care less about what the states do with it. Trump has done what is necessary to keep social conservatives and evangelicals on his side, but he's not waging a war on such issues like George W. Bush or even Ronald Reagan did. His "culture war" hinges very much on things like illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism-issues that clearly cut across secular and religious lines.

[Orser67]

Just want to point out that this article has a nice chart with data on each state's population density. It divides up the country into four categories:

Rural: Less than 25,000 people live within a 5-mile radius of you;
Exurban or small town: Between 25,000 and 100,000 people within a 5-mile radius;
Suburban or small city: Between 100,000 and 250,000 people within a 5-mile radius;
Urban core or large city: More than 250,000 people within a 5-mile radius.

Using these definitions, nationwide (including DC and Puerto Rico), about 25% of the population lives in rural areas, 23% in exurban/small town areas, 27% in suburban/small city areas, and 25% in large cities. Whereas the average state is 35% rural, 26% exurban/small town, 25% suburban, and 14% large city. There are 33 states where rural+small town is at least 50%; 27 states have <10% of the population in large cities, compared to 5 states with <10% of the population in rural areas. Also:

In the U.S. as a whole, 60 percent of the population is non-Hispanic white and 40 percent of the population is nonwhite. But in the average state, 68 percent of people are white and 32 percent are nonwhite. It’s almost as if the Senate has turned the clock back by 20 years as far as the racial demographics of the country goes.

It's widely known that the Senate overrepresents rural areas, but it's nice to see some actual data to better understand it. Essentially, the issue is that, while exurban and suburban areas are represented at rates roughly equal to their share of the population, rural areas are overrepresented at the expense of dense urban areas.

[dpmapper]

Curious: How much of a skew is it if you only consider US citizens? 

[Sol]

Curious: How much of a skew is it if you only consider US citizens? 

Doubt if that actually matters--a lot of pretty urban states in the midwest and new england probably have fewer non-citizens.

[dpmapper]

Curious: How much of a skew is it if you only consider US citizens? 

Doubt if that actually matters--a lot of pretty urban states in the midwest and new england probably have fewer non-citizens.

...but each individual state's urban/suburban/small city/rural balance shifts as well, so you have to account for that. 

[Sol]

Curious: How much of a skew is it if you only consider US citizens? 

Doubt if that actually matters--a lot of pretty urban states in the midwest and new england probably have fewer non-citizens.

...but each individual state's urban/suburban/small city/rural balance shifts as well, so you have to account for that. 

Doesn't have anything to do with the skew of the Senate?

[dpmapper]

Curious: How much of a skew is it if you only consider US citizens? 

Doubt if that actually matters--a lot of pretty urban states in the midwest and new england probably have fewer non-citizens.

...but each individual state's urban/suburban/small city/rural balance shifts as well, so you have to account for that. 

Doesn't have anything to do with the skew of the Senate?

But that's the data considered by the 538 article, so it very well could affect the conclusion. 

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

If running far-right candidates wins you a majority in the Senate...then are they really "far-right"?

Yes.

Why do Democrats think they're the arbiters of what "normal" political positions and conventions are?  lol

We aren't, public opinion is. Polls show that Democratic politicians are on average are near the center and Republican politicians are on average well to the right of it.

The Republicans have done an excellent job of distorting what "normal" looks like and painting anyone even slightly to the left of them as a crazy extremist. Polls in 2016 showed that Trump was perceived as more "moderate" than Clinton, which anyone who actually pays close attention to politics realizes is absurd.

The truth is that 60% of Americans support legal abortion, 70% support a public option for healthcare, 80% think corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, 78% think the wealthiest people don't pay their fair share of taxes, 87% think Social Security should be preserved even if it means raising taxes, 76% describe themselves as "somewhat" or "very" concerned about climate change, 84% (including 77% of gun owners) support universal background checks, 74% support requiring employers to provide paid parental and medical leave, 67% support same-sex marriage, and 66% support a $10 minimum wage.

The Republican Party opposes all of these. The Democratic Party supports all of them. The Democratic Party is in the center.


Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but it's the truth.

The Democratic position on abortion (legal up until the moment of birth, publicly funded), gets 10-15% support. How is that moderate? 

[Hope For A New Era]

The Democratic position on abortion (legal up until the moment of birth, publicly funded), gets 10-15% support. How is that moderate?

Source?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The Democratic position on abortion (legal up until the moment of birth, publicly funded), gets 10-15% support. How is that moderate? 

Whataboutery towards abortion is always a sign of a losing argument.

(whether one is pro-life, pro-choice, or whatever)

[DC Al Fine]

The Democratic position on abortion (legal up until the moment of birth, publicly funded), gets 10-15% support. How is that moderate?

Source?

I couldn't find any polling on abortion up until birth specifically, but polling on third trimester abortions is a decent proxy.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The Democratic position on abortion (legal up until the moment of birth, publicly funded), gets 10-15% support. How is that moderate?

Source?

I couldn't find any polling on abortion up until birth specifically, but polling on third trimester abortions is a decent proxy.

Yeah, and the Democratic position isn't even generally legal in the third trimester, it's legal in all cases, publicly funded.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither party is at all moderate or remotely in line with the semimythical "median voter" on abortion. That's how wedge issues work. This isn't news.