Its a myth that Bryan did really well in rural Areas

[OSR stands with Israel]

That was specifically in Western Rural Areas where he overperformed Cleveland but in places like the Midwest he underperformed Cleveland in the rural areas



1892:



1896:




Now heres Wisconsin:


1892:






Now heres Michigan:


1892:




1896




Source: Used Wikipedia

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The three maps you posted show a complete crash in Wisconsin, something which looks like an underperformance but is most of all a scrambling of the map in Michigan, and no real underperformance in Ohio.

Also, I haven't seen anyone actually argue that Bryan did really well in rural areas everywhere.

[Alcibiades]

Most of those red areas on the maps were Yankee-settled and staunchly Republican. Of course they weren’t going to go for Bryan.

[Hope For A New Era]

2020 is 1896 whether you like it or not

[Orwell]

I'd disagree, it appears he did quite well in Michigan rural areas, and only really crashed in Detroit and western (urban) Michigan. He even picked up my home county which was almost entirely agrarian until the rise of the auto industry. In Ohio, it was McKinley's home state so you should expect some swing against him. You also see in Ohio much of the swing towards McKinley is confined to heavy industrial areas. In Wisconsin, there was simply a large german "wet" group who weren't exactly enthralled by the arch evangelical, Bryan who was an advocate of prohibition.

[Calthrina950]

I would say that Bryan's performance in rural areas was strong, but varied based upon the region. Obviously, Bryan did very poorly in the Yankee Midwest and especially in New England, where he did not win a single county. Conversely, he did about as well as any Democrat during the Jim Crow era (c. 1880-1944) did in the rural South, and absolutely dominated most of the rural Interior West, as his results in Utah, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and Idaho vividly demonstrate. According to Albert J. Menendez's Atlas of Presidential Elections, the rural vote, on balance, went to Bryan.

McKinley won the seventy largest counties in the country (where at least 20,000 votes were cast), by 737,991 votes, while Bryan won the remainder of the country by 170,299 votes. These 70 counties, although accounting for just 27.8% of the nation's total vote, were nevertheless a critical component of McKinley's coalition, and provided him his margin of victory over Bryan (~600,000 votes). In 1900, however, Bryan made gains in urban America (particularly in places such as Boston, Louisville, and New York City), although McKinley still carried these counties 56% to 44%. Nonmetropolitan America, on the other hand, went from 51-49% Bryan to 52-48% McKinley. McKinley made some gains in the rural South, but he made heavy gains in the West, which was favorable to the Spanish-American War, flipping Utah outright and sharply reducing Bryan's margins elsewhere. So your argument, I would say, best applies to 1900, and not 1896.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'd disagree, it appears he did quite well in Michigan rural areas, and only really crashed in Detroit and western (urban) Michigan. He even picked up my home county which was almost entirely agrarian until the rise of the auto industry. In Ohio, it was McKinley's home state so you should expect some swing against him. You also see in Ohio much of the swing towards McKinley is confined to heavy industrial areas. In Wisconsin, there was simply a large german "wet" group who weren't exactly enthralled by the arch evangelical, Bryan who was an advocate of prohibition.

I’m Ohio , Bryan did worse in central Ohio than Cleveland did

[DINGO Joe]

Wiki provide a link to an article looking into why Bryan didn't perform as well with farmers in the North
Central region

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23932/w23932.pdf

This observation in turn points to the question of why Bryan did not attract enough farm
votes to win the North Central states.25 Some authors have suggested that agricultural conditions
were different in the North Central than further west and south. Farmers in the East North
Central states had not been afflicted as severely by drought as farmers in the Great Plains and
Mountain regions further west (Durden 1965, p.143). They grew different and more diversified
crops, relying less on wheat and more on dairy and other perishable farm products.26 Their
specialties, the aforementioned dairying and the corn-hog complex, had not experienced price
declines as severe as wheat, and, many of their products being perishable, they were not as
dependent on world market conditions (Hofstadter 1969, p.23).

As for the rural counties in Ohio,  the swings either way were minimal, and there were rural counties that swung towards Bryan too.  The big swings away from Bryan were the cities and industrial towns.    Statewide the swing away from Bryan was jut under 5 points but Hamilton (Cincy) swung 16 pts, Montgomery (Dayton) swung 11 pts, Cuyahoga (Cleveland) swung 12 pts, Mahoning swung 15 pts. 

Industrial workers weren't sold on the idea of free silver and feared inflation could impact them negatively and the line from the Cross of Gold Speech about farms and cities:

Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

Didn't go over well in the cities.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would say that Bryan's performance in rural areas was strong, but varied based upon the region. Obviously, Bryan did very poorly in the Yankee Midwest and especially in New England, where he did not win a single county. Conversely, he did about as well as any Democrat during the Jim Crow era (c. 1880-1944) did in the rural South, and absolutely dominated most of the rural Interior West, as his results in Utah, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and Idaho vividly demonstrate. According to Albert J. Menendez's Atlas of Presidential Elections, the rural vote, on balance, went to Bryan.

McKinley won the seventy largest counties in the country (where at least 20,000 votes were cast), by 737,991 votes, while Bryan won the remainder of the country by 170,299 votes. These 70 counties, although accounting for just 27.8% of the nation's total vote, were nevertheless a critical component of McKinley's coalition, and provided him his margin of victory over Bryan (~600,000 votes). In 1900, however, Bryan made gains in urban America (particularly in places such as Boston, Louisville, and New York City), although McKinley still carried these counties 56% to 44%. Nonmetropolitan America, on the other hand, went from 51-49% Bryan to 52-48% McKinley. McKinley made some gains in the rural South, but he made heavy gains in the West, which was favorable to the Spanish-American War, flipping Utah outright and sharply reducing Bryan's margins elsewhere. So your argument, I would say, best applies to 1900, and not 1896.

Did Bryan do well in southern rurals as he lost many rural Georgia counties which Dems usually won in the sold south era , lost many in North Carolina and even lost many non Appalachian rural counties in VA

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The current issue played differently with farmers in the Midwest, compared to the South and West. Also farmers in the Midwest were not as hostile to protectionism as was the case with farmers in the South and West.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Most of those red areas on the maps were Yankee-settled and staunchly Republican. Of course they weren’t going to go for Bryan.

Also Coal mining areas, which tied in with Steel and the industrial concerns and was thus dependent on Republican tariffs.