Skip to comments.Why do urban centers vote Democrat, and rural Republican?
Posted on 11/03/2004 6:23:56 PM PST by M. Peach
click here to read article
"Some others join in to be obnoxious."
I hear what you say - It is cocktail hour in most parts - and I'm sure you can tell which ones have knocked back a few. I think some just try to be funny and say stupid things.
They only demean themselves -
The parasites don't have to follow, they just expand the city limits and re-absorb the escaped hosts via annexation.
That is likely one of the most blatant racist comments that I have ever seen posted on FR.com.
I grew up in a city, and I have lived as a minority myself, big time. The problems with urban voters are in my view are not black vs. white.
The issues have to do with Class and affluence.
If I can't get support from the red states on this site, where can I find it?
For most people, voting is hereditary. That is, if they vote at all, they vote as their parents did.
The Democrats, early in their history, deliberately set out too take control of the political machinery of large cities. That has been a pillar of the party's existence since its inception. Martin van Buren built the first Democrat coalition of the South and New York.
Later, the Democrats tightened their grip on Boston and New York by means of using their existing urban machines to co-opt large numbers of Irish immigrants (c.f. Boss Tweed, Tammany Hall) into the party. It's the same in Boston.
In the mid-west, the German, Scandinavian and other immigrants that settled the area departed from countries with traditions of monarchy and aristocracy, and carried that notion of social organization with them to the New World.
In postbellum America, freed slaves travelled to many cities looking for jobs and opportunity. They were a solid Republican constituency, until the Democrats won them over with the civil rights acts of the mid-20th century.
Finally, media consumption is far higher in cities than in rural creas, and television and major urban newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal.
That's easy. Residents of rural areas, recognize bull poo poo by sight, sound or smell. Politicians can't sh*t them.
Very good answer.
Urban areas also seem to provide ample audience to support the narcissist. Since they don't really produce much of value on their own, they need more external economic support from those who will pay for the narcissist's "superiority". i.e. A farmer / miner / lumberjack will likely not be willing to spend hard-earned money on a piece of art, where a city-dweller would be much more likely to.
This might sound funny, but I think it starts with distraction. There are so many other things to do than to go to church, so many other priorities than family, church and community. Without those things, work friends become the primary influence on the person's life, and so their liberalism tends to rub off on the impressionable. There are exceptions (we live in the DC suburbs,) but they tend to be people who tenaciously stick to church, and especially homeschoolers. Most of the rest are liberal.
It is interesting to me to compare. For example, as an adult I have lived in rural Ohio and Cleveland, outside Binghamton, NY, in rural WV and Clarksburg, WV (a small city) and in 2 DC suburbs. In the country, people take time for talking, for family, cooking and crafts. They spend time just talking in a relaxed way, and enjoying each other. In the cities, people tend to go from event to event, only relaxing to some extent, and then usually with entertainment (TV, movies...) It is a hectic, stressful way of life, filled with much motion and perhaps not much meaning, unless the person sticks to church, or creates artificial meaning (like save the whales.)
Not everyone is like that, but many are, and it might explain some of the differences.
Lifestyle, people who live in urban areas are part of a cog, they are interdepent, their life is about being part of the collective, they cannot survive independently. The are comfortable with the collectivism, interdependency, and fear being alone. Individualism to them is meaningless so therefore they don't value it. (They claim they do but even their supposed acts of "self expression" end up being terribly conformist).
Whereas rural people tend live independent lives, they are comfortable being on their own, and they value individualism greatly.
My thoughts exactly.
We might have to commission a study on this topic. Is rap music an effect of lead poisoning or is rap music a cause of brain damage? If it is the latter it may poke a hole in my thesis or at a minimum I may have to expand the causes of brain damage.
Disclosure Statement: For those who lack a dry sense of humor I am only joking.
So why are you so clueless?
Very interesting analysis, BUMP
Here is my rationale:
This is my definition of a normal American-- "Somewhat moderate, not a surrogate voter for the Democrat party machine."
This isn't a racist statement, this is a real statement. I regret the fact that the monolithic African American vote is a symptom of group pathology not ideology.
It is high crime areas.......union areas
I've been saying this for years on these forums.
Densely populated areas pretty much require liberal thinking, even to the point of welcoming big government.
Live an unnatural existence, and you will come to think unnatural thoughts.
How much government do you think we would need--how much taxes--how many laws, how many police, if it were just you and five or six of your neighbors living in all of America?
I do believe government increases exponentially with density of population.
And that such growth of government is necessary with evey increase in population density--i.e,, it is not a question of whether densely populated areas should have big government: the only question is how big.
In dense populations, you get accustomed to taking turns, deferring your judgment to that of the government, and to sharing space, time, noise, smells, shoving.
It was no accident that what came to be America was born in North America during the 18th century--the colonists had a huge continent to exploit--and if some government didn't like it, they could always move away and take what they needed from nature (and/or native populations)--that is what freedom is: self-reliance.
Having experienced such freedom, it was natural for the colonists to tell Britain to shove it.
I do not think America would ever have happened if The Thirteen Colonies had had a population of 300 million people living an industrialized urban existence in 1776.
AFSCME keeps their unionized workers in line.
In Philadelphia, they have put polling places in taverns, funeral homes, barbershops, private homes, and even union halls. They allow all sorts of electioneering inside the polls in violation of the law. They make sure everyone knows "how they are supposed to vote." It is no accident that the city voted 81% for Kerry.
I'll give you a clue: it's related to a word that starts with R and the word isn't "religion."
Which produces in all their numbed minions a love for the ghetto.
So they glorify it with Rap Music(?).
And try to bring the White kids down to their level of thirdworldness so they can live in luxury with their $1000 suits which they buy with the shakedown money they get from Corporations because it is easier to pay the blackmail (yes blackmail) than fight the lies of Racists Political Hacks.
The worst racists are the above mentioned Poverty Pimps.
That is not exactly un-so, but the problem is really more about affluence. People flock to urban areas because of needs, financial and else (such as health care.)
Affluent people are essentially dependent for their affluence on the toil of others.
There are shared interests in keeping certain paradigms in place. Unfortunately, for many inner city persons the education possibilities are lacking. Hillary (for example) and the Dems are such blatant liars concerning education that it simply makes me want to hurl when I see them speak of such matters. They are liars of the highest order.
The Democrats are as always only interested in maintaining the plantation! They are the benevolent massas and they own the media machine for the time being.
Urban voters are delusional. They think that perpetuating the welfare state is in their best interests. A concern and even a cursory consideration of and for posterity would logicaly shatter that sort of myth.
Big Government is the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to Western Civilization. This is why the (currently Muslim) hordes are wreaking destruction upon our way of life. The effects are quite noticeable in Europe already, but the tidal wave of immigration and government largesse and social programs are soon to be unmistakable in the USA as well.
It's the water.
If you really want to get a feel for big city politics read "Plunkett of Tammany Hall".
I really don't think it's that much of a racial thing as I do fraternal thing.
I read that..."When George Plunkett dies in 1924 he was eulogized this way;" He understood that in politics honesty doesn't matter, efficiency doesn't matter, progressive vision doesn't matter. What does matter is the chance for a better job, a better price of wheat, better business conditions. Plunkett's legacy is to that practicality."
I was approaching the subject with the intent of exploring the differences in red and blue areas. Some others join in to be obnixious.
The underlying impression I get is that you're defensive of conservatives in urban coastal California because at some level you can't or won't accept the fact that unless a sea change occurs, relatively soon, the urban coastal areas of California will become relatively hostile and unliveable to people with our values.
Can you make money, get a nice house and live in relative safety their now? Sure, but for how long? I myself just got approximately $100-200 of new taxes slathered on this year and am just recently denied the opportunity to own a type of firearm I desired. People with income over a million just got tagged with a 1% tax boost to facilitate a load of mental health goodies. Heck, if that was my income, I'd move out of spite.
I'm willing to bet that the minute a significant economic downturn occurs in California, the predominantly 'Rat voting masses will lay into those with income and assets with such a vengence that they will either leave in droves or try to split the state (the latter, not likely to succeed).
No one on this thread is talking trash about urban conservatives. They're talking about an environment that encourages liberals and is designed to parasitize or drive out conservatives.
The handout crowd lives in cities.
On the other hand, I think the smarmy, elitist, self-centered liberal types tend to flock to high population-density areas, and this reflects how those areas vote. Other than us four Republicans, not a single person in my office has ANY clue whatsoever as to why they lost, other than "maybe it was an evil DIEBOLD plan!!!"
What we NEED to learn from this is that we NEED to put poll-watchers at EVERY precinct that we suspect will be used to "manufacture" votes. If the Democratic city officials kick us out, we NEED to get the State troopers in immediately - the State Attorney's office, or the FBI if they are uncooperative. We *can* crush voter fraud, if enough of us take the time to watch the Democrat machinery like HAWKS.
A very relevant question:
1. High density urban residents tend to rent more often than own. Home ownership tends to foster conservative interests.
2. Impovershed people tend to be crowded in dense areas (Public Housing, for instance) and vote for those who support their welfare safety net.
3. The old neighborhoods or ghettos of large cities, are home to specific ethnic groups and tradition bounds them to vote for one specific party, usually Democrats.
4. Urban workers (government or blue collar) in inner city areas are union members, which back Democrats as a rule.
The low income city dwellers have their hands out expecting the government to pay for their food, housing and medicine. The suburbanites work hard to support themselves and resent paying taxes to support the freeloaders.
Rather than resort to ad hominem, why don't you go back and demonstrate where I'm wrong?
Patently false. Those of us in urban areas feel the pinch just as strongly.
Vote fraud. Entrenched democrat machines. Union thugs. MSM is source for news. Lastly "meal ticket" voters.
As a former union member (from a prior job), I still get AFSCME mail. Their phone tree sent me at least five phone messages and an equal number of campaign brochures for Kerry (the Hope and Vote campaign). Their organizers are quite effective.
I am honestly thinking that it's high time we return to apportioning electors based solely on which candidate captures a majority of the State's congressional districts. This would ensure that the mega-cities like New York don't disproportionately affect the outcome of their electoral vote - Philadelphia would be given equal weight as its surrounding counties. Heck, with a system like this at play, we may even stand a chance of winning California!!
What do y'all think about something like this? I think this is closer to the way our country was originally designed to run, in any case. Anyone recall when we started apportioning electors based on the popular vote tally? (If memory serves, it was 191x-ish - Afaik, this is decided on the State level, not in the Constitution, but I could be wrong)
(And frankly, I can't see any states approving measures like this anytime soon. It's mostly wishful classical-Republican thinking on my part at this point...)
Smog and noise messes up their senses?
I was a former member of the AFL-CIO and I got spammed by them for years. I feel your pain.
The Democrats need to keep them segregated in these areas to protect their voting base.
You've hit the nail on the head. One reason there are so many red-zoners on the outskirts of major cities: thirty years of federal-court-ordered forced bussing. People who didn't want their children bussed moved into neighboring counties, out of the reach of the dictatorial judges. After awhile, these 'exurban' areas became seen as great places to raise a family, and young people planning families moved there from the start.
I'm glad you posted this - I may find out why Iowa wasn't defined as Democrat or Republican in the run up to voting. I thought of it as midwest, a lot more rural than urban and wondered why it wasn't either Party's territory. Earlier today I saw the votes for Republican easily outweighed Democrat... but I'm still not sure why it couldn't be predicted sooner.""
They had the results earlier in Iowa than they had them in Ohio. Since Ohio was the big prize, exposing the results of N Mex and Iowa would have taken the suspense out of the results of Ohio and kept sKerry in the game longer. As it was, Iowa, N Mex, AND Nevada all went for BUSH, along with Ohio. The media just didn't want to give out the little prizes while they were hoping that Ohio would go to sKerry. Even today, they were trying to redo simple math with the statistics of Ohio.
Gotta love how Dan Rather pissed in Ed Bradley's beard over the math of the Provisional ballots in Ohio. Ed pointed out the math probabilities of having the provisional ballots making up the difference sKerry needed, and said it couldn't happen. Rather snidely commented that Ed Bradley wasn't a "mathematicion", and Ed spoke right up and said "I used to be a math teacher". Rather just pushed the remark aside, embarrassing Ed Bradley.
I would love to be a fly on the wall at CBS to have heard what Ed had to say to Rather after the show. Rather needs to be blistered for treating Ed in that manner. While I don't watch 60 minutes any more for their strong bias, I still think Ed Bradley is a class act. Newer reporters cannot hold a candle to him.
It depends on the state. St. Louis City, for instance, is deep navy blue (81% for Kerry this election), but only has about 350,000 people.
Neighboring St. Louis and St. Charles County between them have about 1.5 million people. The city is always whining about forcing the neighboring counties into one big megalopolis, but guess what - our state constitution mandates a vote. Since the population differences are so skewed, something like that would never pass, at least not here. Of course, if a city can annex without a vote, then that state has far worse problems.
Because urban folk think meat comes out of a plastic wrapper. Think about it.""
And milk comes from the grocery store in a plastic jug. They never seem to connect the cow to the event.
Here's an interesting crime stat I noticed:
Fredericksburg, Virginia is 50 miles from either Washington, DC or Richmond, VA. It is a city of 19,200 people.
It is also completely in charge of the liberals (most likely thanks to Mary Washington College). It went for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in the recent election.
Fredericksburg's City-data.com crime index = 382.2 (higher means more crime, US average = 330.6)
Now, let's look at Manassas, Virginia, a city solidly in charge of conservatives that went for Bush in 2000 and Bush in the recent election. Manassas, Virginia is a city of 35.135 people and is 20 miles from Washington, DC.
Manassas's City-data.com crime index = 277.3 (higher means more crime)
Another data point is that it recently came out in the local Fredericskburg paper that Fredericksburg's teen pregnancy rate is SIGNIFICANTLY above the surrounding counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford. If I recall correctly, it's almost double.
Based on that, the only conclusion that I can come to is that liberalism and social pathology go together like flies on crap.
You forgot to mention that rural dwellers tend to be the most stuck up, cliquish people on the face of the earth. I lived in a tiny East Texas town for almost 10 years, and never did fit in. Moved back to my element, Dallas, and was amazed at how friendly the people are.
The biggest source of racism in this country is the Irish, and their ingrained hatred for the blacks. That is why the biggest pits of racial animosity are northern Irish dominated areas.
We saw this in the Boston School-Busing riots.
We see it still in my city in Irish dominated Kensington and Grays Ferry which are the most extreme anti-black areas.