Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why do urban centers vote Democrat, and rural Republican?
11-03 | M. Peach

Posted on 11/03/2004 6:23:56 PM PST by M. Peach

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-293 last
To: M. Peach

Areas with denser populations tend to need more direct governmental support in terms of service---and employment. Areas with denser populations also tend to attract the most needy people, and needy people vote for those who support them---liberals. Areas with denser populations are often home to institutes of higher education and those who work in higher education, and academia skews liberal. Areas with denser populations attract those who fancy themselves cosmopolitan and erudite---often elements of a liberal mindset.


251 posted on 11/04/2004 9:37:47 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
They believe that situation comedies are reality based and want to fit in like the "cool" people on TV. It's the collective mind meld of people with too much time on their hands and they don't have the will to investigate for themselves. They mistakenly believe that democrats are the "in crowd". They let the media supply the thoughts they are too lazy to supply for themselves.
252 posted on 11/04/2004 9:50:04 AM PST by MontanaBeth (NEVER FORGET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach

Its very simple for me

Urban areas include those that have gotten used to and expect handouts from the govt. Democrats are the party of handouts and what can the govt. do for me crowd.

Rural areas are more or less people who are more self -reliant and do not depend on or do not expect the govt. to provide them freebies.

This is where the republicans need to make in-roads with minorities. The govt is not the nipple and that they are empowered to achieve their potential w/o blaming others for their failure.


253 posted on 11/04/2004 9:59:31 AM PST by sasafras (sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #254 Removed by Moderator

Comment #255 Removed by Moderator

To: M. Peach

Let's see, the big city; swimming pools, movie stars, gays, the arts, big universities and their associated staff as well as voting age student bodies, sex shops, degenerates, homeless shelters and the people who enable them through misguided sympathy, government services centers (welfare offices), public transportation, free clinics, big media,...Not sure if I hit them all but that's some of the mitigating factors that strengthen the cancer upon which this nation bleeds its wealth and shapes the opinions and motivations of the liberal.


256 posted on 11/04/2004 2:24:22 PM PST by PeteePie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chaguito
Why do urban centers vote Democrat, and rural Republican? Because urban folk think meat comes out of a plastic wrapper.

Brilliantly summarized.

Urbanites have a great deal of legitimate concern about the gov't regulation of behavior. With high population density comes high probability of running into immoral/criminal/deviant/problematic people - so much so that there naturally arises a great many nit-picking laws defining punishable behavior. Jaywalking in Manhattan during rush hour can indeed cause great havoc interfering with many people and costing $$$ ... but from where I type this the concept of jaywalking is preposterous.

To advance the cause of freedom, we need to better understand the needs of sardine-packed urbanites, address their needs - and convince them that the rest of us indeed need to be left the he11 alone.

257 posted on 11/04/2004 3:28:38 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hemi dawg
This isn't brain surgery.

Urban = black and/or union.

Suburban/rural = white non-union.

That's step 1.

The WHY may be more difficult.

Far be it from me to suggest IQ.

258 posted on 11/04/2004 4:13:35 PM PST by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
If you come up with an answer, let me know.

I've been puzzled by IOWA for years.

259 posted on 11/04/2004 4:15:57 PM PST by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ptarmigan
Houston is a HUGE municipality.

At least it was many years ago when I was there. In other words it 'includes" it's own suburbs, so to speak?

Correct me Houstonians.

260 posted on 11/04/2004 4:18:55 PM PST by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach

That's Why RUDY G could be a great national contender he won Twice in NYC ,Running against Dinkins,one of the worst mayors ever


261 posted on 11/04/2004 4:21:23 PM PST by rang1995
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rang1995; All

Question for all: Are liberals hick-o-phobic ?


262 posted on 11/04/2004 4:26:17 PM PST by ChadGore (59,313,309 Bush fans can't be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

Comment #263 Removed by Moderator

To: M. Peach
Wow. 262 replies by the time I see this thread for the first time. I know the answer to this one because the difference between urban and rural mindsets is something I've pondered for years.

The answer is actually multi-dimensional. For starters, it is a well known fact among linguists that small populations tend to preserve features of earlier language and dialect forms than larger population areas do. Perhaps a better word is "conserve" rather than "preserve." This feature, I believe, translates over to other areas of human life, though, including religious beliefs, moral values, and culture. Smaller communities tend to conserve earlier standards better than larger ones do.

Now, as many people realize as they get older, "newer" does not necessarily mean "better." In fact, the older I get, the more I believe that fewer and fewer "new" ways of doing things are better than the old ways.

And then there is the matter of self-reliance. Individualism. People who live in small, rural communities, don't have the "benefits" of the interconnectedness of large urban communities, where most everybody within these urban environments has their own special niche in the big machine. In the rural setting, most folks have to know quite a bit about just about everything. Ask a farmer, for example. You'll find out the average farmer not only knows a lot about crops, breeds, and how to grow and raise them, but he or she also knows how to repair most of the equipment that they use, fix the house or barn and the truck, and just about everything else. This is common in rural areas. These folks are independent and self reliant. They think for themselves. They don't like or trust big government, thus by definition, they are conservative, whether republican or democrat.

Just about the only "specialists" I have found in rural communities, except doctors and lawyers, are transplants from the big city who decide to "get away from it all" so they can express their "inner artist" as they attempt to be creative in an alien environment. Usually doesn't work until a whole bunch of other city dwellers move out into the sticks to join them, bringing all their wacked out city values and liberalism with them. But then it isn't rural anymore. Often these areas become gentrified, as the urbanites buy up properties, driving up real estate values (and taxes) for the locals, who as a result, resent the urbanites all the more. And adhere even more strongly to their conservative values.

Well, that's the way I see it.

264 posted on 11/04/2004 4:49:35 PM PST by Cooltouch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
I live in Houston. You are right, it is huge. The Greater Houston Metro Area is in excess of 5 million people. Houston is the 4th largest city in the US, and is a huge sprawl. In terms of area, it is at least as large as Los Angeles, but unlike LA, there is still lots of room left here for the city to expand outward even farther before it would need to expand upward.

But -- shshshsh, don't tell anybody. For some strange reason, Houston seems to stay off the national radar, and guess what? We like it that way. This place is big enough :)

265 posted on 11/04/2004 4:58:53 PM PST by Cooltouch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

Houston is a sprawled out city. It is covers 620 square miles of land. Twice the size of New York. Inside the loop is urban. Outside the loop is more suburban. The further away from the loop, more suburban. The loop leans Democratic. Outside the loop leans Republican.


266 posted on 11/04/2004 5:05:01 PM PST by Ptarmigan (Proud rabbit hater and killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Cooltouch
I should have added to the above, because this is relevant -- after viewing the vote breakdown by county here in the US, I realized that Houston was the largest metro area that voted for Bush. As to why that is, I think it is because of the city's sprawl and all the large outlying communities. Houston has a freeway loop (called, appropriately enough, Loop 610) not unlike the Washington beltway. Inside the loop, a different sort of political creature exists than outside the loop. Inside the loop is the older urban area of the city and this area is overwhelmingly democrat. Hey, Queen Shiela [Jackson Lee] is a permanent fixture here. But a tremendous amount of growth has occurred outside the loop in the last 30 years or so, and most of this growth has been caused by folks wanting to get away from the "big city." And these folks tend to be conservative. That's why Houston went for Bush.
267 posted on 11/04/2004 5:06:48 PM PST by Cooltouch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: All
I have lived in the city most of my life. San Antonio and Austin Texas. Still Voted Straight Republican. Now live outside the city limits. It's nice to be around some Conservatives.
268 posted on 11/04/2004 5:16:01 PM PST by texas country (Michelle Malkin,Ann Coulter,Laura Ingraham-Strong Women that Rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
I believe that part of it is, government jobs. In other words bureaucracy's breed bigger government they then feed on each other, more departments, more agencies, more committies, more boards, etc. I have been to numerous county, city and board meetings. The majority of the attendees are governmentally employed, few if any citizens.
Job security at the public trough.
269 posted on 11/04/2004 8:21:34 PM PST by Jonathan E
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cooltouch

Very nice reply - Your first paragraph is a unique explanation no one has mentioned. Very interesting and provacative. Thanks for you insight.


270 posted on 11/04/2004 9:58:01 PM PST by M. Peach (eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

The other way around really. Houston's size comes primarily from the city itself, not the outlying areas. Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States, and the largest city in Texas. However, what most people don't know is that the Houston GMA is smaller than the Dallas/Fort Worth GMA. 7 of the 10 largest cities in Texas are part of the DFW metroplex.


271 posted on 11/05/2004 12:09:17 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Cooltouch
Usually doesn't work until a whole bunch of other city dwellers move out into the sticks to join them, bringing all their wacked out city values and liberalism with them.

I'll bite, what whacked out city values would those be? I lived in rural East Texas for 10 years. We lived in a town of 882, that was 50 miles from a city of over 10,000 and 90 miles from a city of over 100,000. Going to the doctor was an all day event.

I hated every moment we spent there, and only stayed because my father-in-law's health was poor and my wife wanted to be near him. It was a joyous day when we packed up the kids and moved back to a real city.

That stuff about small towns being friendly? Ha! The people in Dallas are 10x more friendly, and not nearly as cliquish.

The differences with the locals in tiny town wasn't along political lines, although I'm a Republican, and there were no Republicans in county office. The real differences were about recreation. If you don't hunt, fish, or live for Friday night football games, you might as well have leprosy.

Worse, if you prefered books to Stalone movies and Harley Davidsons to 4 wheelers, you were a suspected communist.

272 posted on 11/05/2004 12:25:00 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: bullseye876

That doesn't sound like a very small town to me. My oldest daughter graduated from a rural HS, and her graduating class wasn't 105, it wasn't even 15, it was 12. Then again, we were probably close to 200 miles from a city that had a sports team, not 30. We were close to 90-100 from a city of 100,000. You don't know how many things you can only do in a city of that size, until you don't live in one.


273 posted on 11/05/2004 12:28:15 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: sasafras
The problem with this, is that it's false. Welfare roles are higher in rural areas than urban ones. That seems to be a dirty little secret that no one want to hear.

Of the $1.1 trillion in Federal, State, and local government transfers to individuals in 2001, $214 billion went to nonmetro residents and $897 billion went to metro residents. On a per capita basis, nonmetro residents got more transfers than metro residents, $4,375 vs. $3,798. With per capital income of $22,391 in nonmetro areas and $32,077 in metro areas, government transfers account for 20 percent of nonmetro and 12 percent of metro income.

Anectdotally, it holds up as well. In HS, a large number of my daughter's friends in tiny town (pop 882) seemed to wind up pregnant and on welfare, and truth to tell, there was only crowd in that HS because it was too small to split into cliques. Must have done something right. Daughter is now 26, married to a police officer, and is pregnant with her 1st.

274 posted on 11/05/2004 12:39:02 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
Wrong, the welfare rolls are higher in rural areas than metro areas. Didn't see that coming, did you?

Of the $1.1 trillion in Federal, State, and local government transfers to individuals in 2001, $214 billion went to nonmetro residents and $897 billion went to metro residents. On a per capita basis, nonmetro residents got more transfers than metro residents, $4,375 vs. $3,798. With per capital income of $22,391 in nonmetro areas and $32,077 in metro areas, government transfers account for 20 percent of nonmetro and 12 percent of metro income.

275 posted on 11/05/2004 12:41:36 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

Wrong, welfare rolls are higher in rural areas than urban ones.


276 posted on 11/05/2004 12:43:11 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Hurricane Bruiser

Nope, rural residents are more likely to be on welfare than their urban counterparts. Government transfers account for 20 percent of nonmetro and 12 percent of metro income. The ugly truth is that rural areas are more dependant on government than metro areas. Add things like farm subsidies into the mix and it gets even uglier.


277 posted on 11/05/2004 12:46:12 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach

One significant factor is that cities are largely controlled by old time corrupt Dem machines combined with the economic failure of said machine. Cities that have had Republican administrations fare better economically. So, the residents are kept in dependancy (some would say slavery).


278 posted on 11/05/2004 12:47:48 AM PST by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach

More union workers. Higher concentration of poor living on the dole...


279 posted on 11/05/2004 12:52:41 AM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
Just an observation. In rural areas, people can't get away with lying so easily. It does not take long for the dishonest to build a reputation. It makes it easier to identify the vocal stress in a liar's voice when you are used to hearing people tell you the truth.

In cities, people use the anonymity of numbers to screw people in business, and (for some) lying is a way of life. Not much to compare to.

In rural areas, the basics are never taken for granted, and are commonly self-provided, (well water, septic system, garden, dig out your own road when it snows, have a generator if the power goes out, etc.). This makes for an ability to identify critical issues immediately, and let the rest slide until critical items are taken care of. Common sense must prevail, in some areas your life depends on it.

Urban folks tend to have a different set of priorities and ideas about what is necessary.

These seminal differences make for a different set of priorities.

Also, when, at times, it is you and God who get your butt out of the snowdrift at 30 below, you feel a little closer to the Creator, and tend to listen a trifle better to His standards.

Not so amidst the towers of babble.

280 posted on 11/05/2004 12:53:42 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (I'm from North Dakota and I'm all FOR Global Warming! Bring it ON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel

There were some counting issues with a couple of precincts.


281 posted on 11/05/2004 1:11:55 AM PST by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: El Gran Salseron

Its not that cities have minorities, its that minorities are easier to keep dependant on corrup gov't, which is tied to union thuggism and mafia ties. In other words, escape is discouraged.


282 posted on 11/05/2004 1:14:28 AM PST by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus

Yes! You've nailed it.


283 posted on 11/05/2004 1:16:39 AM PST by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Melas; Go Gordon
$214 billion went to nonmetro residents and $897 billion went to metro residents.

Thank you for proving the point, which is that MORE money goes to metro areas. By your post it is 400% MORE money.

Furthermore, there also seem to be FEWER welfare recipients in nonmetro areas. Thank you for illustrating my point doubly.

Didn't see that truck headed for you did you?

284 posted on 11/05/2004 5:15:31 AM PST by N. Theknow ("We will take your money and use it for the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

Comment #285 Removed by Moderator

To: M. Peach

Bump


286 posted on 11/05/2004 5:17:03 AM PST by Incorrigible (immanentizing the eschaton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach

Honestly?

There are a few reasons:

1) Urban centers have high concentrations of folks who honestly cannot take care of themselves... the social programs of the 60s have created a dependency class of citizens... and these folks, robbed of their potential by government handouts congregate in urban centers. A group of people who are so messed up that they cannot even take care of themselves will vote for the candidate that promises more STUFF for them nearly every time.

2) Urban areas are also areas that tend to have universities and colleges.. where larger percentages of young folk are indoctrinated into the libral mindset, and folks who largely have spent their lives in this artificial world of academenia continue to hold strong to the socialist and communist principals of their youth.

3) Urban liberals also tend to congregate folks who work in "social services" these holier than thow types who decide their lifes mission is to safe the poor through government action etc etc etc... its BIG business in urban areas.

4) Urban areas also attract those that desire to be in government, or mooch off of or influence government programs. Larger Cities = More Government Money = More Programs and more available to suckle off of.

Most of these groups do NOT exist outside the urban cores... so they have sort of an artificial over representation in these areas, because they flock together here. This allows them to create their own realities, or believe that their limited exposure to the world is a representative sample of the world.


287 posted on 11/05/2004 5:29:31 AM PST by HamiltonJay ("You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
I'm sorry you seem to have totally missed my point.

Posters 265 and 266 got it. What can I say?

288 posted on 11/05/2004 5:49:52 AM PST by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

You were absent the day they taught words like per capita weren't you? Read it again. There are fewer people per capita eating up welfare dollars in metro areas. Rural areas get MORE THAN THEIR SHARE of welfare moeny. 20:12 ratio if you look.


289 posted on 11/05/2004 1:01:31 PM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach

Those who receive stolen money and those who it is stolen from.


290 posted on 11/05/2004 1:02:32 PM PST by Protagoras (.Abolishing government schools is the first step in stopping the madness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

And you were obviously absent when simple math was taught.


291 posted on 11/05/2004 1:07:20 PM PST by N. Theknow (DU, Michael Moore, Hollywood, etc. are all dogcrap on the Shoe Of Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
To advance the cause of freedom, we need to better understand the needs of sardine-packed urbanites, address their needs - and convince them that the rest of us indeed need to be left the he11 alone.

Precisely. We need nothing less than to reorganize the US federal system so that areas with lower population densities are guaranteed true freedom, while high density urban areas are given the sovereignty needed to deal with their unique challenges.

I think states may be passe in a 21st century federal system.

292 posted on 11/06/2004 6:18:04 AM PST by IStillBelieve (G.W. Bush '04: Biggest popular vote victory in history!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach

For the same reasons that Europeans are duped by the socialists. Those in densely populated areas develop a culture of scarcity. Most Americans (outside of the big cities) have grown up in a culture of abundance. We appreciate the gifts that this country has bestowed upon us and are willing to say so.

Thank God for this blessed plot of land we call home.


293 posted on 11/06/2004 6:22:39 AM PST by joeystoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-293 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson