Valid observation, but there's more to it than that.
As you correctly observed, whether a person lives in a city or rural area is an indicator of their basic philosophy of life. Rural folks, especially those who live on farms or acreages, are much more individualistic, preferring to make their own decisions and accepting the consequences.
Those who live in cities are more socially oriented, even to the point of letting the group make some of their decisions for them.
That's not to say there aren't exceptions of individualists in cities and vice-versa, but it does indicate a tendency. And especially when a person moves from one to the other it indicates a preference.
There are political considerations. City dwellers are much more supportive of the idea of the group taking care of them, as oppposed to ruralites who understand that away from the crowd they are much more responsible for their own needs.
This helps explain why urban areas are much more liberal than rural. This would not be as big a problem if urbanites were willing to live and let live, but as your post correctly indicates, they are also all to willing to force their preferences on ruralites.
Also relevant is the fact that in agricultural areas the land is a major asset, even to the point in some areas of being the driving force of the economy. This is also reflected in the percentage of taxes collected on property vs. income and sales, and agricultural vs. urban property.
The unfortunate consequence of this is that the urbanites are given much more power over the wealth of an area than their rural counterparts, relative to their contribution. While the value of the property of the average urbanite may be $200,000, for the farmer it may be $2,000,000. Thus, while they each get one vote, the urbanite may contribute only 1/10th to the economy that the ruralite does.
While this may be no different than the general disparity of the rich vs. the poor in a representative system, it presents a serious problem in a welfare state. As long as our government was respecting property rights and sticking to the protection of rights, there was not a major threat of significant redistribution.
But the historical rise of the poor urbanite politically has been concurrent with the abandonment of government as protector of rights and instead seeing its role as a provider of needs and wants. Whenever that happens the urban collectivist is going to be placed at odds with the rural individualist.
This election, fortunately, saw the individualist triumph. But the closeness indicates we may not be so blessed next time. That will depend on how willing we are to fight for our right to make our own decisions and not be forced to pay for the mistakes of those whose decisions are not so wise.
I agree.