the cities know they can NOT live without rural areas, they also know the rural areas CAN live without the cities...
Posted on 12/01/2012 9:14:27 PM PST by Seizethecarp
The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either -- virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it's about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy -- or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants.
The only major cities that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election were Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City. With its dominant Mormon population, Mitt Romney was a lock in the Utah capital; Phoenix nearly voted for Obama. After that, the largest urban centers to tilt Republican included Wichita, Lincoln, Neb., and Boise.
The gap is so stark that some of America's bluest cities are located in its reddest states. Every one of Texas' major cities -- Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio -- voted Democratic in 2012, the second consecutive presidential election in which they've done so. Other red-state cities that tipped blue include Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Birmingham, Tucson, Little Rock, and Charleston, S.C. -- ironically, the site of the first battle of the Civil War. In states like Nevada, the only blue districts are often also the only cities, like Reno and Las Vegas.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
If I remember my history, didn’t Ben Franklin want three presidents of the US at the same time to represent the different groups, Rural, merchant and big city?
There are a lot of studies on this. Factors that play into this include the ability to micro target these areas with marketing, especially unorthodox methods. Large populations in close proximity lead to more ‘group think’- it is natural in large groups to go with the flow. Think of large schools of fish. The suburbs are moving further and further out of the main city and into surrounding cities (Think Chandler for Phoenix or Garland for Dallas). There is also the exposure to more services liberals push so it becomes second nature to accept its existence. Public transportation is a good example. You are dependent on government services to get around. Government can control your movements simply by accessibility of these services.
Rural and smaller towns are just the opposite. You are more independent, free to move, and less likely to formulate your opinions based on what your neighbors think. If you want to do something as simple as go across town, you are not dependent on government services and timetables to make this happen. The smaller towns you are in, the more generic political messages become due to the cost/return factor.
A more interesting graph would be to show each of these blue cities as related to their fiscal stability, without federal or state subsidies added in.
Under that criteria, I would bet these bastions of liberal blue would in fact look like black holes, consuming the productivity of the surrounding pinkish suburbs and red of the rural areas.
Polarized America File.
I think 75 or 100 years ago the country was just as divided between rural and city as today. The difference is the 24/7 news cycle and the fact that there is just not that much to talk, pontificate about...so they turn debate into entertainment
With the 24/7 news far to many have bought into the notion that this county is homogeneous and we just need to get along. In my view nothing can be further from the truth, as long as we are Americans we will muddle through. Most folks are not the loons of the left or right but in our system we need both. They define and set the parameters of the debate which is how we have always done it...
the cities know they can NOT live without rural areas, they also know the rural areas CAN live without the cities...
How many of these blue cities have large dhimmiecrap political machines (ergo voter fraud) and substantial populations of owebama’s people? Most of them.
Electoral votes need to be awarded proportionately or the Red country areas are going to continue to get screwed by the blue cities.
When I was in college I learned of an experiment that consisted of two groups of rats. One group was placed in a large area where each one had lots of space. They acted like normal rats. The second group was placed into a small space and were crowded tightly together. They developed violent, aggressive behavior and were not very happy rats. Country life/city life.
Leftists consider big dense cities to be more “substainable” than the rural areas.
They are that stupid.
You’re definitely on to something with the population density. I’ve long been of the opinion that too great a population density leads to a mild form mass psychosis. Most folks who live in the city just can’t see it, though.
You’re definitely on to something with the population density. I’ve long been of the opinion that too great a population density leads to a mild form mass psychosis. Most folks who live in the city just can’t see it, though.
Have no fear about any split. Agenda 21 will fix it from happening.
You omitted the reason why the experiment eventually ended. The "city rats" became homosexual and died out.
He called it Bos-Was. Meaning an almost singular bloc from Boston to DC.
Turns out he was right.
Yeah, this is indeed nothing new.
Every county-by-county post-election map I've ever seen vividly displays tiny blue concentrated Democrat parasite nests ("cities") and huge land masses of red everywhere else.
You’re absolutely right. I’d forgotten about that. Been living in the country too long I guess...
Other factors would include the prevalence of academics within the cities and that it is easier and cheaper for Democratic candidates to reach voters in cities than it would be for Republicans to reach voters in rural areas.
Technology such as the net and social networks should be able to bridge the gap for Republicans, but the GOP seems to be far behind the Democrats in utilizing those technologies.
Social services and needy. Chicken and egg argument.
It’s not really a divide when 79.219% of the population lives in urban areas. Just sayin’.
I don’t know how much I agree with that. My experience has been the complete opposite. I lived in a very rural East Texas town for a decade...worst ten years of my life. Conformity and uniformity ruled the day in East Texas. Everyone dressed alike, thought alike, spoke alike, etc. Now in DFW, there is much more diversity of every kind.
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.