What are the reasons...

[EatonFan]

... why a very densely populated area is heavily democratic while more rural areas of the country are heavily republican?

What gives? Why? Is there something about the "big city" that creates this phenomenon?

[Eleden]

... why a very densely populated area is heavily democratic while more rural areas of the country are heavily republican?

What gives? Why? Is there something about the "big city" that creates this phenomenon?

Very good question. That's something that's puzzled me for a while but I think it has something to do with the following:

1. Large concentrations of African Americans.

2. Rural areas tend to be more conservative because they don't need many of the large social programs that inner cities require. Conservative essentially equals Republican.

3. Democrats have long had their "machines" firmly planted in the big cities. This helps them register voters, get people to the polls, and make sure their opponents don't get the upper hand.

4. Rural areas have larger concentrations of devout Christians and constituents that have been Republican for ages. It also doesn't help that most Democrats have been painted as "big city liberals."

Some big cities however appear to lean Republican. Phoenix, Arizona is a prime example of this unnatural occurrence. ;)

[EatonFan]

Very good question. That's something that's puzzled me for a while but I think it has something to do with the following:

1. Large concentrations of African Americans.

2. Rural areas tend to be more conservative because they don't need many of the large social programs that inner cities require. Conservative essentially equals Republican.

3. Democrats have long had their "machines" firmly planted in the big cities. This helps them register voters, get people to the polls, and make sure their opponents don't get the upper hand.

4. Rural areas have larger concentrations of devout Christians and constituents that have been Republican for ages. It also doesn't help that most Democrats have been painted as "big city liberals."

Some big cities however appear to lean Republican. Phoenix, Arizona is a prime example of this unnatural occurrence. ;)

1) But why are there large populations of African Americans (Blacks) in the inner city? Is it reaching back to freeing of the slaves and they had no where else to go than jobs in the Big City vs. going back to the farms and plantations? Interesting.

2) Now there's an underlying question. Why do big cities "require" large social programs? In the country, many people help each other out and are much closer family-wise (just my observation... which is a very small sampling and could easily be in error). So, large city folks seem to view government as a support system perhaps?

3) Yes. The Dems have definitely campaigned in the inner cities and have portrayed themselves as the champions of the poor who work against "the man". It seems they are successful given the incredible disparity between rural and urban. I wonder why the Reps don't attempt to sway a good percentage of them which would make it much more easy
to win the elections... Hmmm.

4) See #2 regarding "family" closeness. There are many families in my small town that have been here for many generations. I think a lot of big city people tend to move much more often and have family quite some distances away. Then again, there have been big city people that have been union, Democrats for ages as well. The Reps may well have been painting that picture and may well have been shooting themselves in the foot in the long term. This country is bound to become more and more urban as the population grows... Hmmm... again!

Further questions: Does education in the inner cities have an impact? Gangs? Drugs? Marriage (44% of Blacks have NEVER been married!)? There also seems to be a different feel in inner city churches (Rev. Wright is not all that uncommon of a preacher so I have heard from several Blacks). It's all very interesting, but incredibly devisive in this country if we keep having this dichotomy.

[Eleden]

1) But why are there large populations of African Americans (Blacks) in the inner city? Is it reaching back to freeing of the slaves and they had no where else to go than jobs in the Big City vs. going back to the farms and plantations? Interesting.

2) Now there's an underlying question. Why do big cities "require" large social programs? In the country, many people help each other out and are much closer family-wise (just my observation... which is a very small sampling and could easily be in error). So, large city folks seem to view government as a support system perhaps?

3) Yes. The Dems have definitely campaigned in the inner cities and have portrayed themselves as the champions of the poor who work against "the man". It seems they are successful given the incredible disparity between rural and urban. I wonder why the Reps don't attempt to sway a good percentage of them which would make it much more easy
to win the elections... Hmmm.

4) See #2 regarding "family" closeness. There are many families in my small town that have been here for many generations. I think a lot of big city people tend to move much more often and have family quite some distances away. Then again, there have been big city people that have been union, Democrats for ages as well. The Reps may well have been painting that picture and may well have been shooting themselves in the foot in the long term. This country is bound to become more and more urban as the population grows... Hmmm... again!

Further questions: Does education in the inner cities have an impact? Gangs? Drugs? Marriage (44% of Blacks have NEVER been married!)? There also seems to be a different feel in inner city churches (Rev. Wright is not all that uncommon of a preacher so I have heard from several Blacks). It's all very interesting, but incredibly devisive in this country if we keep having this dichotomy.

1. I think that's probably why they're situated there. Their ancestors settled down in the major cities... and they never left.

2. I think I worded that incorrectly. I think residents of the larger cities tend to be far more poor and believe that large government programs are the only solution to their problems. While I support said programs... I think quitting drinking and actually getting a job might help a large amount of homeless people in New York, L.A., etc. Rural areas don't seem to have the same poverty issues that the big cities do so they tend to be more conservative. I think a major exception to this is W. Virginia, which explains why a large number of rural counties there vote Democrat.

3. I don't think the Republicans have the ability to swing voters in the urban areas or else they would've done it already. During the early 1900s the big cities actually tended to be either "swing" areas or slightly Democratic. This was because of some Progressive tendency by the Republican party... now that progressive image has disappeared. Unless a Republican emerges who likes big government and wants to increase social programs in the inner cities... they won't be getting that vote. This appears to be a major weakness among the GOP too. The Democrats have a far easier time courting rural voters than the Republicans do with urbanites.

4. I agree. The Republicans rural image may be working for them now but once the Democrats finally manage to court those block of voters (like Clinton did in the 90s) they'll be able to trounce the Republicans in the general. Polls are indicating that rural voters are beginning to shift Democratic and even though Obama is incredibly liberal... he might be able to court a large number of them. He's got little shot at southern rural voters... but the western ones (e.g. Idaho, Montana, and Nebraska) will probably give him a chance this year.

[Whatever]

Some other factors to consider are proximity of different economic levels. In the country,if you're poor,a lot of times you don't really consider yourself poor,because everybody around for miles is probably in the same demographic as you. In the city,it's not uncommon for the worst ghettos to be within a 10 minute drive of the upscale parts of town. That close proximity breeds hatred of the haves by the have-nots,who see them on a regular basis.

Another big factor is colleges and universities. You usually find them in large cities,and college students tend to be fairly liberal and/or anti-establishment. They also tend to get out and campaign heavily,getting to people on the fence.

Finally,immigrants tend to stick together in communities,and these communities are most often found in cities. Struggling immigrants are naturally going to support the entitlement programs the Democrats champion. The Dems sent out lawyers to gather them up in droves and drag them to the polls here in Columbus during the last presidential election. Seriously,the polls were stuffed with non-english speaking Somali's and Arabians being herded around by lawyers hired by the Democrats to grab these people and their votes. I truthfully don't even think those people even knew who or what they were voting for.

[tbone77]

... why a very densely populated area is heavily democratic while more rural areas of the country are heavily republican?

What gives? Why? Is there something about the "big city" that creates this phenomenon?

Religion, guns, racism

[EatonFan]

Religion, guns, racism

Religion? -- I assume you mean rural areas are part of the "Christian right" and are not typically part of the Democratic party.

Guns? -- I have no idea why this would make any kind of difference. There are guns in the inner city and in rural areas.

Racism? -- Again. I do not really see much of a connection. Are you saying that racism in rural areas causes minorities to "flock" to the bigger cities? Kind of a blanket statement.

[kevin28_1962]

Religion? -- I assume you mean rural areas are part of the "Christian right" and are not typically part of the Democratic party.

Guns? -- I have no idea why this would make any kind of difference. There are guns in the inner city and in rural areas.

Racism? -- Again. I do not really see much of a connection. Are you saying that racism in rural areas causes minorities to "flock" to the bigger cities? Kind of a blanket statement.

Sen Obama's statement at a San Francisco fund raising event;
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[EatonFan]

Some other factors to consider are proximity of different economic levels. In the country,if you're poor,a lot of times you don't really consider yourself poor,because everybody around for miles is probably in the same demographic as you. In the city,it's not uncommon for the worst ghettos to be within a 10 minute drive of the upscale parts of town. That close proximity breeds hatred of the haves by the have-nots,who see them on a regular basis.

BUT POOR IS POOR. WHY WOULD THE COUNTRY POOR LEAN REPUBLICAN? ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE "UPSCALE" PORTIONS OF SMALL TOWNS TOO. ESPECIALLY IN A SMALL TOWN, EVERYONE KNOWS WHO THE RICH PEOPLE ARE.

Another big factor is colleges and universities. You usually find them in large cities,and college students tend to be fairly liberal and/or anti-establishment. They also tend to get out and campaign heavily,getting to people on the fence.
I CAN SEE THIS. HOWEVER, MANY COLLEGE STUDENTS DON'T REGISTER TO VOTE AT THE COLLEGE, THEY REGISTER AT THEIR PARENTS AND GO BACK THERE TO VOTE. COLLEGE STUDENTS TEND TO BE IDEALISTIC IN THEIR VIEWS.

Finally,immigrants tend to stick together in communities,and these communities are most often found in cities. Struggling immigrants are naturally going to support the entitlement programs the Democrats champion. The Dems sent out lawyers to gather them up in droves and drag them to the polls here in Columbus during the last presidential election. Seriously,the polls were stuffed with non-english speaking Somali's and Arabians being herded around by lawyers hired by the Democrats to grab these people and their votes. I truthfully don't even think those people even knew who or what they were voting for.
I'M SURE THERE IS SIMILAR "GET OUT THE VOTE" INITIATIVES FOR REPUBLICANS. FOR INSTANCE, NURSING HOME RESIDENTS WHO ARE REGISTERED REPS. ARE OFTEN BUSSED TO THE POLLING BOOTHS.



Entitlements are definitely more important to Democratic voters, and I believe big city governments facilitate that mindset, whereas small town governments seem to have different focuses.

The Marriage success rate is also a huge factor IMO. Single parent homes (very very prevalent in bigger cities) often look for government programs for help. (This used to be the church's role, but now has become more and more the government's)

[EatonFan]

Sen Obama's statement at a San Francisco fund raising event;
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Well. The people are still there! Something has replaced those jobs. Question is: How does anyone get these jobs back once they leave? If you give breaks to the company, people wail about Corporate Welfare and cowtowing to the fat cats. If you give no breaks, you'll likely not lure any company to the area unless by pure happenstance.

I've heard this type of sentiment, but generally from a person that is a union member and already Democratic. The anti-immigrant part I have heard from poorer Republicans, as a general rule (but also from the union Dem almost as much).

Clinging to guns makes little sense to me as to why they would or would not be Dem/Rep. I guess gun control is more or less a Dem. support issue, but see no connection big city vs. country.

[xxlt]

Entitlements are definitely more important to Democratic voters, and I believe big city governments facilitate that mindset, whereas small town governments seem to have different focuses.

The Marriage success rate is also a huge factor IMO. Single parent homes (very very prevalent in bigger cities) often look for government programs for help. (This used to be the church's role, but now has become more and more the government's)

Republicans are fond of entitlement programs too, just a different sort.

Regarding guns, I am not sure where this started, (NRA ??? - I really don't know) but for years the "conventional wisdom" (in other words the load of horse crap with no basis in reality that everyone spouts anyway) is that "Democrats want to take away your guns" and "Republicans love your guns as much as they love you." Maybe it was one of Rove's infamous whisper campaigns that started this nonsense.

The suggestion of some posts above is that if you are poor, black, or educated you are more likely to live in the city and vote D. This is an interesting thread but that seems a bit too simplistic. It also seems to be simplistic to say if you live in Mayberry and not Mt. Pilot, love your neighbor, go to church on Sunday, and then shoot at rabbits from the back porch that you vote R. We are much more "purple" than "red or blue" and the issues much more complex, methinks. But, interesting thread.

[TheBengals]

... why a very densely populated area is heavily democratic while more rural areas of the country are heavily republican?

What gives? Why? Is there something about the "big city" that creates this phenomenon?

I think those who live in the big city are more interested in social issues than those in rural areas.

[EatonFan]

Republicans are fond of entitlement programs too, just a different sort.

Regarding guns, I am not sure where this started, (NRA ??? - I really don't know) but for years the "conventional wisdom" (in other words the load of horse crap with no basis in reality that everyone spouts anyway) is that "Democrats want to take away your guns" and "Republicans love your guns as much as they love you." Maybe it was one of Rove's infamous whisper campaigns that started this nonsense.

The suggestion of some posts above is that if you are poor, black, or educated you are more likely to live in the city and vote D. This is an interesting thread but that seems a bit too simplistic. It also seems to be simplistic to say if you live in Mayberry and not Mt. Pilot, love your neighbor, go to church on Sunday, and then shoot at rabbits from the back porch that you vote R. We are much more "purple" than "red or blue" and the issues much more complex, methinks. But, interesting thread.

Explain that sentence above.

As far as Democrats "wanting to take your guns" there is at least some basis for that in their proposal to "ban" certain types of guns like assault rifles. I don't agree with a ban on any gun, but I do agree with reasonable background checks and waiting periods. Those to me are common sense things.

Are people with less strict moral guidelines more apt to live in bigger cities? I agree there are many factors, but this phenomenon truly is puzzling in many aspects.

[EatonFan]

I think those who live in the big city are more interested in social issues than those in rural areas.

Why? Are there no social issues in rural cities? :hmm:

[TheBengals]

Why? Are there no social issues in rural cities? :hmm:

There are, but I think the isolation of rural areas kind of breads individualism and a lack of need for the Government.

[xxlt]

Explain that sentence above.



It is called corporate welfare. To be more precise, Republican leaders favor corporate welfare. Not all of their constituents do, just those who benefit directly from it. The majority probably don't know it exists or that if you added up all the "welfare" given to "lazy, undeserving, poor people" it would be dwarfed by the corporate welfare given to a handful of corporations. If you told the rest of the R constituency this they would either call you a traitor and kill you or they might start a revolution.

[philhos]

It is called corporate welfare. To be more precise, Republican leaders favor corporate welfare. Not all of their constituents do, just those who benefit directly from it. The majority probably don't know it exists or that if you added up all the "welfare" given to "lazy, undeserving, poor people" it would be dwarfed by the corporate welfare given to a handful of corporations. If you told the rest of the R constituency this they would either call you a traitor and kill you or they might start a revolution.

I would agree, but, whether you like it or not, corporations help to drive our economy. Poor people do not. Thus, there can be some rationalization for providing corporate welfare to corporations. However, just like with poor people on welfare, there are those who abuse the system.

[Shotgun-toting Chipmunk]

This brings up some interesting food for thought:

The Democratic Party seems to really advocate programs that give everybody an equal footing. For example, everybody getting health care (and some feel it should be mandatory), everybody getting access to college, etc. These programs of course require money, which would be paid for by all (taxes), esp. those who make more than others.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"


Marx also believed that Communism would gain its strength from the masses congregating in urban areas.

Urban areas are where the Democrats are traditionally strongest.

[Whatever]

It is called corporate welfare. To be more precise, Republican leaders favor corporate welfare. Not all of their constituents do, just those who benefit directly from it. The majority probably don't know it exists or that if you added up all the "welfare" given to "lazy, undeserving, poor people" it would be dwarfed by the corporate welfare given to a handful of corporations. If you told the rest of the R constituency this they would either call you a traitor and kill you or they might start a revolution.

Unfortunately,coorporate welfare is now a neccessary evil more than ever. Since the Clinton's passed NAFTA and WFTA,and coorporations can now build plants overseas,pay their workforce a fraction of what they would have to pay an American worker,then import the product back into the country with no tariffs,the only way you can make large manufacturing plants in the US make sense,economically,to a coorporation is through tax breaks/"coorporate welfare." And it isn't a secret to anybody. Nobody's going to pay an American worker $20/hour to do what someone else will do for $2/hour without incentives.

The Democrats are the biggest coorporate supporters out there. They've saved coorporations untold amounts of money on their labor costs by allowing US manufacturing to circumvent the labor unions. The Clintons gave them everything they ever could've wanted on a silver platter.

Now,ask yourself if it's just a coincidence that the party that champions entitlement programs forced through two trade acts that cost millions of blue collar workers their jobs...which everybody said would happen from jump street when they passed it. Do you think the Dems and the Clintons are that dumb? Do you honestly think that they didn't know our manufacturing jobs wouldn't stream out of the county the way they did? Of course they did. Now,those people that had good jobs,with healthcare benefits,are out of work. What have the last two Democrat presidential candidates based their platform around? Universal healthcare. Put one and one together. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the Democrats are doing. They cut the knees out from under the American middle class,then they offer to help them back up if they'll vote them into office. Change. We voted for change in the '90's,and all we got in return was our knees cut out from under us,in the long-term.

[tbone77]

Everyone gets entitlements or special protections, some are more secretive than others.

Airline bailouts, Mortgage bank bailouts...

big pharma's legalized monopoly of designer drugs...the only drugs that a doctor can prescribe to you.

automotive and oil industry gets military protection in the persian gulf, plus they have the EPA in their back pocket.

Big farmers in rural area get billions in subsidies (many of them get money to grow nothing) and cowboy starter kits (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2007/11/curtains_for_cowboy_starter_ki.html). And what about the 100% on ethanol from south of the border? Not to mention the billions we spend on the corn ethanol subsidy, pretty much a complete joke as we are beginning to see.

Multi-million and billion dollar government contracts...should we go there? I don't think we want to get started on Cheney's lucrative stock options with Halliburton or the Bush families' lucrative contracts. Anyone follow the price of Halliburton's stock or Northrup Gruman's stock or Lockheed Martin's stock since 2003? Nevermind.

The government is a cash cow. We can sit here and ostracize the sick and poor for their entitlements, but that's easy to do. The fact is that some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, including the ones that control the media receive entitlements. It would not do them any good to tell us all about it. You would have to find it and see it for yourself.

[Domata Dominance]

... why a very densely populated area is heavily democratic while more rural areas of the country are heavily republican?

What gives? Why? Is there something about the "big city" that creates this phenomenon?

It must be because of all the fumes in the air in the cities.

[Eleden]

It must be because of all the fumes in the air in the cities.

So are you implying that the voters of the heavily polluted city of Phoenix, a Republican leaning metropolis, are in fact brain dead?

That explains why they voted for George W. Bush and Bob Dole. :wacko:

[kevin28_1962]

So are you implying that the voters of the heavily polluted city of Phoenix, a Republican leaning metropolis, are in fact brain dead?

That explains why they voted for George W. Bush and Bob Dole.

I think it's because of all the senior citizens that chose to retire out there. Have you ever heard the old adage that with age comes wisdom? Perhaps thats why they are republican.

[Jumbro]

Everyone gets entitlements or special protections, some are more secretive than others.

Airline bailouts, Mortgage bank bailouts...

big pharma's legalized monopoly of designer drugs...the only drugs that a doctor can prescribe to you.

automotive and oil industry gets military protection in the persian gulf, plus they have the EPA in their back pocket.

Big farmers in rural area get billions in subsidies (many of them get money to grow nothing) and cowboy starter kits (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2007/11/curtains_for_cowboy_starter_ki.html). And what about the 100% on ethanol from south of the border? Not to mention the billions we spend on the corn ethanol subsidy, pretty much a complete joke as we are beginning to see.

Multi-million and billion dollar government contracts...should we go there? I don't think we want to get started on Cheney's lucrative stock options with Halliburton or the Bush families' lucrative contracts. Anyone follow the price of Halliburton's stock or Northrup Gruman's stock or Lockheed Martin's stock since 2003? Nevermind.

The government is a cash cow. We can sit here and ostracize the sick and poor for their entitlements, but that's easy to do. The fact is that some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, including the ones that control the media receive entitlements. It would not do them any good to tell us all about it. You would have to find it and see it for yourself.


All true......but everything you say is a direct result of 200+ years of politicians, not necessarily from Republicans or Democrats alone. It has been a joint effort to totally screw things up in DC.

[Jumbro]

Just to throw my .02 in:

I think some of it comes to education. Someone did mention that Universities are located in big cities, but how many of those students actually vote in that city? Most are from out of town/state/country and if they vote, they vote via their hometown. Also, while there are many highly educated workers in the cities, most of them (not so much in history or in the future maybe, but today) come from other towns to work. Looking at those who actually live within the city, I think you HAVE to look at education. These people are often uneducated, or poorly educated. They go through the school systems that cause everyone else to leave for the burbs. If they make it through grade school and high school they are not very likely to get into or through college. These people know better than anyone else the situation that they live in, the heartaches they endure, and battles they fight. But how many of them have the ability (physical, financial, mental capability) to research politicians? Not many at all (thank God for public libraries though, atleast providing a possibility to some). They get their "knowledge" from radio stations like the wiz, from their religious preachers/evangelists, from handouts on the street, and from other forms of media (many can't read). We all know that politicians say what their constituents want to hear, and many of these urban dwellers do not have the ability to find out if they are going to, or if they have, back up that message. With inner city folk, it happens to be that the democratic party is the one that tends to give them the most lip service....a candidate of their color or who has gone through their type of rough life (not that I think that should be a factor, but lets face it--race and sex, along with religion, are the sole reason for many votes).

[EatonFan]

Everyone gets entitlements or special protections, some are more secretive than others.

Airline bailouts, Mortgage bank bailouts...

big pharma's legalized monopoly of designer drugs...the only drugs that a doctor can prescribe to you.

automotive and oil industry gets military protection in the persian gulf, plus they have the EPA in their back pocket.

Big farmers in rural area get billions in subsidies (many of them get money to grow nothing) and cowboy starter kits (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2007/11/curtains_for_cowboy_starter_ki.html). And what about the 100% on ethanol from south of the border? Not to mention the billions we spend on the corn ethanol subsidy, pretty much a complete joke as we are beginning to see.

Multi-million and billion dollar government contracts...should we go there? I don't think we want to get started on Cheney's lucrative stock options with Halliburton or the Bush families' lucrative contracts. Anyone follow the price of Halliburton's stock or Northrup Gruman's stock or Lockheed Martin's stock since 2003? Nevermind.

The government is a cash cow. We can sit here and ostracize the sick and poor for their entitlements, but that's easy to do. The fact is that some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, including the ones that control the media receive entitlements. It would not do them any good to tell us all about it. You would have to find it and see it for yourself.

Refundable Tax credits for people making under $40,000 (roughly). Rampant fraud on claiming those credits. Housing crisis bailouts for people who should not have been allowed to buy in the first place and "stick" the banks with the loan and get out of paying any taxes on forgiven debt.

Point is: It's not just corporations who abuse the government.

[Domata Dominance]

So are you implying that the voters of the heavily polluted city of Phoenix, a Republican leaning metropolis, are in fact brain dead?

That explains why they voted for George W. Bush and Bob Dole. :wacko:

It was a joke. Relax. And you know full well that MOST metropolises (however you spell it) are liberal.