Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America
- Thread starter eastcane
- Start date
There is some truth and some false statements in this article. The most obvious is that the country is not all cities over 100,000 or rural.
Take Tulsa. Broken Arrow, Jenks, Bixby, Owasso and smaller suburbs are far from being rural. But don't stop at Tulsa. Visit Overland Park, Kansas or Downers Grove, Illinois a western suburb of Chicago with a Republican congressman.
A person taken blindfolded to 71st and Memorial couldn't tell you what state they were in without looking at the license plates on the cars.
Take Tulsa. Broken Arrow, Jenks, Bixby, Owasso and smaller suburbs are far from being rural. But don't stop at Tulsa. Visit Overland Park, Kansas or Downers Grove, Illinois a western suburb of Chicago with a Republican congressman.
A person taken blindfolded to 71st and Memorial couldn't tell you what state they were in without looking at the license plates on the cars.
I think the article is referencing presidential elections vs congress. And I assume true city limits, not MSAs.
So in your Tulsa example, Tulsa proper went D. Bixby, Jenks, Owasso, etc went R. Houston proper is extremely liberal, but Katy, Woodlands, Sugarland, etc will no doubt go R. OKC is probably one of the outliers bc of its ginormous boundary.
For purposes of this discussion, I'd lump suburbia in with rural. Regardless of population. (Density is probably a more useful stat than simple population here.) And I think it's a pretty accurate divide that population centers will go D and suburbs/rural will go R in November.
So in your Tulsa example, Tulsa proper went D. Bixby, Jenks, Owasso, etc went R. Houston proper is extremely liberal, but Katy, Woodlands, Sugarland, etc will no doubt go R. OKC is probably one of the outliers bc of its ginormous boundary.
For purposes of this discussion, I'd lump suburbia in with rural. Regardless of population. (Density is probably a more useful stat than simple population here.) And I think it's a pretty accurate divide that population centers will go D and suburbs/rural will go R in November.
You are, of course, correct. But in a way it also makes my point. The article is from the Atlantic and if you look at their maps the Northern Atlantic Coast is what they call a mega-region. In that area the suburbs while not as liberal as the inner city are still more liberal than suburbs in our area. Even in our areas suburbs and main city blend together. An outsider has little way to tell whether he is still in Tulsa or now in BA. If they weren't confused enough throw in Union School District which is in both.
The real differences are in demographics in addition to population density.
Mass transit also helps differentiate the areas from each other.
The city proper goes Democrat most of the time because it is the most dependent upon government services.... Their only connection to the land is the small patch of ground that the govt maintains called a "park" ..
Not like these farmers who sustain themselves without government subsidy or leasing land from the BLM to run their livestock on. They have a real connection to the land!
Then they marry, have kids, move to the burbs and become republicans.
That actually might have been true if the Dems hadn't nominated an integrity challenged foreign to the truth challenger. Those new suburbanites may not vote Trump but they also won't be swayed to the democratic side by someone who is intellectually dishonest. What a mess the two parties have made of our country.
The two candidates are not comparable really,. Hillary looks like a beacon of hope compared to her opponent, that's how far in the gutter the GOP presidential nominee has taken his campaign in these early stages, showing the country that he is a two-bit racist. And it's not easy to make Hillary look like a beacon of hope, I'll say that.
Come November the Republicans will get exactly what they deserve....Hillary as President elect and a decent chance of losing the House and Senate. I laugh daily at my Trump friends who believe he has a chance. Unfortunately, the American people end up the losers having to spend the next four years being governed by a President who only knows deceit and corruption. Most learn that once they get into office 
.
.Poke, I look at her as an extension of Obama, largely, she has laid out a fairly specific domestic agenda, it's been driven left by Sanders, but largely it has changed only marginally, on the minimum wage and trade. I watched Trump's speech back east tonight, first time I've seen him scripted and talking from a teleprompter, he sounded canned, but it was an improvement from the wild say anything you will style that he has employed thus far. If Trump could moderate and become disciplined, he would have a shot to win, but continued attacks on ethnic and religious groups will be a sure loser, he needs a percentage of those voters to be able to compete.
Trump is a lose canon seemingly incapable of any type of extended reasoned thought. His first instinct is to speak off the cuff like he's talking to his boys over beers at the local tavern. Granted...Hillary's first instinct appears to be to say whatever she thinks might get her out of a situation (true or not) when put on the spot. Neither trait is one you would want in a President. However, given the choice, Hillary represent the greater economic stability imo which is important to my livelihood. The reaction of the bond market to a Trump presidency frankly scares the hell out of me.
I wasn't what I would call (anti-Obama) until the ACA fiasco. I've been pretty vocal about the lies involved and what's it's done to small businesses and its employees. He's a little left on me on some social issues (boys in my daughters school restroom) but for the most part we're in the same area code. He needs to be more small business and worker friendly. Trade agreements need to be trashed and the tax code simplified. We need to focus on ending the welfare cycle, job training, drug sentencing, and changing inner city culture. Sorry to ramble.
I wasn't what I would call (anti-Obama) until the ACA fiasco. I've been pretty vocal about the lies involved and what's it's done to small businesses and its employees. He's a little left on me on some social issues (boys in my daughters school restroom) but for the most part we're in the same area code. He needs to be more small business and worker friendly. Trade agreements need to be trashed and the tax code simplified. We need to focus on ending the welfare cycle, job training, drug sentencing, and changing inner city culture. Sorry to ramble.
Yes....we need to rethink our sentencing guidelines for possession of drugs like marijuana. There's a problem imo when a person gets a stiffer sentence for possession than they receive for violent crimes.
This is really my bottom line too. I don't think my life changes too drastically under a President Clinton.
Compared to your party's presidential nominee, beacon of hope seems about right. Not real worried about Bernie's supporters, they won't throw in with the bigot in the end, many will go Libertarian or Green Party, shouldn't matter in the end. Trump is going to seriously mess up the Republican brand by the time the election is over.
Are you absolving Congress from of any responsibility for this? E.G., There are ACA changes that both sides know are needed but will not get addressed by Republicans intent on only repealing the ACA. Everyone agrees tax code changes are needed, but not what changes. The president can only propose, lobby, and veto. The rest is up to a hostile Congress. Immigration is another example.
It is at least a shared responsibility and the elements such as the Teaparty left little chance for constructive compromise.
Trump can't do some of the things he threatens, but as Commander in Chief, head of foreign policy, head of law enforcement, etc., his temperment, lack of knowledge and judgement, and disregard for the Constitution would all be outside congressional control. His relationship to the truth is worse that your characterization of HRC's. How Ryan and the Republicans can get behind that is beyond me.
Last edited:
Why should that surprise anyone? You also assume all conservatives are racists...
Similar threads
