News Will Growing Up Bring an End to Isolation and Extremism in Rural America?

[setAI]

growing up is hard- especially for civilizations

americans isolated in rural areas [red states/counties] don't have to see other cultures/races and the poor face-to-face or learn about them from the media/internet [rural areas are still not very on-line]- they only see other mostly-white christians like them: they quickly become uninterested and fearful of other ideas/peoples and just support their own-


right now we are seeing the last backlash/revival- that last big push for power from those isolationist white christian ideologues- we all now know that the GOP smartly used this element to win yesterday by claiming to espouse this religiosity [at least on the issues of gays and abortion- but ignored the liberal religious values of fighting poverty/ war/ and the death penalty]- the same thing obtains in the arab cultures with radical Islam: a backlash against the accelerating globalization of Human Knowledge/Culture which forces open-mindedness and liberal social values-

it is like the difficult adolescent years when a child becomes an adult- our world is rapidly reaching a point where anyone anywhere will have equal access to ideas/views from anyone/anywhere else- and soon humankind will finally be able to have almost total control over our bodies/ our environment/ and our destiny- this of course will bring all those old fears and conflicts to a head- I think we are seeing that in the religious revival and somewhat on the other side in all the anti-GME/ anti-genetic/ anti-development ludditism found in some quarters of the environmental movement-

but these "growing pains" will end and the backlash will wain: since the population of cities [blue areas] is exponentiating along with minority populations while rural areas remain the same- and technology is bringing the world to rural areas via the internet in schools and homes- this isolation will rapidly and increasingly decrease over time- and thus extremist evangelical religiosity and segregationist conservative social values will also fade-

our problem is- will their numbers wain before they have a chance to destroy/cripple civilization through nuclear cruscade againt the jihad? hopefully- but in any event they will leave a big mess- and a lot of dead brown people and poor people

 

[Townsend]

americans isolated in rural areas [red states/counties] don't have to see other cultures/races and the poor face-to-face or learn about them from the media/internet [rural areas are still not very on-line]- they only see other mostly-white christians like them: they quickly become uninterested and fearful of other ideas/peoples and just support their own-


right now we are seeing the last backlash/revival- that last big push for power from those isolationist white christian ideologues- same thing in the arab cultures with radical Islam- a backlash against the accelerating globalization of Human Knowledge/Culture which forces open-mindedness and liberal social values-

it is like the difficult adolescent years when a child becomes an adult- our world is rapidly reaching a point where anyone anywhere will have equal access to ideas/views from anyone/anywhere else- and soon humankind will finally be able to have almost total control over our bodies/ our environment/ and our destiny- this of course will bring all those old fears and conflicts to a head- I think we are seeing that in the religious revival and somewhat on the other side in all the anti-GME/ anti-genetic/ anti-development ludditism found in some quarters of the environmental movement-

but these "growing pains" will end and the backlash will wain: since the population of cities is exponentiating along with minority populations while rural areas remain the same- and technology is bringing the world to rural areas via the internet in schools and homes- this isolation will rapidly and increasingly decrease over time- and thus extremist evangelical religiosity and segregationist conservative social values will also fade-

our problem is- will their numbers wain before they have a chance to destroy/cripple civilization through nuclear cruscade againt the jihad? hopefully- but in any event they will leave a big mess- and a lot of dead brown people and poor people

You need to stop trying to make excuses as to why the people voted for Bush. People voted based on the simple idea of rational self-interest. When the democrats put up a candidate that that is more in line with the interest of rural states then he will be voted for by those states.

I am from the rural state of South Dakota where our entire population is hardly even big enough to be called a city. I was also in the US Navy for 8.5 years stationed at NAS Lemoore California. I have been around the world twice and I still have friends in other countries. I can tell you that people here do not care about which political party the candidate is from but we do care about how well that candidate will represent us and our unique social values. Before you criticize the people of the Midwest you need to spend some time here. Life in low population areas is very different from big city life and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Now as for your speculations about it being about white Anglo-Saxon Protestant people fearing this, "accelerating globalization of Human Knowledge/Culture which forces open-mindedness and liberal social values" then please please explain why so much of California voted for GWB? California is a very homogenous state as in the state is very well mixed culturally. My take is that the areas that voted for GWB simply found that he was in their best interest and like wise for major cities in california that voted for Kerry. Then there is Florida, a lot of gay people live in Florida and people there are very open minded and socially liberal but Florida still went for GWB.

Your silly argument is not consistent with how people voted! What is consistent is idea of rational self-interest. Now if you do not believe in the people of a state voting for what they believe best serves them then I would say you are a socialist. Socialism and capitalism are what I call a heterogeneous mixture.

Listen, what is in the best interest of the average Midwestern states does not have to coincide with what you believe in or what best serves your interest but please at least respect these peoples right to have their own opinions without trying to make them out to be something their not.

Oh yeah and one last thing, I think a lot of the world dislike the US because we do act based on rational SELF-INTEREST. But that is exactly what I see a lot of world doing but for some reason a lot of the people of the world think that we should be doing things that are inline with was best serves them. Well you will just have to excuse us but no thank you.

Regards

 

[setAI]

You need to stop trying to make excuses as to why the people voted for Bush. People voted based on the simple idea of rational self-interest.

no they didn't- they voted on "moral issues"- Bush brought out the evangelicals- this is the news of the election- look at the data

When the democrats put up a candidate that that is more in line with the interest of rural states then he will be voted for by those states.

this is only true if population distibution stays the way it is- but it isn't- the cities are doubing every generation- rural areas stay the same- any red state with a city or two will rapidly go blue in the future- that is math- you cannot argue- unless the GOP learns to drop the old segregationist social policies and embraces liberal social justice issues

Before you criticize the people of the Midwest you need to spend some time here. Life in low population areas is very different from big city life and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

I was born and grew up in central Kansas and Missouri- I moslty lived in/near the country and never even saw a "big city" beyond KC/MO until I was in college- I didn't move to the west coast until I was 25- I left because as a non-white non-religious poor person I had no voice and no opertunity there- so I came to the city and flourished economically and culturally-

then please please explain why so much of California voted for GWB?California is a very homogenous state as in the state is very well mixed culturally.

Bush only won rural California counties with largely white/hispanic populations isolated from cosmopolitan multiculturalism

Your silly argument is not consistent with how people voted!

my argument is a direct analysis of the data- your statement is incorrect- examine the populations of kerry counties and Bush counties- this is all quite clear and frankly- the only thing the media is even talking about right now- so I assume you haven't been following the post-election media coverage?

What is consistent is idea of rational self-interest. Now if you do not believe in the people of a state voting for what they believe best serves them then I would say you are a socialist. Socialism and capitalism are what I call a heterogeneous mixture.

when you live in a world with many cultures and many views- and that world is globaly connected in its every function- then you must make policies that don't single out some and stifle others- you must embrace pragmatic policies which help the most-perhaps some feel this is a tenet of socialism [whatever that really is]- irrelevent- it is just self-evident rationality- "the Lone Wolf belongs to the Wilderness"

Listen, what is in the best interest of the average Midwestern states does not have to coincide with what you believe in or what best serves your interest but please at least respect these peoples right to have their own opinions without trying to make them out to be something their not.

we are not the ones trying to take away the rights of people we don't even associate with or see- the way that rural christian white america wants to supress the family rights of gays and the econmic/social rights of minorities- and we don't try to force our individual religious beliefs on our whole country-

Oh yeah and one last thing, I think a lot of the world dislike the US because we do act based on rational SELF-INTEREST. But that is exactly what I see a lot of world doing but for some reason a lot of the people of the world think that we should be doing things that are inline with was best serves them. Well you will just have to excuse us but no thank you.

what rural folk don't yet understand is that it is a global society and "self interest" only makes sense when talking about the whole- you cannot make the decision to drill a hole on your side of the boat and not be held accountable to the other passengers who will sink with you- you are REQUIRED to consider everyone when everyone's life and hopes are at stake-

 

[franznietzsche]

no they didn't- they voted on "moral issues"- Bush brought out the evangelicals- this is the news of the election- look at the data

Socialism is not in the economic interests of most Americans. Thats my reason. I'm an atheist, i'd still rather have BUsh than Kerry. I"m a poor college student, I'd still rather have bush than Kerry.

this is only true if population distibution stays the way it is- but it isn't- the cities are doubing every generation- rural areas stay the same- any red state with a city or two will rapidly go blue in the future- that is math- you cannot argue- unless the GOP learns to drop the old segregationist social policies and embraces liberal social justice issues

People in cities vote republican, did you know that? The states bush has won are growing faster than the states Kerry won, did you know that? Every republican voter i know lives in a city. None of them likes socialists. Maybe because they're all small business owners who prefer to earn their keep than to ahve it handed to them by the government?

I was born and grew up in central Kansas and Missouri- I moslty lived in/near the country and never even saw a "big city" beyond KC/MO until I was in college- I didn't move to the west coast until I was 25- I left because as a non-white non-religious poor person I had no voice and no opertunity there- so I came to the city and flourished economically and culturally-

Thats nice.

Bush only won rural California counties with largely white/hispanic populations isolated from cosmopolitan multiculturalism

BWAHAHA! Do you live in California? Are you familiar with local politics here? Let me break it down: Socialist North, Republican South. In southern california there are no significant rural areas, its all desert. Hispanics in california rarely vote republican.

Its so slanted that Democrats are known for appearing exclusively on spanish speaking news stations to avoid publicisizing their actions to the english speaking portion of the state, because those actions are almost always not in their interests. Bush won something like 25% of the hispanic vote nation wide. Claiming that he won on their votes is idiocy.

my argument is a direct analysis of the data- your statement is incorrect- examine the populations of kerry counties and Bush counties- this is all quite clear and frankly- the only thing the media is even talking about right now- so I assume you haven't been following the post-election media coverage?

Kerry won in counties that have lots of poor people, what is your point? Are you arguing against living in cities?

when you live in a world with many cultures and many views- and that world is globaly connected in its every function- then you must make policies that don't single out some and stifle others- you must embrace pragmatic policies which help the most-perhaps some feel this is a tenet of socialism [whatever that really is]- irrelevent- it is just self-evident rationality- "the Lone Wolf belongs to the Wilderness"

Socialism is not welcome in this country. Get that through your thick skull. We don't want the government to help us, we want to help ourselves. God forbid (the atheist one) that we should actually work for what we get. Just because you're too mediocre to excel doesn't mean those of us who deserve what we get should be dispossesed.

we are not the ones trying to take away the rights of people we don't even associate with or see- the way that rural christian white america wants to supress the family rights of gays and the econmic/social rights of minorities- and we don't try to force our individual religious beliefs on our whole country-

We're not the ones trying to steal the money of people who work for it. We're not the ones demandin that the government care for us rather than us caring for ourselves. We advocate hard work, dedication. If you can't keep up with that, then may natural selection claim you.

what rural folk don't yet understand is that it is a global society and "self interest" only makes sense when talking about the whole- you cannot make the decision to drill a hole on your side of the boat and not be held accountable to the other passengers who will sink with you- you are REQUIRED to consider everyone when everyone's life and hopes are at stake-

I like swimming, its something i can do. You should learn how to swim. Then maybe I'll care.

 

[member 5645]

SetAI - quit saying to look at the data when you aren't providing any.

 

[russ_watters]

SetAI, sorry, but you really don't understand why people like me (and there are a lot of people like me) voted for Bush. The fact that the democrats don't understand why Republicans vote the way they vote is the reason Kerry and his collegues in the senate lost, and if democrats don't figure it out, its going to keep happening. This has been discussed in other threads, so I'm not going to rehash it here.

Oh, and regarding your condescending referrals to the US as being in her "adolescence," the US is the oldest country in the world, meaning we've had our current government for longer than any other country. In fact, most countries (England is a notable exception) are far, far younger: Germany, China, Japan - these countries are barely 50 years old.

Adolescence? Pfft - come talk to me when your government has been in place for 200 years. Edit: ok, so you're an American...have some pride!

 

[setAI]

People in cities vote republican, did you know that?

yes the GOP/and Bush got/get about 30-40% at best- of urban voters- but dems/kerry enjoy 50-70% of the urban vote- even in southern cities

The states bush has won are growing faster than the states Kerry won, did you know that?

look at the data- this is good news for dems becasue 100% of that population growth in the red states is in CITIES- ALL of the growth in the red states is only in their BLUE urban counties- cities are the only areas grwoing in population anywhere in the country and the world

None of them likes socialists.

I don't like most socialist policies either- but socialized medicine- as Europe and Canada have shown- is so far the best healthcare method mankind has come up with- Europe's healthcare has been clearly superior [in terms of service/quality/technology] to america's for some time now- it just works better- and it doesn't make medical care mediocre becasue medicine is not driven by econmic competion- like all science it is driven by intellectual/ego competition and recognition

BWAHAHA! Do you live in California? Are you familiar with local politics here? Let me break it down: Socialist North, Republican South. In southern california there are no significant rural areas, its all desert. Hispanics in california rarely vote republican.

I have worked in the last 5 elections for CA state and local issues- I know the demographics quite well- I didn't go into detail but gave the overall flavor given the criterea discussed

Kerry won in counties that have lots of poor people, what is your point? Are you arguing against living in cities?

?- Kerry won in cities- the poverty distribution was even and not the factor- poor rural whites flocked to the christian Bush- poor blacks/minorities who live almost entirely in cites voted for kerry-

obviously I encourage people to live in cities becasue the bigger the cities get the more democratic votes they cast-even conservatives who live in cities- like Gulianni and Schwarzenegger- are forced to embrace liberal social values such as LGBT rights and minority issues-

Socialism is not welcome in this country. Get that through your thick skull. We don't want the government to help us, we want to help ourselves. God forbid (the atheist one) that we should actually work for what we get. Just because you're too mediocre to excel doesn't mean those of us who deserve what we get should be dispossesed.

Socialized medicine and poverty programs are mostly smart becasue they are axiomatic- but socialism itself is dead and gone-

socaialized medicine will always be pushed- becasue IT IS A HUMAN RIGHT to have equal access to the best healthcare available- this right is beginning to be framed and enforced by the world as a whole- in the future I expect that membership in world bodies will require universal healthcare for it's member states as a requirement to be recognized-

this idea of no governement help- let the weak fend for themselves- is unfortuantely the antithesis of a FOUNDATIONAL human ethical principle: ALL PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OTHER-

a weak/lazy/ill/homeless percon cannot morally be allowed to continue his path of despair- just becasue someone for WHATEVER reason isn't working or have enough resources does not give you the right to say "let them rot- every man for himself"- as a condition of being civilized people- we are at least required to provide food/ADEQUATE HOUSING/ and HEALTHCARE to everyone UNCONDITIONALLY- "socialism" emboddied some of this thought- but it does not hold the patent- becasue these ideas are basic axioms for a CIVIL SOCIETY- period

I like swimming, its something i can do. You should learn how to swim. Then maybe I'll care.

it is the MORAL RESPONSIBILITY of anyone that can swim to teach those who cannot- the Lone Wolf belongs to the Wilderness- The Lion protects

I am one of the biggest misanthropes I know- it still surprises me to find those who claim more love of man than I who say things like "let the weak be culled"- an enlightend predator says "let the weak be made stronger and beholden to those who allowed them to cultivate their strength"

 

[member 5645]

Socialized medicine and poverty programs are mostly smart becasue they are axiomatic- but socialism itself is dead and gone-

socaialized medicine will always be pushed- becasue IT IS A HUMAN RIGHT to have equal access to the best healthcare available-

God this makes me sick. As a future Health care professional, I will want to kill myself the day I lose the right to run a private practice the way I want, the best way I can for my patients.

Socialized medicine isn't the only alternative. It's the only alternative for those who:
1>Haven't researched the issue enough
2>Don't have a problem forcing OTHERS into government servitude, so long as they don't have to be forced into the same thing.

 

[tumor]

Adolescence? Pfft - come talk to me when your government has been in place for 200 years. Edit: ok, so you're an American...have some pride!

Slightly off the topic-if not for the French,Polish and other Europeans blood spilled in War of Independence you would be still subject of British Crown.

 

[setAI]

and if democrats don't figure it out, its going to keep happening

as I have pointed out- democrats don't have to figure it out- we just have to wait until the population distribution makes it moot- 1o years- 15 tops- and no GOP will be able to win unless they are a Mccain/Gulianni/Govenator/Powell and embrace social liberalism- there is no need to yield to fear-based ideologies from superstition- or to bend to what I consider the evil trickle-down Smithean economics which killed most of my family during the 80s

the economic arguments were NOT a factor in the BUsh win- without the evangelicals the economic conservatives would not have mattered- and neither would the mis-lead security people who didn't figure out that Bush is attacking the wrong enemy- [or primitively lumped all the arab 'brown people' as the same enemy]

the election can be summed up with "not enough youth- too many evangelicals" that was the WHOLE ballgame- the old and more rational debate about fiscal and policy issues was irrelavent this time-

 

[franznietzsche]

Slightly off the topic-if not for the French,Polish and other Europeans blood spilled in War of Independence you would be still subject of British Crown.

As large as the contribution of the french was they didn't lose many men. Their contribution was almost exclusively training, and naval. They blocked the Bristish retreat, but we won on the ground.(with training from them, yes). That said remember the french revolution a few years later? then napoleon? We are the oldest governmental system still functioning.


And polish? what?

 

[Zantra]

Why did people vote for Bush ? I've heard republican reasons and they are flimsy. A lot of it is over the war- unwillingness to admit that we made a mistake by going in. Another part is his promise of an economic revitalization plan- but his track record speaks for itsself. So what's left? why vote for Bush? I'm glad there are term limits. I just hope he doesn't manage to plunge the country into another great depression in the next 4 years

 

[wasteofo2]

Then there is Florida, a lot of gay people live in Florida and people there are very open minded and socially liberal but Florida still went for GWB.

Umm...

You obviously haven't been to a lot of places in florida. Florida, while it does have it's gays and blacks in urban areas, has TONS AND TONS of steryotypical idiot, racist, gun-toting, white trash southerners.

That being said, Florida was still very close, the dumb hicks barely beat out the minorities.

 

[Townsend]

Umm...

You obviously haven't been to a lot of places in florida. Florida, while it does have it's gays and blacks in urban areas, has TONS AND TONS of steryotypical idiot, racist, gun-toting, white trash southerners.

You got me, I have never been to Florida and I just assumed the Floridian populaiton was a little more homogenous than that.

 

[wasteofo2]

You got me, I have never been to Florida and I just assumed the Floridian populaiton was a little more homogenous than that.

I think it's pretty fair to assume that no state's population is really Homogenous. Even a place as small as New Hampshire was really really close. New York is solidly Democrat, but it's really only because of the massive population of NYC. Nearly every other place I've ever been to in New York was like North Carolina with snow in the winter. But, those places have a very low concentration of people, so NYC controls how the state votes.

 

[Gokul43201]

People in cities vote republican, did you know that?

Yes, some people in cities vote republican...most vote Democratic.

Here's county-wise voting numbers for the 50 Largest Cities :

Albuquerque, N.M. (Bush 48, Kerry 51)

Atlanta, Ga. (Bush 33, Kerry 67)

Austin, Tex. (Bush 42, Kerry 56)

*Baltimore, Md. (Bush 17, Kerry 82)

*Boston, Mass. (Bush 22, Kerry 78)

Charlotte, N.C. (Bush 48, Kerry 52)

Chicago, Ill. (Bush 29, Kerry 70)

Cleveland, Ohio (Bush 33, Kerry 67)

Colorado Springs, Colo. (Bush 67, Kerry 32)

Columbus, Ohio (Bush 46, Kerry 54)

Dallas, Tex. (Bush 50, Kerry 49)

*Denver, Colo. (Bush 29, Kerry 70)

Detroit, Mich. (Bush 30, Kerry 69)

El Paso, Tex. (Bush 43, Kerry 56)

Fort Worth, Tex. (Bush 62, Kerry 37)

Fresno, Calif. (Bush 58, Kerry 42)

*Honolulu, Hawaii (Bush 48, Kerry 51)

Houston, Tex. (Bush 55, Kerry 45)

Indianapolis, Ind. (Bush 49, Kerry 50)

Jacksonville, Fla. (Bush 58, Kerry 42)

Kansas City, Mo. (Bush 42, Kerry 58)

Las Vegas, Nev. (Bush 47, Kerry 52)

Long Beach, Calif. (Bush 48, Kerry 52)

*Los Angeles, Calif. (Bush 36, Kerry 63)

Memphis, Tenn. (Bush 42, Kerry 58)

Mesa, Ariz. (Bush 57, Kerry 42)

Miami, Fla. (Bush 46, Kerry 54)

*Milwaukee, Wis. (Bush 62, Kerry 37)

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. (Bush 38, Kerry 61)

Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. (Bush 45, Kerry 55)

New Orleans, La. (Bush 22, Kerry 77)

*New York, N.Y. (Bush 24, Kerry 75)

Oakland, Calif. (Bush 25, Kerry 74)

*Oklahoma City, Okla. (Bush 64, Kerry 36)

Omaha, Neb. (Bush 59, Kerry 40)

*Philadelphia, Pa. (Bush 19, Kerry 81)

Phoenix, Ariz. (Bush 57, Kerry 42)

Portland, Ore. (Bush 27, Kerry 72)

*Sacramento, Calif. (Bush 49, Kerry 50)

*St. Louis, Mo. (Bush 19, Kerry 81)

San Antonio, Tex. (Bush 55, Kerry 44)

*San Diego, Calif. (Bush 52, Kerry 47)

*San Francisco, Calif. (Bush 16, Kerry 83)

San Jose, Calif. (Bush 35, Kerry 64)

*Seattle, Wash. (Bush 34, Kerry 65)

Tucson, Ariz. (Bush 47, Kerry 52)

*Tulsa, Okla. (Bush 64, Kerry 36)

Virginia Beach, Va. (Bush 42, Kerry 58)

Washington, DC (Bush 09, Kerry 90)

Wichita, Kans. (Bush 62, Kerry 36)

(* indicates city numbers)

Source : AP/CNN

 

[BobG]

Wow, my town, Colorado Springs, number one in support for Bush. Of course, it's also home to Focus on the Family and a few other religous right organizations. I always said I spent most of my life thinking I was a conservative until I moved here and found out I'd really been a liberal all those years (maybe that's why I'm still a Husker fan - Omaha only ranked 7th in support for Bush).

SetAI has a point about the changing demographics of some of the red states. Colorado's a perfect example. Denver went 70% for Kerry and has the two Democratic districts in Colorado (out of 7). With the exception of Colorado Springs, the I-25 belt becomes more Democratic every year and even made Colorado less than a shoe-in for Bush this year.

 

[russ_watters]

Gokul, you know the reason for that, right?

 

[Gokul43201]

For what ? I guess not...tell me.

 

[russ_watters]

Slightly off the topic-if not for the French,Polish and other Europeans blood spilled in War of Independence you would be still subject of British Crown.

True, and off topic. What is that relevant to? It has nothing to do with my point.

 

[russ_watters]

For what ? I guess not...tell me.

The reason why people in cities vote Democratic...

 

[russ_watters]

I'll hit one of your points, setAI, most have the same problem:

look at the data- this is good news for dems becasue 100% of that population growth in the red states is in CITIES- ALL of the growth in the red states is only in their BLUE urban counties- cities are the only areas grwoing in population anywhere in the country and the world

I think phat mentioned it before (possibly in another thread), but this is an opinion masquerading as a fact. It is not a fact - in fact, it is absurd: most major cities in the US are actually decreasing in population. But hey - you posted the number (100%) - feel free to substantiate it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'll hit one of your points, setAI, most have the same problem: I think phat mentioned it before (possibly in another thread), but this is an opinion masquerading as a fact. It is not a fact - in fact, it is absurd: most major cities in the US are actually decreasing in population. But hey - you posted the number (100%) - feel free to substantiate it.

I think this is only partially true. There has, in fact, been a decrease in the population of many of the ten largest cities (over the last 20 years, but is steady over the last 5), but the migration is not into rural areas so much as it is into smaller urban areas. In general, metro areas are growing much faster than non-metro areas, especially in the last few years.

Annual population growth rates for nonmetro counties, metro counties, and the Nation, 1990-2000

1990-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 1999-00 00-01

Nonmetro 1.00 1.11 1.23 1.17 1.22 1.01 0.91 0.78 0.71 0.63 0.35
Metro 1.43 1.47 1.35 1.25 1.19 1.21 1.28 1.28 1.27 1.22 1.09
U.S. 1.35 1.40 1.33 1.23 1.20 1.17 1.21 1.18 1.15 1.11 0.95

Source: Calculated by ERS, using data from the Bureau of the Census.

 

[BobG]

I'll hit one of your points, setAI, most have the same problem: I think phat mentioned it before (possibly in another thread), but this is an opinion masquerading as a fact. It is not a fact - in fact, it is absurd: most major cities in the US are actually decreasing in population. But hey - you posted the number (100%) - feel free to substantiate it.

The real change is a migration from your older major cities to cities with more favorable tax laws and cheaper labor. The problem with the unions in the rust belt was looking at those factories and thinking "They won't be going anywhere for a while" and not realizing that even buildings wear out eventually.

The flip side for the cities that lure companies away from the rust belt is that they also lure the same environment the older cities have. Your Democratic labor doesn't just die off as soon as a factory closes down. They move on out to wherever the new jobs are.

 

[Gokul43201]

The reason why people in cities vote Democratic...

I would think there are several reasons, different conbinations of subsets applying to different demographics.

Immigrants are naturally attracted to cities, which promotes a multicultural experience. This makes people more understanding and tolerant of others different from themselves. Other minorities, like Black Americans, Jews and Gays feel more comfortable in this atmosphere.

People in large cities are more directly affected by pollution, which makes them a little environment conscious, while folks living in lush meadowlands won't see what the big deal is all about. People in cities are more dependent on the Government, to keep the roads and highways in good shape, to maintain law and order, to provide decent public education, etc. So, they are less mad to see their money go to the government.

There's a whole host of reasons, and I don't have the time now, but I sense you are looking for a one point response (and it's not "Chinese take-out"). So, perhaps the correct answer you want is, "unions" ?

 

[russ_watters]

The main reason is poverty, with immigration being a subset of that. I tend to doubt (though, honestly, I don't have any stats) that environmentalists come from cities. I always got the impression most are bored suburbanites. The other things you mention are probably true, but they pale in comparison to the quantity of poor (mostly black) voters in cities voting democrat.