As several of you have noted the areas with the highest levels of poverty seem to continually vote Democrat. My question is why? They keep voting for the same party time after time and yet the situation in those areas for the most part never changes.

 

As Albert Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result the definition of insanity".

People who live in red areas hate black people, beat their wives, disdain education, work at hard labor, and spend their money on beer and cigs.

 

People who live in blue areas have to care for themselves and the people that live in the red areas, because they use their brains to work, are educated, believe in progresiveness, can access their feminine sides, and can choose wines just as good as Europenas.

As several of you have noted the areas with the highest levels of poverty seem to continually vote Democrat. My question is why? They keep voting for the same party time after time and yet the situation in those areas for the most part never changes.

 

As Albert Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result the definition of insanity".

 

Because Democrats are for bigger government, which means more handouts and entitlement programs. If they're in office those in poverty can get benefits, whereas Republicans essentially want less government involvement so their wouldn't be as many handouts and entitlement programs for them.

Look at Teton County, Wyoming. Been there and seen it first hand for myself.

This thread has all the makings of a very contentious discussion. However, since I see many theories based on (largely) unsupported premises that are unflattering to city dwellers, I will toss out an alternate.

 

In general, the U.S. urban population is significantly better educated than its rural population. Many on the far right never miss a chance to hammer America's primary and secondary education system with adjectives like "failing". Consider these facts: The percentage of the population with some college education is much higher in urban areas (54.2%) than it is in rural areas (40.6%). The U.S. urban population is also more productive, as measured by per capita income, ($38,579) compared with the rural population ($27,391). Finally, U.S. rural areas have higher poverty rates than U.S. urban areas (16.1%, compared to 12.7%).

 

So, noting that rural areas (at least recently) have tended to vote Republican, it must be because Republicans have tailored their message to resonate better with less educated, poorer, lower paid voters in rural areas.

What message would that be? Doesn't that go against that the Republicans are accused of being for the "rich man"? I guess this means they are truly the party of the oppressed?

What message would that be? Doesn't that go against that the Republicans are accused of being for the "rich man"? I guess this means they are truly the party of the oppressed?

 

 

The Republicans have been very successful drumming up support from rural voters on so-called values issues. But their policies have seldom deviated from favoring the very wealthy over the middle class and poor.

The Republicans have been very successful drumming up support from rural voters on so-called values issues. But their policies have seldom deviated from favoring the very wealthy over the middle class and poor.

 

Like that tax decrease that gave much more to the lower taxpayers than the rich? Or those vouchers to give people more school choice? How about the attempt at making social security more helpful down the line for younger taxpayers?

Like that tax decrease that gave much more to the lower taxpayers than the rich?

 

You mean the tax cut that reduced the taxes of the wealthiest Americans by far more (both on a percentage basis and on a dollar basis) than the middle class? Yeah, I was talking about that one. I can't imagine how anyone could spin that as being more beneficial for the middle class than for the super-wealthy.

 

 

Or those vouchers to give people more school choice?

 

You mean those vouchers that don't exist because the Republican-controlled White House and Congress didn't enact them from 2001-2006? Tell me again how that makes the GOP a friend of the middle class and poor?

 

 

 

How about the attempt at making social security more helpful down the line for younger taxpayers?

 

This is a proposal that I fully supported. Only problem was, after misleading the country about Iraq's (nonexistent) WMD's and the (nonexistent) imminent threat, the President didn't have the credibility needed to sell the idea.

This is guess on my part.

 

I think cities are more new school church, which cater to mixed groups with different backgrounds.

 

Rural areas are more old school church, which stick with more traditional lifestyle.

As several of you have noted the areas with the highest levels of poverty seem to continually vote Democrat. My question is why? They keep voting for the same party time after tiAs Albert Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result the definition of insanity".

 

me and yet the situation in those areas for the most part never changes.

 

Maybe that is why they are still in poverty?

This thread has all the makings of a very contentious discussion. However, since I see many theories based on (largely) unsupported premises that are unflattering to city dwellers, I will toss out an alternate.

 

In general, the U.S. urban population is significantly better educated than its rural population. Many on the far right never miss a chance to hammer America's primary and secondary education system with adjectives like "failing". Consider these facts: The percentage of the population with some college education is much higher in urban areas (54.2%) than it is in rural areas (40.6%). The U.S. urban population is also more productive, as measured by per capita income, ($38,579) compared with the rural population ($27,391). Finally, U.S. rural areas have higher poverty rates than U.S. urban areas (16.1%, compared to 12.7%).

 

So, noting that rural areas (at least recently) have tended to vote Republican, it must be because Republicans have tailored their message to resonate better with less educated, poorer, lower paid voters in rural areas.

 

 

I appreciate the entering of facts into the discussion H. :thumb: (However I did find Hearsay's evaluation humorous :lol:)

 

 

One question concerning your Income analysis. Is it possible that the some of that number is skewed by the differences in the "cost of living?" Traditionally I think COL in rural areas is lower than Urban and hence the discrepency in income.

Let me guess, you're not a Democrat.

 

I was once was, but not now. And I do not consider my a Republican either even though I am a registered as one to have some say in the primaries.

This thread has all the makings of a very contentious discussion. However, since I see many theories based on (largely) unsupported premises that are unflattering to city dwellers, I will toss out an alternate.

 

In general, the U.S. urban population is significantly better educated than its rural population. Many on the far right never miss a chance to hammer America's primary and secondary education system with adjectives like "failing". Consider these facts: The percentage of the population with some college education is much higher in urban areas (54.2%) than it is in rural areas (40.6%). The U.S. urban population is also more productive, as measured by per capita income, ($38,579) compared with the rural population ($27,391). Finally, U.S. rural areas have higher poverty rates than U.S. urban areas (16.1%, compared to 12.7%).

 

So, noting that rural areas (at least recently) have tended to vote Republican, it must be because Republicans have tailored their message to resonate better with less educated, poorer, lower paid voters in rural areas.

 

So, what conclusion do you draw from these figures as it relates to the map? Surely you do not contend that the Democrat is the proper choice of the wealthy and erudite?

 

Incidentally, I saw these figures and agree with Hatz that the income figures are misrepresentative of the cost of living via geography. In addition, the population figures also include students, who overwhelmingly are in populated areas because that is where the colleges are.

 

There are other figures I would be interested in, such as percent of residents of urban/rural areas whom are gainfully employed and/or report income, or a color-coded map of concentration of government benefit payments.

So, what conclusion do you draw from these figures as it relates to the map? Surely you do not contend that the Democrat is the proper choice of the wealthy and erudite?

 

My conclusion (stated) is that Republicans have tailored their message to resonate better with less educated, poorer, lower paid voters in rural areas. It stands to reason that many of those arguments would not necessarily resonate with the "erudite". Conservative columnist David Brooks wrote a recent column about how the Republican Party had "alienated whole professions." I find his data interesting:

 

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

 

 

Incidentally, I saw these figures and agree with Hatz that the income figures are misrepresentative of the cost of living via geography. In addition, the population figures also include students, who overwhelmingly are in populated areas because that is where the colleges are

 

There are other figures I would be interested in, such as percent of residents of urban/rural areas whom are gainfully employed and/or report income, or a color-coded map of concentration of government benefit payments.

 

I don't know that the income figures are misrepresentative of urban vs. rural--they are what they are. But you could make the case that since cost of living is lower in rural, the lower per capita income is not an apples to apples comparison of productivity.