Why Do Metropolitan Areas Usually Vote Blue And Rural Areas Vote Red?

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   Relative to changing state vote demographics, this question was posed in another thread:
   
   "Why is it only giant cities that typically go blue?  An interesting question." - this pertained to a conversation about Texas turning into a Blue state.
   
   For background, that tangent started here: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341 … ost4044002
   
   I think the first question is what is the basic difference between Blue and Red perspectives?
   
   I think this can be boiled down to behavior control - group responsibility vs. individual responsibility.
   
   There are going to be irresponsible folks in every population, whether dense or sparse. And there are going to be societal changes and problems in every population.
   
   Just for illustration, let's say that for every 1000 people - in any population, there are going to be 5 each of; trouble makers, different race and ethnicity, elderly with their specific needs, sickly with their specific needs, and poor people.
   
   My thoughts are that...
   
   In a rural area of low density, those issues would be addressed by individual responsibility, in the form of family, neighbors, community charitable organizations, and a small community law enforcement agency. This community will think they can handle their own problems - and vote Red.
   
   Now take those same numbers, times 1000, (a dense metropolitan area), and the problems and needs are magnified by 1000 - and can no longer be handled, "by themselves." So they vote for a central authority to handle their problems for them. And this can only be done by more behavior control. Group control - A Blue vote.
   
   Bottom line - the more people pack together, the harder individual responsibility becomes. The harder something becomes, the easier it is to just let someone else be responsible for it. A Blue vote.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That's my basic feeling as well, but...(isn't there always a "but"? )
      
      The problem is multiplied by 1000...with a thousand more people to help out.  So why don't they?  Are they just overwhelmed by the numbers so do nothing (a real possibility IMO)?  Or, given the nature of our "progressive" tax laws, do they just want to shove the costs onto someone else?  The townspeople will chip in with work, food, money, etc. but the city folk want to deal only in money...money provided by someone else because of a graduated tax code.  Don't know.
      
      Urban dwellers are, in general, richer than rural.  Does that translate into a higher willingness to provide money - money that the rural people replace with personal work and help, rejecting the money method because they have none to help with?
      
      Finally, you may make a case for cities to handle their own problems, without requiring help from rural locations.  Would rural vote blue if cities were denied state and federal funding to help those you listed early in the post?  Is it all about entitlements or does it go much deeper?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Just to keep the perspective, that "x 1000" would mean one million more folks to help. Which, just by the nature of scale, makes the neighbor helping neighbor, (as viewed in the rural reality of actual neighbors), concept not very practicable.
         
         To answer your "but," I go back to the group vs. individual responsibility point. Both are just other words for control. Group control vs. individual control.
         
         You have spoken of "bread and circuses" before, and I think that is the answer to your progressive tax and entitlements demands. Reality is that true democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and once that group control realizes its power, any thought of individual responsibility - which might be a reality check for some demands, goes out the window.
         
         I think there is a second important factor to the "why" high density areas vote Blue, one that was nicely stated by PrettyPanther. Change and Diversity.
         
         In less dense areas change and difference are forced to move at a pace acceptable to that individual responsibility perspective of the community, but those group control densities have the power to force change and diversity - regardless of individual perspective. It's a toss-up as to whether that is good or bad. But it is still just a matter of control.
         
         The more dense the population, the less individual control possible, the less dense, the more individual control required.
         
         Bottom line is the same. Blue is group control. Red is individual control.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            If it were a million to help I failed to get that.  I thought of 25,000 (5 people X5 types needing help X1000) out of a million population.  Not that it makes any difference - the principle remains the same.  Especially as I would have increased the "5 people" and maybe even the "5 types" in the city; with size comes an increase in the percentage needing help I think.
            
            But I think you've pretty much hit it: blue=group control, red=individual control.  And the bigger the group, the easier for group control to happen, and eventually becomes inevitable.
            
            And I do think diversity is playing a part, too - with diversity comes the necessity of tolerance of others, and that often means laws, which equals blue.
            
            Now the question becomes how to keep that group control inside the city rather than bleeding out to the rest of the people that neither need nor want it.

            replyreport
2. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   Metropolitan areas are generally heterogenous in population.   People in metropolitan areas are exposed to different sociopolitical & sociocultural beliefs.  Also, more sophisticated people gravitate to metropolitan areas where they can fully express themselves than they could in rural areas.  Metropolitan areas are centers of varying & higher levels of culture and education.   Metropolitan areas, as a result of the variation of cultures and lifestyles, make people more tolerant politically in many instances.   People in metropolitan areas, on average, are far more liberal as a result of exposure to varied cultures, peoples, & lifestyles. 
   
   Rural areas are more homogenous.  Rural societies stress conformity and are less tolerant of differences whether culturally, religiously, in terms of lifestyles, &/or other factors.  Any form of difference is viewed in rural areas as a degree of deviancy.   In rural areas, people are pressured to proverbially stay in line.   As a result of these factors, rural areas tend to be very conservative.   Conservatism is strongly emphasized in rural areas.  People w/more liberal leanings gravitate to metropolitan areas.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And that is one perspective. Bumpkins in the country sides, smart folks in the cities.
      
      Yes, GM, that was intended sarcasm. There is a lot in your comment I could agree with. Just not the parts that convey that sentiment.
      
      PrettyPanther made similar points, that I could also agree with, but I didn't feel insulted after reading her comment.
      
      GA

      replyreport
   2. 63

      dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I was going to write this.  I'm glad you did.  I'm in Fontana. My neighborhoodis diverse, beautifully placed in foothills of San Gabriel Mountains.  We are in the Etiwanda School District
      
      Etiwanda School District receives Exemplary District Award from state
      
      https://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/news/ … 89bc2.html
      
      My church, sunrisechurch..org, is ethnically diverse and has more than 6000 members.  Our Kansas born pastor dealt with racial issues in 1989.  He said a white church should not be sitting as an island in a neighborhood surrounded by Black and Hispanic people.
      
      In suburban areas, you live along side people of many different ethnicities that have similar values, defy the stereotypes, and respect for all people.
      
      In rural areas, you mostly get what you know about the "other" people from television.Those from rural areas who get educations go to urban areas because that is where the professional jobs are.  There they must work with a diverse group of people.

      replyreport
   3. 77

      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      While rural people were more homogeneous, that factor was never applied to me in a negative way.
      
      I am as lefty as anyone in these forums and these areas certainly have their own charm and appeal.
      
      I draw a line between the Steve Bannons and Donald Trumps and what is considered conservative in rural areas. When you speak with these rural sorts, at least they would hear you out. Not so with the 'new conservatism' a la Trump, where bias and bigotry is the standard.
      
      As for the metropolitan areas, I was attracted only because I needed to make a decent income. When it comes to humanity and neighborliness, I much rather live with them. So, I have been there and done that and have a different attitude about these today things then I did while I was in my twenties.

      replyreport
3. 72

   Aime Fposted 4 years ago

   I prefer to think that perhaps it’s due to a more admirable trait of human nature - that perhaps when you live amongst all kinds of people and see the less fortunate, the ultra-fortunate, and the middle men all living together it makes more sense to suggest that everyone band together to show some compassion for those less fortunate people. Compassion. A blue vote.
   
   And maybe when you’re only exposed to people who are just like you, you struggle to understand why everyone else can’t make something out of the opportunities you don’t know anything about. Shelteredness. A red vote.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Aime, I have seen similar explanations before. And the picture you paint portrays these rural Red voters like the citizens of Mayberry, or similar quaint hick towns, but as Wilderness has mentioned does a city like Boise, (pop. over a quarter million), fit that scenario?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Aime Fposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         It was definitely oversimplified but I think most theories are. It was sort of meant to match the tone in which I read your post originally (which seemed like it implied laziness for blue voters), though now that I’ve read it again I did read it differently the second time around so I apologize for being snarky.

         replyreport
      2. 77

         Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Boise is not really a large metropolitan area that would qualify when really evaluating urban verses rural.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            If anything it would qualify as rural.  But that's not really true either - it fits somewhere in the middle.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Rural communities helped Democrats in 2018
               
               
               Predominantly suburban congressional districts, once closely divided, are now twice as likely to be represented by a Democrat than by a Republican.
               https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/ … ve/575287/

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  It really isn't so clearcut regarding rural & metropolitan areas.  Although rural areas tend to be more conservative while metropolitan areas tend to be more liberal, there are pockets in these areas who vote based upon education, race/ethnicity, & socioeconomic class.    Lower middle class people in metropolitan areas tend to vote red as they view Republicans as more law/order & against welfare than the Democrats.  Wealthy people in rural areas or as we call them the exurbs tend to vote blue as they view Democrats as creating a more harmonious environment than Republicans.

                  replyreport
                  1. 63

                     dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     True.  I believe, in many areas, this was a referendum on Donald Trump.  This was definitely the case in Orangee County, CA.

                     replyreport
         2. 89

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Do you think Boise's quarter-million folks fit the rural image most think of in this conversation? I would say it is viewed as closer to metropolitan than rural.
            
            Hence the question about voting Red.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 85

               gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               GA,  while there is a tendency for metropolitan areas to vote blue where rural areas to vote red in typical cases, one has to look into subcategories such as socioeconomic class, race/ethnicity, and education.   There are so many subcategories that could be factors and variables in voting blue or red. For example, in New York's Upper West Side,  people tend to be liberal as in the Villages-Greenwich & the East Villages.  People are liberal in these areas.  They are also more educated.  They may or may not be socioeconomically affluent.   
               
               
               In blue collar areas in Brooklyn such as Bensonhurst and some parts of Canarsie, people are more conservative and lean towards the red.   People in these areas are lower middle class, blue collar people.  In Brighton Beach, people are more middle class yet they are more entrepreneurial-many being recent immigrants from Russia & its former republics- they tend to vote red because to them, the Democrats are reminders to what they had to endure in the former Soviet Union.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Staten Island was the only borough to vote red in the 2016 election.  All other areas went blue, and strongly so.  In particular, Brooklyn was 5 to 1 blue.  I suspect any red area is quite small, and very likely has a strong reason for voting red (such as the Russian immigrants).
                  
                  https://www.vibe.com/2016/11/nyc-boroug … ald-trump/

                  replyreport
            2. 94

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Speculation only, but...
               
               The heart of Boise is only a few blocks square - not large at all.  You can drive across the commercial district in less than 5 minutes at city street speeds.
               
               Boise is very spread out for it's population.  No hi-rise buildings at all - I think the tallest is under 15 floors.  This means that the population is almost all suburban rather than truly urban, and with a very large sprawl. 
               
               Is that a reason to vote red?  It certainly isn't rural, but neither is it a metropolis such as LA or Houston.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I think that speculation is probably the point of the thread - population density.
                  
                  I think the comparison of rural vs, metropolis isn't the size of the town or city - as many of the comments refer to "small towns," as it is the density of those populations.
                  
                  The example of Boise might still be a good one. It votes Red, but isn't the "typical" image of a small town, (or rural voters) - as many comments have inferred are defined by prejudices to change and inclusion.  At least that is the image of rural areas I draw from the comments explaining why they vote Red.
                  
                  I have mentioned this is a complex issue, and GM has mentioned the consideration of subcategories and socioeconomic factors, but maybe it is as simple as a matter of density.
                  
                  I indicated it earlier - maybe there is a density tipping point where the individual has to become the group?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah - that's where I was headed.  Not size as much as density, although size DOES matter.  Maybe without size we simply don't see the density.

                     replyreport
   2. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      +1000000000000000000

      replyreport
   3. 63

      dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent points!

      replyreport
4. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Interesting to see the amount of bias in this thread ,  We've always said in the small towns and rural areas ," When the proverbial crap hits the fan " .......and it has in many ways , many people and especially families begin to show up in rural America .  After 9 /11 , we began seeing a certain exodus from the cities into northern reaches of new England , you know ?  Up here where we are less intelligent ,  "more tribal "and definitely undersocialized ............
   
   One of the terms I've heard spoken , " We just wanted to get out of all the crime and crowds you know !"...........
   
   Jees...... there's lots of social maturity around here .

   replyreport
5. 60

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   I think rural votes more red and cities more blue because it's a difference in people.
   
   Rural residents don't want laws telling them what to do with their dogs, cats, farm animals, etc. City folk tend to like more laws.
   
   City folk see a lot of tax money put to use. Rural folk, not so much.
   
   Small towns tend to be more accepting of everyone. City people tend to be less accepting. If you never speak to your neighbor, just peek out at them through closed blinds, you tend to be more suspicious.
   
   City folk want the government to take care of things like the homeless, the inner city drugs, etc. They don't want to be bothered. Country folk know these people and tend to pitch in to help, not turn a blind eye because some 'agency' is responsible. If a kid gets caught with drugs it's someone you know. There are no real bad parts of a small town which are so removed from the community in order to get entrenched for generations.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Rural areas are less modern and very traditional in thought, purview, mindset, and beliefs.  In rural communities, people do things the ways prior generations did for the most part.   In metropolitan areas, change is omnipresent.  Things develop, evolve, and metamorphize on a constant basis.  What is yesterday in a metropolitan area means nothing, even what is today means little, it is what is TOMORROW.    Rural people are traditional and fear modernity while it is the opposite in metropolitan areas.
      
      
      GOOD POST, GA!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Rural people understand that change for change's sake is not always a good thing. Change is inevitable. Society would collapse without it. But rural people usually see an  ordered march of time, not a bullying in your face style which refuses to give respect to other points of view.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            That is a good valid point in what is a complex issue Live to Learn, But it is also one that is often portrayed as a negative. Too bad.
            
            I don't think most Red Votes, (Conservatives, rural folks), are against change. I think they may resist change for many reasons, you mentioned a couple. Another might be a resistance to the pace of change.
            
            I have seen considerations of the changes of the Obama years as being too much too fast. An extreme example might be getting a Bible-thumping Christian to accept the reality of the LGBT issue - a rough road, but pile on the 'bathroom' question before the LGBT question is digested and suddenly that rough road becomes a dead end. The point being the pace of change.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I don't know, GA.  I grew up in a small town of 10,000.  60 years later it []might[/i] have 11,000 population.  A WalMart came to town during that 60 years, and a few other stores have come and gone.  I can walk the paper route I had 50 years ago and show you the houses that subscribed; most of them are even the same color!  The sawmill has about died, but Safeway is still there.  The Texaco station I worked at is alive and well, but the Mobile station is gone; part of the parking lot of the car sales that was next door.
               
               But that's about it.  Truthfully, it is an enigma to me how it has survived; everywhere I've ever lived grew, and grew rather rapidly. I now live in the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country according to Forbes (and hate the growth rate!)

               replyreport
         2. 94

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Good point.  When was the last time we saw a protest march in a town under 50,000, with looting, broken windows and burning cop cars all in the name of instant change?

            replyreport
         3. 77

            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The problem with that is that it depends what it is you are waiting have change and who it is that is waiting for change. It is fine for change to be at a glacial pace when it does not affect you directly and you have no skin the game.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               All people of good will have skin in the game. It's just some are concerned about their own skin and are willing to sacrifice the skin of others, in their bullying demands.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  +1

                  replyreport
            2. 94

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               And different when you perceive you have skin in the game.  But that's not a reason to demand the world change to suit you tomorrow.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I have lived long enough to remember the use of the term "patience" when it came to guaranteeing civil rights for those long denied...
                  
                  When "tomorrow" just never seemed to ever arrive.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     "Tomorrow" will never come...not when "tomorrow" means perfection.

                     replyreport
   2. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Small towns aren't accepting of everyone.  Those who don't fit the particular paradigm of that small town are oftentimes ostracized, or even marginalized.  Small towns have a code which everyone must conform/adhere to.  If they don't, they are viewed & treated as deviants.   If small towns were accepting of everyone, there wouldn't be metropolitan areas.   Metropolitan area are composed of those who weren't accepted in their particular small towns!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Small towns don't have codes to conform to. The suggestion is laughable. People move to small towns to get away from such. Because they are tired of oppressive laws, community bylaws, people unaccountable forbad behavior, etc. They want to live in peace.
         
         Edit. I read an article written by a woman from California who, for some reason, found herself living in a rural area in a fly over state. She moved in leery, but her final analysis was that they were more open to new ideas, more accepting of people from all walks of life and had a more cohesive society which was more inclusive than any she had experienced in the liberal city she had spent a lifetime in.
         
         I think big city dwellers who whine about rural folk are just so negative about others they can't see what would be right in from of their noses if they had a chance to get some fresh air.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Small towns have UNWRITTEN/UNSPOKEN codes.  If a person doesn't conform to such codes, they are ostracized, demonized, or even marginalized.   Small towns have UNSPOKEN rules of conduct, believe it or NOT!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I grew up in a small town which does not reflect your assessment, at all. I'm not saying life is perfect in one. But there is a freedom there to be who you want to be and accepted for it.  Maybe, you grew up in a small town and just felt a need to be part of a clique?

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I grew up in New York City where many things are accepted.

                  replyreport
            2. 89

               GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Have you lived in a small town GM?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  During my childhood summers, I visited my grandparents in Wellford, South Carolina.  Wellford is as different from New York City as day is from night.  Small town/rural morality is SOMETHING ELSE.    Wellford seem to me to be quite backwards in comparison to New York.  It still is....BACKWARDS.....EEKS...….

                  replyreport
   3. 72

      Aime Fposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      “City people tend to be less accepting. If you never speak to your neighbor, just peek out at them through closed blinds, you tend to be more suspicious.“
      
      I could not relate less to this. As a city dweller I know and speak to my neighbours almost excessively because we’re all so close together, our kids play at the same parks, go to the same school, etc. And there’s a huge variety of people living here who are all very much accepted.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Of course.   Metropolitan areas are inclusive as a rule while rural areas are exclusive!

         replyreport
      2. 63

         dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Friendliness - apartment dwelling has many dangers in the inner city.  You may not want to meet the people next door because you see unsavory characters going in and out or your hear fights through the walls.  The population is transient in apartment buildings and it is hard to get to know and, therefore, trust neighbors.
         
         In residential neighborhoods this is not a problem.

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I love walking down a city street. Saying hello to the people I pass. It's fun to watch the reactions. I don't know that I've gotten a hello back. Except from the homeless.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I ride my bike a lot. I say "good morning" or "good afternoon". If I get a reply, it's usually just "morning" or "afternoon".
            
            Well, yeah, I know the time of day. For some reason, using the word "good" is no longer acceptable.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               LOL  I'm guilty of that.  It's just implied, I guess - certainly I'm not wishing a bad morning to anyone!

               replyreport
   4. 77

      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Having lived in rural areas, I don't think that the residents are monolithic, set in stone. The differences between rural people and urban when you live among them are not so different, but politically that is another story. Moving to rural Montana in the early 80's, I found the residents more curious about me, no so much bigoted or biased. Once, they recognized that I had to eat and pay bills as they did, they welcomed me with open arms into their world and I appreciate that to this day. So, I try not to be too hard on them.
      
      I could sit down to a plate of flapjacks and coffee with anybody as I made friends and acquaintances, we just avoided discussing about religion and politics, as I think we both suspected that there would be starks diffences in points of view that would spoil the occasion.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Oh no! Say it ain't so Cred. Weren't those rural Montanans Red voters - the Conservative Republicans you have vowed to resist?
         
         GA ;-)

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            GA, yes, I have to resist them,  but it is not detracting from them as people. I would not demonize them. We (I) and these folks just have some basic misunderstandings.

            replyreport
   5. 77

      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Rural residents don't want laws telling them what to do with their dogs, cats, farm animals, etc. City folk tend to like more laws."
      
      Rural residents don't need the laws. If I live a half mile from my neighbor, I need not be concerned about their dog, but if I lived in the apartment next door..... people living in close proximity need more laws, it is not like we like them, but they make for fewer conflicts that are inevitable when many people live in close proximity.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         That's your choice. To live there. With lots of laws. The point is that is why people move away. Once away, they don't want invasive laws and government practices following them. That's why they are conservative. You say good. We say good for you, just don't ask us to say good for us too.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I did not SAY anything about my living there or even having a preference, I am just providing an explanation for the difference.
            
            All people do not have the luxury of living rural areas, employment issues and such, you know?
            
            How does that figure in?

            replyreport
      2. 94

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I have one neighbor that has 3 dogs that bark all the time.  It's not a matter of living a half mile, but only a few yards.
         
         Not the same as through the wall, but not the same as a half mile, either.

         replyreport
6. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Just as long as people stay in their own neighborhoods cities do extremely well .  You have to love the evolution of the city ....whites 'over here'.......hispanics "you take that neighborhood ", blacks" I want you over there ",...... Immigrants from Africa , "you take that neighborhood........Homeless , set those tents over there in the trees so I don't see them and stay there , wait a minute  "...........Somebody text me the codes for my gated community I'm locked out of my own neighborhood "
   
   Oh yea , You in the city are far more advanced in evolution , I don't know what I was thinking moving to a town of 453 people and eighty one kids in an entirely manageable school , no police force , a volunteer fire dept. , one convenience store , one pub , no tent cities  , one church , no stop lights , no factories belching pollution , ..........?
   
   Jeees ' I gotta catch up "

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds great, is there room in your community for a couple more?

      replyreport
7. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Urban dwellers , shallow , immature , uninformed , self centered , narcissistic , all entitlement spoiled baby boomers .............
   Does this make sense ?
   
   Neither does all the above hogwash .

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmmmmmmm……………..please continue, Mr. Fisher, please continue...…..
      
      

      replyreport
8. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   Let me digress.  Metropolitan areas aren't exactly monolithic.  There are pockets of metropolitan areas that vote blue.   Many metropolitan areas that have strongly ethnic, lower middle class, blue collar enclaves vote blue.   These ethnic areas don't even have to be lower middle class nor blue collar but nevertheless vote blue.   There are areas in Brooklyn, New York such as Bensonhurst & Brighton Beach that strongly identify themselves as strongly Republican!

   replyreport
9. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Metropolitan voters view from a distance to a nanny provisional governing entity providing for all , while conservatives see themselves AS the working government who remain frugal in applicating all government services.
   
   It is that simple.
   
   Which all translates today to "Provide for us "as democrats and fair allocation of all governing services for conservatives , honestly democrats should just let the rural  conservative base run the government , they're the only ones who can.

   replyreport